Ericsback

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. --Jimbo^[online] 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop including unverifiable opinions on the Enfield Town FC Wiki page. That comment about Enfield Town FC effectively hijacking the old club is not verifiable and is not fact. It is your point of view. It may be the point of view of others as well but it is still just that: a point of view. Enfield FC carried on playing for several years after Enfield Town was formed. Hijacking means to take over by force and Enfield Town FC did not take over Enfield FC.

When Enfield Town FC dropped down to the Essex Senior League the supporters, like those of AFC Wimbledon (whose formation they inspired), started watching lower quality football in much worse facilities. The reasons for starting a new club were the same: a complete disaffection with the Chairman of the existing club. It is my opinion (not a verifiable fact!) that Enfield FC would have gone down the pan well before 2007 had Tony Lazarou not been shocked into walking away.

If you are going to suggest that Enfield Town FC hijacked Enfield FC, what about Enfield 1893 FC? Completely new club in 2007 but still claiming to be the old Enfield FC (even though 1893 is probably not the correct year to include in their name). Jancyclops (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my Talk page dated 27 May 2009

You say, "I have no axe to grind with anyone, just a desire to see that the true facts are brought out into the open, no matter how unpleasant some, yourself included, may find them." OK. what about the true facts? For a start Enfield Town FC was formed when Enfield FC was playing home games at Boreham Wood's Meadow Park. The PA was theirs. Any PA system at Southbury Road back in 1999 is likely to have been smashed up with the rest of the ground. Secondly Enfield Town FC did not take any playing kit from the old club although the colours themselves are the same. When Enfield Town started they had brand new home and away kits. The home kit was white & blue and sponsored by the finance company First National, who were the club's first main sponsors. The away kit was yellow and was sponsored by a company called BCL. That kit was so robust it still gets the odd airing for the reserves ten years later. If you want to get facts out in the open, why don't you find out whether they are facts in the first place?

Before spreading round rumour and points of view, please remember that the content of Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable facts and not somebody's wishful thinking. That is why I have removed your pure speculation about whether Enfield Town and AFC Wimbledon were formed for the same reason. On one level they certainly were -- the existing clubs' respective chairmen took actions which the supporters felt were going one step too far. In each case some of those supporters carried on following the original clubs and some of those have tried to fight the system from the inside, but others decided enough was enough and decided to form a new club. AFC Wimbledon might not have been formed had Enfield Town not come along to start with. It may just never have occurred to the disaffected Wimbledon fans at the time that they could even consider such a move. Obviously no two sets of supporters are likely to have exactly the same motives for their actions. FC United's motivation was completely different from either Enfield Town's or AFC Wimbledon's but it still grew out of complete loss of faith by the supporters with what the Board was doing with the existing club. Jancyclops (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my Talk page dated 29 May 2009

This is going round in circles. You are now saying that it is a "fact" that some people at AFC Wimbledon and FC United have expressed genuine opinions. So what? They are opinions. What those particular people are saying is not verifiable fact. You claim you have no axe to grind but you are grinding it pretty hard all the same. I happen to know people who have expressed similar opinions about AFC Wimbledon. People have opinions. As for the playing kit and the PA, Enfield Town FC did not take these.

Please remember that Wikipedia is a forum for people to exchange verifiable information. It is not a place to air views which are not verifiable facts. If information is included which is not verifiable it is likely to be removed. Not just by me. You may have noticed that when you started filling our page which personal opinions and were intent on removing the verifiable links to the congratulatory messages Enfield Town FC received from AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester (odd behaviour for someone who has no axe to grind!) you will have noticed that there was a message to say that the page contained no references or citations. That sort of message suggests that the whole page could have been taken down as being no more than personal opinion or unverifiable information. That is why it is important to cite references for verifiable information. Perhaps you should read The five pillars of Wikipedia, which includes, "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments."

Now, please stop grinding that axe you claim you haven't got and stop trying to change the page to include pure speculation and personal opinions (whether yours or those you heard from someone who definitely has got an axe to grind). Jancyclops (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my Talk page dated 1 June 2009

In your message you say, "unless you are going to accept the VERIFIABLE FACT that you were sued or that you are prepared to accept SOME points of view, then I suggest that you do not bother to reply again." If you remember rightly, when you first added the so-called "fact" about Enfield Town FC being sued for something on a web site, I amended it to correct that bit of misinformation and I also added a citation to show that what happened is verifiable. However, points of view are points of view. The stuff you have put up there is not my point of view at all. In fact some of the comments you have put up could have come straight from an embittered Enfield (1893) supporter - they aren't all like that, by the way!

