User talk:HighIntellectual

Welcome!

Hello, HighIntellectual, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Stuart O'Grady does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Stuart O'Grady

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe that your edits did not provide reliable sources or citations, which are necessary for the public to trust Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've fixed this up.HighIntellectual (talk)

Egyptian civil war listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Egyptian civil war. Since you had some involvement with the Egyptian civil war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 8ty3hree (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Egyptian civil war listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2013 Egyptian civil war. Since you had some involvement with the 2013 Egyptian civil war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 8ty3hree (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war in Egypt listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Civil war in Egypt. Since you had some involvement with the Civil war in Egypt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 8ty3hree (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

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 Political violence in Egypt, 2013. 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. Iselilja (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under discussion elsewhere— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Your previous move of another article is discussed here. As you can see there is absolutely no consensus for remaning the events in Egypt to Civil War. Your moves and your edit changes to the name "civil war" is actually creating disruption. If you continue to make these moves and edits, you will be reported to an admin and may be blocked. Please focus instead on making other and helpful edits to the Wikipedia. (You may sign by adding four of these:~) (Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raise the matter re the present issue where I have indicated. And do so without hints of bullying preceding your contribution there. As I do.HighIntellectual (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. The several editors above who have placed notices on your talk page are not doing so to bully you, they're just explaining to you how Wikipedia works. User:Iselilja has told you what is likely to happen if you continue to make edits that do not follow Wikipedia policy. If you continue to make edits like this without consensus, and continue to ignore other editors' advice, you are likely to find that User:Iselilja's advice is correct. -- Chronulator (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I notice that you are clicking the "minor edit" box for every one of your edits. A concerted attempt to re-characterize this conflict as a civil war is not "minor" editing. Please stop doing this, lest it be seen as an attempt to avoid oversight by other editors. -- Chronulator (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian civil war nominated for deletion

Speaking of which: I have nominated Category:Egyptian civil war for deletion, on the grounds that the current conflict is not currently regarded by reliable sources as being such. Please stop making edits like this: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Chronulator (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of wars 2011–present, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Iselilja (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for persistent disruptive editing, including edit warring, editing to plug a point of view, and refusal to accept consensus. You are welcome to explain to other editors why you think that certain changes are desirable, and to discuss the issues with a view to trying to reach agreement. However, repeatedly trying to force your view through in the face of consensus against you is unhelpful. Wikipedia works by collaboration, discussion, and attempts to reach consensus, not by each individual editor repeatedly making the changes they prefer, so that the most stubborn editor eventually gets their way. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

"Incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in 24 hour blocks". Regardless of that, my raising of the matter for discussion has been unresponded to.HighIntellectual (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Reading the history of that deleted discussion, your concerns were indeed responded to. If you missed it, I'd be happy to undelete the conversation here. This block, as always, is designed to be preventative. If there is no recognition of the disruptive behavior and some statement that you will modify it, I don't see how unblocking will help. Kuru (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

He did overdo the moves but I think he's learned his lesson that 2 days is severe. The warning here should do the job and i think it should be rescinded. Nor was there ANY consensus/discussion for this block. note I have never accounted this user before(Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

It is acknowledged both by those directly involved in the suffering and those independent of it that there is a civil war in that country. Let me not be shot for being the messenger of that.HighIntellectual (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what your last source says: "Generally, a civil war is occurring nationwide, with two clear opposing sides, as has been the case in Syria. That's not the case in Egypt. The vast majority of the country is waiting for the violence to end. Even among the protesters, many are unarmed. -- This doesn't seem to say that there actually is a civil war in Egypt. And no mainstream media that I know of is referring to it as a civil war. Your other source doesn't refer to it as a civil war either, allthough it reports a claim ffrom July by one of the side that it may escalate into a civil war. Wikipedia will only rename this civil war if the media starts to refer to it that way. You are free to argue your case at appropriate talk pages (the reason you got little response is that you started them at the talk page of the redirects, so it got a bit messed up) but not to edit against consensus. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are and have been responses at Talk:August_2013_Egyptian_raids#Alternative_namings, which you have ignored. Also, WP:CRYSTAL. 8ty3hree (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]