Brfc97

Blackburn Rovers F.C.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I encourage you to take part in the discussion on the talk page. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary, citations are needed for all content that could be challenged. All content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable so that readers who don't know the topic well can go to a reliable source that confirms the statement. For example, with Burnley, a reader might not be sure whether or not they are rivals as Blackburn are in a different division. A citation allows the reader to verify the claim. Ideally the section would be written as prose to give the claim more context, but a citation is the best start. I hope this clears up why citations are necessary. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use the discussion pages. You're not at all making it clear what your concerns are and are removing citations and citation needed tags. The section is in Alphabetical order but it does not need to say it in the heading. I warn you again about the 3 Revert Rule as you're too quick to revert without discussion. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comments on WP:AN3

A few comments in response to your latest post on WP:AN3.

1. Who originally wrote the section doesn't matter. As it says on each edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."
2. The version you keep reverting from does present the list in alphabetical order. It doesn't need to, and shouldn't IMO, explicitly state that in the article itself.
3. Who they are a fan of and their level of knowledge really isn't important, and it certainly doesn't justify an edit war. Consensus on the talk page appears to be against your version at the moment. Please continue the discussion there instead of reverting multiple people just to get back to your preferred version.

In any case, please try to use talk pages to reach a consensus and avoid edit warring in the future. Oh...and it's probably not the best idea to try to blank discussions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or any of its subpages. They're quite heavily watchlisted, and it will be quickly noticed and reverted. --Onorem♠Dil 13:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 8 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Blackburn Rovers F.C.. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Stifle (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

. It does not present the list in alphabetical order. There is a survey included that presnts an exact order. However that survey is from 5 years ago and conducted by a website that is independant and not affiliated with Blackburn Rovers Football Club. All I request is that the list remain in alphabetical order and not include phrases such as "2nd rival after." Clearly that is not alphabetical order at all. I request that phrase is removed immediately. It keeps getting changed if there is any indication that the order is anything other than alphabetical. --Brfc97Brfc97 14:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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).

Brfc97 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Resquest unblock-Reason above

Decline reason:

No actual reason given for unblocking and your commentary above is not the purpose of the template, either. — Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

I also reviewed your request. Regardless of your reasons for making that change repeatedly, after a certain point it becomes edit warring and is considered harmful. That's why you've been blocked. Mangojuice^talk 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

footballderbies.com citation

The footballderbies.com citation does not need to provide exact evidence as it is only being used to source the claim that violence has occured at matches. The source says "There have been some cup matches with violent outbreaks in the meantime though." As the website is reliable, it can be used to source the claim in the article that says "...on some occasions violence has broken out." I have provided an in depth breakdown of the citations used in the section as an explanation to what exactly they are confirming in the Wikipedia, and where the text is in the source. If you have a problem with these citations, which to myself and other users seem fine, please take part in the discussion and explain exactly why you think the citation should not be there. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Blackburn Rovers F.C.. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for serious WP:3RR violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion can help solve this mess

Contrary to your last edit summary, the users that make up the consensus for the version your reverting are not "control freaks". I really strongly urge you to be a part of the discussion so you can help form the consensus of what the section should include. I have removed the phrase "second after Burnley" from the section because you were so against it, even though I think it's fairly valid and as do other editors. It is pretty uncivil for you to continue to revert edits against consensus when an editor is trying to accommodate you despite your abrasive editing style. I really desire for you to be a part of the discussion so that this edit war can end. You have a problem with the citations so before you were blocked I made a complete breakdown of why each citation is used. I'd be grateful if you could have a look there and raise any concerns you have with the citations on the talk page calmly and clearly. Thanks. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Blackburn Rovers F.C., without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Blackburn Rovers F.C., you will be blocked from editing. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Blackburn Rovers F.C., you will be blocked from editing. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Blackburn Rovers F.C., you will be blocked from editing. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 14 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for For persistent edit warring and removal of sourced information. Please note: the next block will be indefinite.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Black Kite 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brfc97 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not permitted to use alternate accounts to evade a block. Your block has been reset to two weeks. Further abuse will result in a longer, possibly indefinite, block. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Blackburn Rovers F.C., without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Muchness (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brfc97 (2nd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)