User talk:Rossmcleodrfc

Welcome!

Hello, Rossmcleodrfc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like East Craigs United AFC, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of East Craigs United AFC

A tag has been placed on East Craigs United AFC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with East Craigs United AFC. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with East Craigs United AFC. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Craigs United AFC

i see you posted a comment on the talk page of the article East Craigs United AFC. I have made a response there, but in case the article is deleted before you read my response I am copying both your comment and mine to here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Craigs United AFC is a genuine club and this can be proven by visiting the EDINBURGH & DISTRICTS SUNDAY AMATEUR FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION webpage. http://eadsafa.tripod.com/new_page_2.htm. I am a player with the team and would be happy to answer any queries you have to do with the team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossmcleodrfc (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 March 2010

Nobody doubts that it is a genuine club. What is at issue is whether it is significant enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. I suggest reading the notability guidelines. Also possibly worth a look is Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the adivde James. Apologies you can probably tell I am new to all of this, I will read over what you sent me after work tonight and hopefully come up with relevant reasons for East Craigs United AFC's inclusion on Wikipedia Rossmcleodrfc (talk

I've again tagged East Craigs United AFC for deletion. There is no indication that the club is significant or important enough to have an article. As a rule, amateur football clubs that low down the ladder are not notable—especially if their league is not notable enough to have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you have probably read I am new to Wikipedia. I understand that the page was deleted a few days ago and would like you to consider the following.East Craigs United AFC is a genuine football club which I believe should be noted for on the internet. There is no other reference to the team on the internet regarding its history and after increasing support and interest, I believe it merits a wikipedia page. I believe the support should be aware about the clubs history and current situation. Also, as the only football team from the relatively big East Craigs area, I believe that is also a reason to have it on Wikipedia. I would ask that you look upon these reasons with an open mind as the support for the club has increased greatly since it began and even the few days the original article was up I recieved lots of praise for adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossmcleodrfc (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is no other reference for the team, that is actually a reason why it should not have an article. Content must be verifiable. While sources don't have to be online, they make it easier. How much readers like an article, or how many readers there are, is not a reason to keep an article; notability and verifiability are, but the ECUAFC article demonstrated neither. —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated above I said 'There is no other reference to the team on the internet regarding its HISTORY. There is an internet site which details current form and league standings http://eadsafa.tripod.com/new_page_2.htm but with regard to the teams history, there is no other source. That is why I feel it is important to have a place for such info. I as a player within the team am in the perfect position to be a cource of information.

Wikipedia is supported by secondary and tertiary sources, not primary. Without such support, there is no question that the article must go. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cobaltbluetony your a knob. A total jobs worth that is restricting the masses from East Craigs finding out info about their local football team. The amount of pish articles on this site that are allowed to stay compared to genuinely interesting and well supported topics is a joke to me. A secondary or tertiary sourced website..? I'M A PLAYER FOR THE TEAM..!! WHY WOULD YOU NOT ALSO ALLOW PRIMARY SOURCED INFORMATION FOR TOPICS, SEEN AS THE INFO THEY SUBMIT WOULD BE ENTIRELY GENUINE AND NOT MADE UP..! As a secondary source of information on the topic of Cobaltbluetony, can I create a page detailing how much of a queerhawk he is...? Yours in sport, Ross McLeod

First off, please don't insult other editors. It won't end well. Second, other crappy articles being here is no reason to add more. If you see a problem, tag it or fix the problems yourself. Third, your connection to the team makes you a primary source and a person with a conflict of interest. We allow plenty of primary sources, but only after we prove notability from the other types of sources. Fourth, redressing your tone, tread carefully. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First-hand accounts by editors are not acceptable because they constitute original research, bypassing the requirements of verifiable and reliable sources. People lie on the internet all the time. Go figure. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article CobaltBlueTony

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at CobaltBlueTony. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion _(talk) 17:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Harassment. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 18:02, 16 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to write to ask you to reconsider your decision to block me from Wikipedia. You have probably read the history of what has gone on. After inititally composing, I feel, an excellent page for a well supported football club, I found it increasingly frustrating trying to prove why I felt it merited a page on Wikipedia. In the beginning, I understood the queries posed from such users as C.Fred etc, but then in the end CobaltBlueTony I felt was totally harsh in just deleting the page. After going on his page, I became aware that other user felt he deleted pages first, asked questions later...this wasnt fair I didnt think.

Decline reason:

You repeatedly recreated a page despite being told quite clearly why it was inappropriate then started attacking another user, I see no reason to unblock you Jac16888 ^Talk 14:17, 18 March 2010 (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.