User talk:SuperblySpiffingPerson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:30, 23 March 2011

Welcome!

Hello, SuperblySpiffingPerson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Al-Fatiha, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Al-Fatiha was changed by SuperblySpiffingPerson (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.890472 on 2011-03-20T06:11:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits and 'Neutral Point of View' in Wikipedia

On the '2011 Libyan uprising' article, it appears you are editing in such a way to push a point of view, as well as editing article names and naming conventions, specifically naming it 2011 Libyan Civil War, despite there being a discussion under way on the Talk page of that article, and consensus not yet declared. In looking over other edits you are making, these seem to be focused toward a common goal that, in this editor's opinion, is biased toward a pro-Western viewpoint. From what I can tell, the articles related to this subject are already suffering from a large degree of bias and jingoism, and I would take this opportunity to refer you to the following guidelines for Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#POV_pushing

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the naming discussions is that it's civil war, not otherwise. There's WP:UNDUE focus and mentioning of one Jamahiriya spokesperson throughout the article. Treating those to thing's I can't relate to 'pro-Westernism'. If I wanted to make it 'pro-Western' I'd make it as though the issue was all about one man. Rather it's about a multiplicity of tribes and a great many thousands of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no declared consensus yet. News reports also are split on the name of this. Regardless of the viewpoint that you have on this Jamahiriya, it is not a common name, and you are providing little to no sourcing for these changes, you are making wholesale moves and edits to articles without so much as a 'how do you do' in an effort to educate editors or gain consensus. You may be right in referring to things as Jamahiriya, but it is hard to see if you are making any effort to present a rationale for these wholesale changes. -- Avanu (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported for edit warring

Please see WP:AN3#User:SuperblySpiffingPerson reported by User:Avanu (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. " You are making substantive changes, including controversial ones, and marking them minor. Please stop. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put them as minor edits so they don't show up on my own watchlist. Is there another way to effect the same purpose.?

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. "
 You are making substantive changes, including controversial ones, and marking them minor. Please stop. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
+:I put them as minor edits so they don't show up on my own watchlist. Is there another way to effect the same purpose.?