User talk:SuperblySpiffingPerson

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please stop changing the article title until a consensus has been reached. If you continue to do so before a consensus has been reached, such edits can be considered disruptive and you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.?

"Hide my own edits" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't you notice that when you check your watchlist, your own edits show up unless they are marked as minor. So to avoid the superfluity of informing myself of what I already know I have bias to recording changes as minor, especially those where there purpose is terminology clarification which is a large part of what I've purposed to improve on this database.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

No, I am saying there is an option on your watchlist on the far right of all the hide options called "Hide my Edits". Please click hide to accomplish your goal. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Jamahiriya National Transitional Council

Please can you explain how you can justify this change of name to the article? If not, then please revert it to its former name, or I will consider this an act of vandalism. Thnak you. Lynbarn (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.    Thank you.

There's another article called Transitional National Government which refers to an entirely different country. Name change to refer to Libya further distinguishes it. The NTC is an organ of the Libyan Republic, which is to be distinguished from its opponent the Libyan ARAB Republic. Libyan Republic NTC is a fair and justified and preferred name for it. It informs the reader WHERE the the NTC arises from and WHAT participant in the Libyan Civil War is pulling its strings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

March 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at 2011 Libyan uprising. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to National Transitional Council. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please talk about your changes on the 2011 Libyan Uprising Talk page

Hi, as your edits on the subject of the uprising appear to be controversial, would you mind maybe discussing them on 2011_Libyan_uprising? Remember Wiki is a team effort, not just the work of one editor. Thanks! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A mistake has been made below which prevents me from doing so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You're the one who made the mistake. Everyone had been telling you to slow down, lay off and discuss your changes. You didn't listen, and kept causing messes for others. This is what happens.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The block was not a mistake, it is a penalty for not waiting up and talking things through with others. As I said, it's a team effort. It's chill and encouraged to be WP:BOLD, but there is a limit and a point at which it goes from helpful to selfish. You unfortunately crossed that line and kept going after multiple requests and then warnings not to. Discuss things on the talk page when you are unbanned. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on various articles

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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

You have been renaming things without consensus. On 23 March you made eight article moves. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:SuperblySpiffingPerson reported by User:Avanu (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

requested in order to weigh in at Talk:Libyan Civil War and to be afforded the fairness to respond at the incident report naming this account at Administrator Noticeboard I've been invited and required to be drawn into. SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Firstly, you have not addressed the reason for your block, which was edit warring. Secondly, to unblock a disruptive editor specifically so that they can "weigh in" in exactly one of the forums where their disruption has been felt is not appropriate. Thirdly, the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion (to which you contributed) has been concluded, with this block being its outcome. Any reasons you may have for requesting an overturn of that decision should go here. Finally, considering the amount of contentious, disruptive, and misleading editing you have been doing, I think a 24 hour block is minimal, and reducing it would be unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

the civil war participants are Libyan Arab Republic, Libyan Republic and foreigners. I implement that. The sweep of discussion as re naming 'uprising' or 'war' produced the consensus that it must be acknowled as the latter. I implement that. I also implement that WP:UNDUE focus upon the family name of the Arab Jamahiriya's lead representative be remedied. In those purposes my first action will be to notify this to the article discussion page.

Decline reason:

You still have not addressed the reason for your block, which is edit warring. TNXMan 14:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2011 Libyan uprising

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2011 Libyan uprising, you may be blocked from editing. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Be specific when you make an allegation such as that. I am not the only party making compromise suggestions to how the war participants and the war itself should be referred to. We need middle ground terminology which raises the awareness of both Gaddafi and Jalil in creating the mess and which mollifies the camp of the rearguard 'uprising'-termers equally as those who confront the actual truth, which is that it's a civil war— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

If you continue vandalism such as [1] - with delierately misleading edit summary too - you'll be blocked again soon enough William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding new material is supplying additional. That wasn't done in what you've cited— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2011 Libyan uprising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. noclador (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello SuperblySpiffing. Since you persist in reverting names to your own preference, against the wishes of everyone else, it is likely that you will receive a longer block. Please reflect whether this is the best way you can contribute here. Your changes are all being reverted by others. Ask for advice if you would like to fix that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked your account for 1 week for continuing edits [2] [3] [4] which resulted in your previous block. Please do try to be constructive and avoid edit warring, as the next block will like be indefinite. 02:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

there is undue focus upon the person of Muammmar Gaddafi in the Libyan Civil War articles. The resolution is balancing with reference to other warlord participants such as Mustafa Jalil and the invading foreigners. Also, neutralise and factualise personalising terms to 'Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' and 'Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' - names the contenders have taken for themselves. I have justified this repeatedly in conjunction with the editing I've supplied.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=there is undue focus upon the person of [[Muammmar Gaddafi]] in the Libyan Civil War articles. The resolution is balancing with reference to other warlord participants such as Mustafa Jalil and the invading foreigners. Also, neutralise and factualise personalising terms to 'Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' and 'Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' - names the contenders have taken for themselves. I have justified this repeatedly in conjunction with the editing I've supplied. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=there is undue focus upon the person of [[Muammmar Gaddafi]] in the Libyan Civil War articles. The resolution is balancing with reference to other warlord participants such as Mustafa Jalil and the invading foreigners. Also, neutralise and factualise personalising terms to 'Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' and 'Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' - names the contenders have taken for themselves. I have justified this repeatedly in conjunction with the editing I've supplied. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=there is undue focus upon the person of [[Muammmar Gaddafi]] in the Libyan Civil War articles. The resolution is balancing with reference to other warlord participants such as Mustafa Jalil and the invading foreigners. Also, neutralise and factualise personalising terms to 'Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' and 'Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' - names the contenders have taken for themselves. I have justified this repeatedly in conjunction with the editing I've supplied. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}