The Footy Show
November 2011
edit
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Present in RL infoboxes
editHi, the current convention with WP:RL is that we don't use "present" in infoboxes for rep. teams. Instead we update them when teams are named. This is because there aren't standing squads for these teams and there is no guarentee the player will be selected next time. Mattlore (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please do not post rumours from unreliable sources. The information posted on Torres's page was unreliable speculation. Mythical Curse (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
You have since re put in the same USELESS RUMOURS. I'd argue that was vandalism. Please stop it NOW. Mythical Curse (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
You've just reput in the same information so i'm going to report you. Mythical Curse (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
That message on my talk page was so childish... stop vandalising. Mythical Curse (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
Vandalism
editNot only have you vandalised Torres's page but you have also vandalised mine. This is not acceptable. I am in the process of dealing with your vandalism. Also, use (~-~-~-~) to sign your comments... Mythical Curse (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
- Replied on users talk page.The Footy Show (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
At last you've replied with more rubbish. You can not add speculation to wikipedia. Don't you see by writing 'it was speculated' that it is speculation? Mythical Curse (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
- Replied on user talk page and reworded as per editor request.The Footy Show (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Fernando Torres shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
Please discuss this on the article talkpage before you are blocked. I will protect the article in the meantime. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)