You also say, "Again, if you take the time to read it fully, you will see that AT NO TIME did I say that "Enfield Town took the PA & the kit", just that the ownership was disputed." Well, what you actually said, on 20th May 2009 in your first comment on my Talk page, was, "The "hijacking" remark is due to the way that certain items such as playing kit and a PA system were seemingly comandeered by members of ETFC from EFC at the time of the split." (The emphasis is mine.) So what were you accusing ETFC of then? Am I right in thinking you are now hiding behind words like "seemingly" to get around the possibility that the "information" you have been given isn't actually true? "Seemingly" unlike you, I checked first-hand sources before replying to you and can once again point out that the playing kit was never commandeered from ETFC and the PA system remained at Meadow Park where it is no doubt still doing stirling work for its owners, Boreham Wood FC. And I can once again point out that the PA at Southbury Road probably disappeared in the same mound of rubble as the ground. --Jancyclops (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my Talk page dated 9 June 2009

How can you say what I was or wasn't going to do? Yet again you are saying something is a "fact" when it is not verifiable and is only your personal opinion. I had only just started looking at the ETFC page when you started attacking it. How do you know what I was or wasn't going to do? You don't. Plain and simple. As it happens there are difficulties in linking back to the ETFC web site for references, and I haven't found a full reference elsewhere for the court case (believe me, I have looked). The problem with linking to the web site is that the only way you can do it is to link to the content itself, so it might not look like it is what it says it is. You don't get to see the whole page. I am still trying to think of a way around that without compromising the server and without removing the redirect instruction which is already there and which I want to stay there. It is swings and roundabouts.

As for the "positive" point of view, don't forget I added the "citation required" bit. I left all of that personal opinion in there because my only other option is, quite frankly, to ask the Administrators of Wikipedia to stop you posting pure speculation on the page. At some point I will revise the layout of the page so it is easier to get round and all pure speculation may well disappear at that point.

OK, now there is no "perhaps" about it. You really should read and take note of The five pillars of Wikipedia. If it isn't verifiable, don't put it in. Simple as that. Please now stop filling the Enfield Town FC page up with pure speculation and personal opinions. -- Jancyclops (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my Talk page dated 10 June 2009

I have now removed all the uncited content you added. I have removed the "supporters" section and moved the info about the law suit into the club history. Please STOP adding personal opinions as if they are verifiable facts. This is in breach of the Wikipedia rules. I haven't been telling you to read and follow The five pillars of Wikipedia for nothing!

You keep totally ignoring the fact that you have been posting unveriable content. Could it be that you just can't face up to the fact that you have been constantly and consistently in breach of the Wikipedia rules? If your content were geuninely verifiable, why are there no citations? You are yet again trying to sling mud in order to hide from the fact that you can't cite verifiable sources for the personal opinions which you keep on posting.

If you want to look at "hijacking", why not look into the history of Enfield FC? Back in 1900 Enfield FC folded and Enfield Spartans (founded in 1893) took over the name. Then at the end of the First World War, that Enfield FC folded as well. The name got taken over by Grange Park FC (don't know when they were founded) who appear to have stolen the previous club's history. Now we have Enfield (1893) FC who have never played their home first team games in the Borough of Enfield and have the year 1893 which relates to the club before the one that they followed on from in their name. --Jancyclops (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Enfield Town F.C.. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please learn the rules!

Before posting content to any page in Wikipedia, please read the section on verifying content.

To quote from further up that same page: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

In your last edit on the Enfield Town FC page you wiped out at least one of my references (I do cite sources!) and added back in content relating to a libel suit which was, quite frankly, untrue.

I notice for someone who doesn't have an axe to grind you are only re-editing the personal opinions on the Enfield Town FC page and you haven't bothered putting them back up on the Enfield (1893) page after they were removed from there.

