User talk:SupernovaeIA

Speedy deletion declined: Krishnahari Baral

Hello SupernovaeIA. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Krishnahari Baral, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, But you see the referenes are almost non existent and this article has been created and most of the material added by the person himself and/or his relatives. Should i propose for deletion instead?SupernovaeIA (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Here is a valid proof that this article is an advertising stunt: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Swapnil_Baral.png The user laysforme is the person's son who has contributed totallly to this article. He created his own page which was recently deleted too. Please let me know if proposing for deletion is a good idea? The references is the peron's website itself!!SupernovaeIA (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content at Shiva

Hi, Please discuss the material at talk page. Talk:Shiva Rahul Jain (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Shiva, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Regarding Removal of comments [1] Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never removed anything from the talk. what are you talking about? check the talk history!SupernovaeIA (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already linked earlier. See [2]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnahari Baral

Please do not add PROD templates to articles being discussed at AFD, they are not eligible. If you cannot use Twinkle properly then you shoul not use it at all. Giant Snowman 12:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making disruptive/unnecessary edits to Wikipedia, as you did at FC Barcelona. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

Kindly ensure that you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive and/or unnecessary. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justkartik10 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content from José Mourinho

Please discuss and reach a consensus before removing huge amount of text from an article. You've already been asked to do this before. Mosmof (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section was already tagged with the content being compromised with neutrality for the article. Please refrain from vandalizing my page! SupernovaeIA (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise with this edit to a different article. This is a collaborative project, and if you're going to remove sourced content, you should at least give a reason with the edit summary. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to José Mourinho, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to José Mourinho. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is fully sourced in the article itself. Every single clubs page can be deleted if that content is not unverifiable. SupernovaeIA (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the source for reverting my edit.

My Edit on the 2014–15 La Liga was based on two sources provided. Please refrain from unsourced edits or please provide the correct source. KAS^(talk) 20:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is todays' game.. Stop putting outdated stats.!

Please refrain from adding unsourced contents. Please understand carefuly about unsourced contents. KAS^(talk) 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are the two sources that I have used in my edits, please check the validity of your edits.Source: espnfc.com, worldfootball.com. Please add your signature at the end of the your comment. KAS^(talk) 20:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm David Eppstein. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to African immigration to the United States because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/spansupcuphist.html and RFEF's official page http://www.rfef.es/noticias/supercopa/conoce-antecedentes-supercopa)

--- Nowhere it says copa argentina is official trophy! SupernovaeIA (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

@SupernovaeIA:Reason for this revert.--Vin09 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2014–15 Chelsea F.C. season, you may be blocked from editing. QED237 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at 2014–15 Chelsea F.C. season. 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 your being blocked from editing. QED237 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2014–15 Chelsea F.C. season. QED237 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi, you need to learn the rules. You have been inserting factual errors not supported by source, and has done so 4 times so you are the one who has been braking the guidelines. I have also explained the situation to you. It is MATCHDAYS (and not rounds) per consensus, so we list position after they have played their match, just like the source does. If they dont play for next 5 weeks, they can be passed by other teams and not be 1st after their 28th match. Please follow sources. QED237 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Football records in Spain

I suggest you to do your reverts manually because when you undo this page you did not consider other people edits, and you revert everything!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC) -- Done. Thanks! SupernovaeIA (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Football records in Spain 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 article's 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, User: Suitcivil broke many of these rules a long time ago. Maybe you should have stopped him from reverting! SupernovaeIA (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting my time troll.

Stop wasting my time troll. You are not a moderator nor do I take your attempts to appear like one seriously. You are wasting your time.

Nor will you succeed with deleting sourced material or omitting historical facts.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SupernovaeIA and User:Suitcivil133 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: ). Thank you. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h 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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.

It was not a good idea to restart the same edits after the protection expired, in particular after warning (at 3RRN).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

There are enough references provided on the constructive edit I have made, no removal, addition of sources, addition of content. It is as clear as that. Admins should stop the other vandals from reverting the pages. SupernovaeIA (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring; you'll need to address that and only that in any unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:31, 22 January 2016 (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.

True, but do tell me how is it edit warring when the same issue we have discussed since a few years and is CLEARLY in the talk archives about which is the consensus version. Consensus was already reached and I simply had put it to the consensus version. SupernovaeIA (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Football records in Spain

I agree with your change on Football records in Spain, but can you also provide refs for the other sections on the article? where is [citation needed] and also if you scroll down to "References" there are 2 cite errors if you can fix it. Thank you!--162.250.169.189 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. I will try. You should do that too, the refs for other articles. SupernovaeIA (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: ). Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Football records in Spain. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

First and very foremost, attacking other users???!! Is sir sputnik blind or what? Can he/she see what and how much User:Suitcvil has attacked me? Show me one recent instance where I have not focused on the content and attack other users please. I work on a big research network so people could be using wikipedia with the same IP but I have simply not abused accounts. This is a complete false accusation made by User sputnik who seems to be favoring a lot with the Suitcivil user as far as i can track sputnik's edit log.!

