User talk:Devonian EFC Fan

Original research

You should really have a read of WP:OR, amongst other policies and guidelines I have stated. Also have a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to understand what it's all about. --Jimbo^[online] 19:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're recent posts consist of massive amounts of original research, I suggest you read this policy to get a grasp on it. --Jimbo^[online] 18:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's mass OR in your edits. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or a place for essays. I suggest you also have a look at WP:NOT and the five pillars as noted before. --Jimbo^[online] 09:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of your edits constitute as original research as WP:OR states; "That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." --Jimbo^[online] 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truly True for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — Satori Son 15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is "sockpuppetry"? you people have a lingo of your own.

To whom it may concern, to begin with, please tell me what "Sockpuppetry is". I want to continue to use my wikipedia account after some time away and it appears that I am still blocked for some ridiculous reason. If I was so inclined, I could just open another account but I'd rather use my original account name. I know that this is all about the Enfield Town nonsense, but it seems that due in no small way to the actions of us "Erics", that common sense has prevailed on that page and it is now an encyclopaedic article and not an exercise in blowing their own Trumpets. Yours, DEFCF. (Follower of Eric) Satori Son 15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield Town F.C.

Hi, I've started up a discussion at WT:FOOTY to get a consensus of what should be included in the article. --Jimbo^[online] 12:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]