Please read the warning, above, from Jezhotwells and act upon it by either citing sources for your content when you post it and not posting something which is not verifiable. Please also make sure you don't repost untrue content. -- Jancyclops (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

May I emphasize that my only interest in this is that you must not add unsourced and unverifibale material to an article. Please try to understand this. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is an encyclopeadia and there are rules for inserting material. If you don't like them go elsewhere.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. preceding from Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please read it and attempt to understand it. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiablility is assertained by citing sources rather than something which could be perceived as an opinion or point of view. Articles should also remain neutral, and sometimes "fans" etc can be bias or cause conflict of interest. --Jimbo^[online] 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down fella, All I said was just source what you put to back it up. That reply on my wall was the mentalist thing I had ever read on here. If you verify what you write then it can't be contested and removed. --Jimbo^[online] 07:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Go away please ?

Mr Wall, on 22 June 2009 you ask me if I am going to resort to personal abuse and yet you have been giving me that pretty much all along. On 23 June 2009 you say you will no longer engage in discussion with me but then do exactly that on Jimbo_online's talk page. Unless of course he was the one you were aiming that rant at.

All I have ever asked you to do is restrict what you post to verifiable content and that you cite your sources (which you have never done). If you call that "dictating", well, it isn't. It is a reminder to you that this is a community which is run according to certain rules. It is a lot more open than a lot of other communities but without rules you have anarchy and so there are some here. They are The five pillars of Wikipedia which you seem to want to ignore.

One of the major rules is that all content must be verifiable. If you want to post content to Wikipedia, make sure it can be verifiable. Cite sources. Don't wipe out someone else's references where that person has cited a source.

Simple, eh? I am pretty new to Wikipedia (my first contribution was as recently as February 2009) and yet I worked that one out pretty early on.

As it happens, the split which resulted in Enfield Town being formed left more people following Enfield Town than Enfield. Some of those fans had stopped going to Enfield games some time earlier because of the actions of the Enfield FC Chairman at the time and they, for the most part, started following Enfield Town. A very small minority decided to follow both clubs. A lot of the fans who had stopped watching the old Enfield have never come back to either club, so overall the split was not pretty much down the middle. It pretty much favoured Sky Sports and, until recently, Setanta, with both Enfield FC and Enfield Town FC left out in the cold. Of course, I can't cite a source for that, which is why I haven't added it to the Enfield Town FC page. --Jancyclops (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable facts

Can only be proven by sources. Writing it in a summary doesn't make it verified. See WP:V. --Jimbo^[online] 20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Martock, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Rod ^talk 21:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Claritas § 19:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Enfield Town F.C.

I rolled back your edits, as I believe you need to provide sources for some of the statements, and others are not neutral. For example, we should not characterize issues using words such as "hollow". An IP has been making similar edits, I trust that you are not the same person, but if you are, please edit only from your login account--if you don't, you might be accused of sock puppetry. Thanks, --Nuujinn (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Martock, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Rod ^talk 17:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Martock, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Rod ^talk 11:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Enfield Town F.C., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Satori Son 16:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Enfield Town

Please stop making edits to this article claiming that the bit about Enfield not being able to take promotion is "gloating". I watchlisted the article after it was a target of heavy vandalism and am not bothered one way or another about Enfield or Enfield Town. However, what is written in the article about the promotion issue is neutral and factual. If you continue to remove it, you will be blocked. Thanks, Number 57 18:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Following this, please consider this your final warning. Number 57 13:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear gloating and you are in the pocket of the ETFC idiots. Just get real and see it for waht it is. You will not stop us, there are too many of us for you to ever dream of stopping so your silly "sock puppet" categorisation is just wind. Like I say, we are serving notice on you to get out of their pockets.

Look at the Enfield 1893 page and see how this matter is dealt with in a neutral and non-confrontational way, adjust this article accordingly and we will leave you alone.

Ericsback

As you have resumed your edits to the Enfield Town article, you are now blocked for two weeks. Any further attempts to make the same edits after you return will result in a permanent block. Number 57 12:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of six months for returning from a previous block only to make the same edits that got you blocked previously, as you did at Enfield Town F.C.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Number 57 14:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider this another final warning before you are permanently blocked. Number 57 21:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for continuing to make the same edits at Enfield Town and disregarding the warning above. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Number 57 09:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)