Decline reason:

Decline for many reasons: fails to see that you are, indeed, attacking people in your edit summaries. Abuse of multiple accounts as evidenced at the sockpuppet investigation. And a lot of WP:NOTTHEM going on in the request for unblock. only (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2016 (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.

You were editing logged-out to continue edit-warring at the Football records in Spain article ([3][4][5][6][7]). Vanjagenije (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reset your block to one month because you were using the IP editing to evade the block. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: ). Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.

--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I had opened up a talk section about why ICFC cant be included in the table giving references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football_records_in_Spain#ICFC_non_inclusion The other vandal parties did not care to participate so not my fault. Keeping me blocked will not help you. Try to put your brain on what is happening and who is actually vandalizing the page. SupernovaeIA (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not acceptable even if you are right, and you know that because you have been blocked for it several times before - and as for blaming the other party, they are now blocked too. The extent of your edit warring this time means nothing less than a lengthy block is appropriate, and any more edit warring after this block ends and you're likely to be blocked for much longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2016 (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.

Oh so just let trolls put any info they like in wikipedia and not revert the edits? SupernovaeIA (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a content dispute (which is what this is), calling those who disagree with you vandals and trolls only makes things worse for you. Look, we have all been in situations when we are convinced that we are right and the other person is wrong - but then, so have those people who disagree with us! The way forward in a collaborative project like Wikipedia just cannot be by allowing whoever shouts the loudest to have their way. If you cannot get a consensus via discussion on the appropriate talk page, then please seek help using Wikipedia's other Dispute Resolution steps - but you must not try to win by edit warring, no matter how right you think you are or how wrong you think the other person is! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think I have not followed the Dispute resolution protocol? Have you checked the page history. This issue was discussed and resolved a long time ago. SupernovaeIA (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring, and that is never allowed whatever has been previously agreed - if you believe someone else is violating a consensus, then your actions to resolve that itself need to follow proper dispute resolution rather than edit warring. There are exemptions to Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy which can be found at WP:NOT3RR, but your actions do not satisfy any of them. Other than those, 3RR violations (along with longer term edit warring) will get you blocked - and you cannot feign ignorance of that because you have been blocked for edit warring twice before. Also, consensus can change, so if a previous consensus was a long time ago then it is not set in stone to never be changed. If there is a new disagreement, a long time after an old consensus, then it needs to be resolved afresh. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My oncly concern is, administrators allow vandals to vandalize pages which result in me to intervene. I am tired of doing this actually. The page is still in vandalized state btw. SupernovaeIA (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously do not understand what WP:VANDALISM is. Edits like this are not vandalism per definition. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you one thing for sure, SupernovaeIA. If, after your block expires, you continue with your current approach of edit warring and accusing every editor who disagrees with you of vandalism, you're very quickly going to be facing a longer block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats unfortunate. You all seem to favor more a status quo than improving a article.. You dont even appreciate the fact that I am the only editor there who is up for discussion as can be seen from a proper section in the talk page. Yet the blame comes to me. No hope for wikipedia. SupernovaeIA (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the blame for the edit warring is clearly on the shoulders of *both* of you, as you are both blocked for an equal period. Admins cannot decide the underlying content/consensus dispute, so there's no point just continuing to insist that you are right and the other editor is wrong. (As an aside, the other editor claims they are the one upholding consensus and you are violating it, and admins simply do not have the power to judge that - you need to get a clear consensus on the specific edits that you were warring over.) Anyway, that's all I'm going to say now, as it is pointless talking to someone who refuses to listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANEW

You really don't get it do you? Three blocks later, and no fewer than five different admins telling you that your conduct is inappropriate, and you go right back to the same behaviour? In any case, I'm letting you know that I've reported you to WP:ANEW again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you get blocked for a month for edit warring (and using IP socks for the same purpose) and you come back and make the exact same edit, you are most likely not competent enough to edit Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Providing references and taking to talk- did you care to notice that part? SupernovaeIA (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And really fair to not block the person reverting and block the person taking measures to make agreement in talk page!

No, you have not made a single edit on any talk page since your block expired. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made effort to do this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football_records_in_Spain#ICFC_non_inclusion , maybe you missed this? If the reverting sockpuppet party makes no effort to even contribute a bit and discuss on talk page, do i keep on typing new sections with same content in talk page? This blocking indefinitely makes no sense when clearly I am the only one contributing on talk page!SupernovaeIA (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Contributed to the talk page, warring sockpuppet party did not bother to write a sentence. I absolutely don't get Drmies 'incompetence' reason.

Decline reason:

You have been blocked multiple times for socking and edit warring over disputed changes rather than getting a consensus, and the problems have been carefully explained to you by several people on this talk page - yet when your latest block expired you immediately started reverting to your preferred version again. If you actually do not understand what is wrong with that that, then that's where the incompetence lies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2016 (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.

