I didn't mean to imply on the article's talk page that more rugby information wouldn't be a good addition to the article (in fact, I think I forgot to address that at all). I'm more interested in football, but if you found some sources and beefed up the rugby international section as you recommend, I think it would only improve the article. Doonhamer | Banter 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a loss as to why you have added "possible run on teams" to so many rugby leage team articles. It seems to me that this information is purely speculation, and therefore not verifiable and as such adds nothing to the article. Could you explain your reasoning behind it please? Cheers Nouse4aname 11:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, it is the IP 87.113.89.13 that is adding these graphics (unless this is your IP?). But could you explain why you think they are necessary?Nouse4aname 12:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should create the 2007 pages for this sort of detail. I am unsure why you cannot accept that this sort of information is not encyclopedic. It cannot be verified, and changes week to week. As such, it cannot be part of an encyclopedia article. Nouse4aname 07:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, having read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Discussions forums/Putting up weekly run on sides on team articles, it seems the only consensus reached is that these run on teams should NOT be included on the main page. There is no real consensus as to whether they should feature on separate 2007 pages. So in short, they should not be placed on the main page of any article, and only feature on the 2007 page, either where one exists or if you really want this information somewhere, then create the page yourself. Nouse4aname 08:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out your reasoning and evidence for stating that I am in the wrong and identifying my edits as vandalism? That's a pretty bold pair of statements given the discussion on the page linked above, and the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia. Absent of any verification, these possible run-on teams have no place on Wikipedia. You seem to be a solid editor in many repsects, but if you continue to ignore policy you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, Deiztalk 07:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree strongly with Deiz. What he did was remove unsourced speculation, as required by WP:V and WP:NOR. If you continue to add such content without providing reliable sources, and accuse those who remove it of vandalism, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::Rest assured this is a routine per-policy cleanup. Speculation about future sporting starting lineups contravenes several Wikipedia policies, and with all due respect to the members of the rugby league Wikiproject, this is above what a small group of editors decide is or isn't appropriate. As I said, you seem to be a solid editor and I understand if you feel frustrated due to disagreements with others who edit on the same topics. However, if you cannot verify these lineups, please do not add them to Wikipedia which, lest we forget, is an encyclopedia. Thanks, Deiztalk 07:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Londo06. I'm sorry it came to this, but I've blocked you from editing for 3 hours. The news sources you are citing (in your edit summaries rather than on the article itself) are news reports which detail the likely starting team for one upcoming fixture. in some case they do not mention the team at all, with the notation "TBC". They do not verify the starting lineup for the entire season, they do not verify the injuries and replacements you are citing. At no point have you attempted to explain your edits with regard to policy, rather you have ignored warnings from two administrators and made various unfounded accusations of vandalism and malicious intent in contravention of WP:AGF. Would be great if you could use this time to read up on WP:V and WP:NOT. Thanks, Deiztalk 08:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This talk guy eats dogs. Londo06 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? Deiz was correct in blocking you. It would be best if you would take up his advice. Sandstein 09:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a witty reference to me living in South Korea. Deiztalk 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared to be malicious in my opinion. I will be citing sources in the future stating the team from the last game, which cannot be disputed by someone who lives in a country that likes cats a little too much. Londo06 09:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Londo06, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Slurs about other people's nationality or place of residence are not accepted on Wikipedia. Sandstein 10:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Grow up mate^ Londo06 11:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
