Superbhoy1888

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Superbhoy1888! I am LouriePieterse and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

LouriePieterse 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:IslamFeruz 306x465.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:IslamFeruz 306x465.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ZooFari 03:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Islam Feruz

I have nominated Islam Feruz, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam Feruz. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve-Ho (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Superbhoy, I noticed you created a page for the SPL team of the year, I'm didn't realise there wasn't oe before and you've done a good job. You don't need to worry about it this time because I've done it but in future when you create articles related to Scottish football can you add them to this list [[1]]. Also if you are interested in editing thngs related to Celtic you are more than welcome to sign up to the Celtic task force WikiProject Football/Celtic F.C. task force. Thanks very much. Adam4267 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC

Hi there, the page you've been editing, The Rangers Football Club, is actually intended to be a page that redirects to the subject's main article, Rangers F.C.. You are more than welcome to edit Rangers F.C., but please do not add any content to the redirect page. Thanks, None but shining hours (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see talk page at Talk:Rangers F.C.. For now most people want to keep them the same. Your input is wanted.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Superbhoy. Please stop trying to change the Rangers article. Most editors believe that there should only be one article, see similar incidents like AC Fiorentina and Leeds United A.F.C. which only have one article despite coming back as a newco. I think you are letting the team you support cloud your judgement a little bit and your time would be much better spent participating in the discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct they are two seperate entities. However, if Green's Rangers come back into the SPL or 3rd division they will be considered a continuation of the old club, like Fiorentina and Leeds. They obviously are not the same club. They will be technically a different club but they will be considered a continuation or reformation of the old one for Wikipedia purposes. So will keep the same page. However, if they go to a different league like England or N. Ireland they'll be considered a different club. Adam4267 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The article will make clear that Rangers reformed and came back as a new company. But if they get back into the Scottish leagues they'll basically be a continuation of the old club. I have to say what you are doing at the moment is really not helpful. There is a very heated argument going on between other people about this and we need to discuss it on rangers talk page. I'd love to see you cotribute to that and then hopefully stay and work more on Wikipedia because having another Celtic editor would be great but please contribute to the discussion. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

They are obviously not the same club, Rangers have gone into liquidation and will come back as a new club - what word do you think best describes that? They are a reformation/continuation - whatever - of the old club. The old club is gone a new club will come back which will be a continuation of the old club. Adam4267 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Look this stuff is for the Rangers talk page not our individual ones. Thanks for going into the discussion and I'll respond to you at Rangers if your ok with that. I'd just like to say I think we basically agree but think it should be handled in a slightly different way. Adam4267 (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers Football CLub PLC is register company at company house, the club is serperate but just now it time that will tell what going on, please post on my talk page next tiem and not userspace and please sign itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

They are serperate, the club is serperate to the company, just so you know even though i used to support rangers, in my eyes teh club is dead form yerterday they are a third lanark or gretna to me i dnt see the newco as rangers, but the sources suggest they are serperate so we have to go with that until it is clarified which will come in the future then we can say for sure it is the sameAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have said several times they are not the same club, the old club will have died. A new club will have formed. Adam4267 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets clear this up

Ok, i completely agree rangers fc are dead there liquidated the team i followed for years no longer exist and are a new third lanark and Gretna case, however that is my opinion my point view and my belief. The Rangers Football Club (not the exception of the LTD part) are a brand new club and not the club i followed and i have no intention of following it.

However what you and plenty of rangers and other rival fans do not understand or see is wikipedia is about sources, the sources are firstly saying the club is not dissolved and is continuing like Leeds UTD and that only the PLC is getting dissolved part of this is because they want fans to support the new club. But the sources are also contradicting each other ones says one thing another says another, and some sources within the same article contradict itself. This is hte main problem no one really knows what is goign on and until we have the sources all agreeing to a degree everything added to the articles is speculation and POV.

Does this clear it up, this is nothing to do with my view because my view is excately like yoursAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

They have said in teh press releases it be called Rangers Football Club and the LTD part will be the company this is why there so much confusion over it i can assure you i will push for both articles to be updated and made right once the sources start to be clearer which i dnt think will happen until near the beging of the season, inaccuracy do need to be updated but at the moment we cant just say they are liquidated until we have sources to provie itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about trade names but as i say it not wahat is implied by the sources if we can geta valid sources that prove beyond a doubt the club and plc are linked and being liqudated and teh new ltd company are not contuning the old club we can certainly update the articlesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Rangers FC club dead or not". Thank you. --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sevco Scotland

Sevco Scotland are not a football club. I will be reverting your edits to the players you have changed to state that they playing for this company. If you really want to do something productive you could wait until the company have a full and proper title for their club. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And please get into the habit of properly explaining your edits in the edit summary. Without explaining your actions they may be mistaken as vandalism. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

These players do not, and will not ever, play for "Sevco Scotland". "Sevco Scotland" is not a football club or team. They may play for a club owned by "Sevco Scotland", or whatever "Sevco Scotland" chooses to call itself in future. So your unsourced edits were factually wrong, and pointless changes that would have to be re-done in a matter of weeks anyway. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So why can't you wait until the club name is made clear? Why are you adding to these players an unsourced nonsensical fact that they play for "Sevco Scotland", a team that will never take the field? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers dispute

I'm not sure if you aware that there is a discussion about the Rangers dispute at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Rangers_F.C to discuss whether there should be a single Rangers FC article instead of the two that presently exist for Rangers 1872-2012 and the Newco Rangers. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Be Warned - Rangers FC - an attempt to push through a controversial 'same club' approach

Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at the Talk:Rangers F.C/Sandbox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rangers F.C.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Rangers F.C., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

James Kelly (Scottish footballer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Renton and Defender

Willie Lyon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Queens Park and Defender

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SPFA SPL Team of the Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicky Law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Amido Balde, you may be blocked from editing. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to your concerns on my talk page. There was a backlog of vandalising IPs on the page, trapping your edits in the process of reverting to a prior revision. Remember to stay calm and assume good faith. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Amido Baldé. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 14:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Why have I been blocked?

Why are you unhappy at unreferanced content being deleted from the Bradford City FC page but yet happy to delete content from Amido Balde?

UNBLOCK ME

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).

Superbhoy1888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by a clown who was happy to delete unreferanced content from one article but yet adds unreferanced contact to another. I havent vandalised any single page on wikipedia

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not address the reason for the block, but instead simply escalates into personal attack - I have lengthened the block to a week, and will lengthen it further if I see any more personal attacks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2013 (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.

Note to the reviewing administrator - despite Superbhoy1888's claims to be removing 'unreferanced' [sic] content, he actually removed sourced material e.g. here, as well as deleting the lede (which does not need to be explicitly referenced). It is clear POINTy editing (see the edit summary here with the smiley!) aimed at me for warning them previously for adding unreferenced material (and removing maintenance tags) to a different article. GiantSnowman 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You are on a power trip. Why dont you go around deleting unsourced stuff from all the Bradford players pages?

• Removal of warnings. GiantSnowman 15:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Superbhoy1888. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)