And you do understand what I have said about taking the issue to the talk page or are you incompetent to see that? I have dealt with guys like you blind enough to not see what actually went on and cant wait to block everyone. Reverting to preferred version? Please do let me know where I have done that. When the other warring party does not say a thing in talk, doesnt want consensus discussion, then the right thing to do is to put the article in the last consensus version! (And before you say it by last consensus version, no i dont mean my preferred version BUT THE LAST VERSION WHICH WAS AGREED, im sure you havent paid attention to that!!!SupernovaeIA (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, please please do let me know, how is it WP:3RR when the warring party was a clear sockpuppet from the beginning (did this multiple times since years) but admins did not pay attention to this and were blocking me over and over for 3RR. The edits i made were NOT 3RR and completely exempt because it satisfies 3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. So this recent blocks made on me was wrong to begin with already. SupernovaeIA (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, i question the very first block that has lead to here. I was accused of reverting to preferred version? And I can easily show why it was not the case. When I started a discussion article in the talk section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football_records_in_Spain#ICFC_non_inclusion, the other warring party did not contribute a letter in talk, the sockpuppet(has been blocked for sockpuppetry now) does not want consensus in the discussion, then the right thing to do was to put the article in the last consensus version! (And before you say it by last consensus version, no i dont mean my preferred version BUT THE LAST VERSION WHICH WAS AGREED upon many users since a few years back. And, it is not WP:3RR when the warring party was a clear sockpuppet from the beginning (did this multiple times since years) but admins did not pay attention to this and were blocking me over and over for 3RR. The edits i made were NOT 3RR and completely exempt because it satisfies section 3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. So this recent blocks made on me was wrong to begin with already. The only thing I can say is I will not keep on editing the article as the sockpuppet has been confirmed so there will not be edit warring anymore. The article needs to be in the consensus version. SupernovaeIA (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry seems to be common on that article, including from you - something you have not addressed. Also, I just checked old versions of the article from 2014 and 2012, and lo and behold, they both agreed with the other party, not with you. So you were the one reverting away fron the last version which was agreed upon by many users before the current dispute. Huon (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2016 (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.

Yeah User:Huon, and i checked as back as 2010. Did you bother? Answer is no! Its the same with you all wiki admins. And also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_37#Fairs_Cup:_please_help so, which consensus are you referring to? I can give you many instances of this that shows what the agreed version was! Unless you are confused, you are totally on the wrong foot here. there are many references which support what I have been saying about the consensus version. Unless you are completely blind (no eyes) or a biased barca fan, this should not be hard to see. It is soo interesting that the tally includes pro barca favoring trophies to raise the trophy tally which OTHER CLUBS were not even allowed to participate! Trade fairs compeition! Please do give me a single website from fifa or uefa in english that says ICFC is officialSupernovaeIA (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fine collection of red herrings. Firstly, it does not in the least address your own conduct. Secondly, if the article was more or less stable in this regard despite heavy editing from 2012 to 2014, that suffices to indicate that a consensus for that way of covering the Fairs Cup had formed, whatever might have been the norm in 2009. Thirdly, UEFA says, quote, "This forerunner to the UEFA Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup..." and even more explicitly, it speaks of a "change of name" from Fairs Cup to UEFA Cup - it's the same cup under a new name, and UEFA even mentions a string of "six successive victories by English teams" which spans both names - so this edit is blatantly false since UEFA clearly (and as cited for the content you removed) considers the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup a prececessor of the UEFA Cup. Huon (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not stable! Forcing to keep unofficial records to skew one clubs records means the article is not stable at all. And it seems you have no idea at all what the issue is here. Who said it is not the predecessor to UEFA? Have you even looked at what the issue was? The issue here is if ICFC cup is official or not and still you come up with a blatant lie and fail to provide references that say ICFC is official! It was neither organized by UEFA nor FIFA. And the references I provided in the talk page CLEARLY say that. SupernovaeIA (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said it's not the predecessor in this edit: "The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is not recognised official and is not the predecessor to the UEFA Cup..." Also, the version you reverted away from did not claim it was official, so arguing that people should provide a source for its "officialness" is another red herring. Huon (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That double negative might have been my mistake so I accept it. However, you just got caught right there. You have no clue of what the discussion is about and this just got proved. "Also, the version you reverted away from did not claim it was official..." --> FALSE TOTAL FALSE! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_Spain#Most_successful_clubs_overall_.28official_titles.2C_1903.E2.80.93present.29 It says official titles! So this is the issue here! And even in that section it says the table includes title organized by RFEF, UEFA and FIFA! AND, ICFC was not organized by any of them!

So 1) You have no clue what the issue was in the first place 2) You dont check the article and lie about things and push about other issues rwed herrings etc 3) Most importantly, as of now the article is falsyfing itself with those two sentences i provided. So until you or someone else makes a separate table for unofficial titles, I am not staying quiet.SupernovaeIA (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #15776 was submitted on May 13, 2016 06:56:20. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SupernovaeIA. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]