User talk:Augoutdujour

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ESPNsoccernet. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of the 3RR complaint at WP:AN3#User:Donhend reported by User:Andrewponsford (Result: Protected), which concerns the ESPNsoccernet page. The article has been protected so that no-one can edit it for a week. Please use this time to become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and neutrality.

When there is a dispute, editors are expected to explain their reasoning on the article's talk page so they can convince others. Per WP:FORUM, comments that are made by individuals on web forums are not usable as references for our articles. I think that other users at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#ESPNSoccernet Page already pointed out to you that some of your material is not encyclopedic by our standards. It seemed that neither party in this dispute deserved to be blocked since both of you are rather inexperienced with our system. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESPNsoccernet

Hello Andrewponsford. You have yet to join any discussions at Talk:ESPNsoccernet. If you continue to edit-war on this article, and won't discuss your changes, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You should either start to negotiate, or find other interests. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, thanks for your mail. Personal opinions or deductions about ESPNsoccernet do not belong in the article. We expect published sources for the material that you add. If you aren't willing to follow our policies, you may be blocked. Here you seem to be adding your personal opinion or editorializing: [1]. You also refer to opinions presented by others on the discussion board, which are not usable in our articles per WP:FORUM. This was explained to you above on October 11, and you are running out of chances. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the section. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at ESPNsoccernet. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Repeated insertion of unsourced personal POV in this article, from October 1 to the present, after multiple warnings on your Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User warning - inappropriate content

Please note that our no original research policy requires that personal commentary and opinions are not inserted into articles, and this counts double for content that is negative or critical of living people. I must ask that you do not re-add your personal commentary to ESPNsoccernet again; otherwise you are likely to be blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

I have received your email. Please use my talk page to contact me.

Anything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and have citations to reliable sources. This counts double for negative statements about living people. It's nothing personal against you; the same standards apply to everyone. If you feel content on other pages is not appropriate, please feel free to edit accordingly, although make sure you don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please use my talk page to contact me, rather than emailing. Further emails will not receive a reply.

You did not add any citations when you added the content. You must add them, preferably by placing the source for your assertions after the sentence between <ref> and </ref>. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this advice about email. Nonetheless, I agree with your comment that Tim McCarver's misunderstanding of the balk rule is not properly sourced. You could just leave a comment at Talk:Tim McCarver and someone else can look into it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the direction on how to cite the sources. To that point, how does this old page I posted not comply though when I used links to the Soccernet pages with errors? Should I use a link that cites the correct fact instead? Thanks for your help.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=ESPNsoccernet&oldid=323327421 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewponsford (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the soccernet page shows what he said. You need proof that a reliable source has said the statements were "glaring errors". Stifle (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your recent change at ESPNsoccernet

Hello Andrewponsford. If you keep on doing the same thing here, you'll keep on getting the same response. We already got a complaint about your edits from someone who works for ESPNsoccernet. If you won't undo your last change there, you will probably be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have already discussed your desire to add your personal critique of this website with two different admins, who have advised you that your own research is not admissible on Wikipedia. You need to find an outside source which has complained about errors on this website. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]