User talk:SupernovaeIA

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]

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

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]

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. GiantSnowman 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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]

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=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. [[User:SupernovaeIA|SupernovaeIA]] ([[User talk:SupernovaeIA#top|talk]]) 16:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |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=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. [[User:SupernovaeIA|SupernovaeIA]] ([[User talk:SupernovaeIA#top|talk]]) 16:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |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=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. [[User:SupernovaeIA|SupernovaeIA]] ([[User talk:SupernovaeIA#top|talk]]) 16:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}