User talk:Cannondale1

<Rothmans Football Yearbook></ref>Welcome!

Hello, Cannondale1, 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, such as David McCaig, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Peridon (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David McCaig

The article David McCaig has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Peridon (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

As this is proposed because of the lack of referencing, I would suggest two things. First, don't remove the tag unless you have remedied the problem. Articles that are biographies of living people MUST be referenced. Second, look at WP:BLP to check that I'm not making this up, and then look at WP:RS to find out what sort of references you need. Peridon (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannondale1, I have restored the BLP Prod tag as the source you provided is not verifiable and cannot be used as a reliable source. Note that the article will remain in article space for 10 days, which should be plenty of time for you to add sources that meet our sourcing criteria. Until the sources are in place however, please refrain from removing the Proposed Deletion tag. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are still removing the PROD template without including reliable sources, please stop doing so immediately. You can continue to work on the article with the template in place, and remove it once the article has sources. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this a final warning - if you remove the BLP Prod tag again without addressing the sourcing issue, I will request that your account be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to David McCaig has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to David McCaig constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Peridon, Ponyo and Wayne Olajuwon, the Rothmans Football Yearbook is a perfectly reliable source, so Cannondale1's attempts to cite it in the article are about as far from vandalism as you can get. You are the disruptive editors here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, despite multiple messages and requests here, Cannondale chose to simply continue to edit war to remove the BLP PROD tag. Repeatedly reverting to a preferred version without discussion despite multiple editors leaving multiple messages is disruptive. If an editor is not capable of communicating, how can any consensus or compromise be reached? Cannondale1 could simply have replied to a single message left by any of us here, or at the article talk page and clarity could have been reached. Unfortunately they chose simply to revert over and over and over again. If by some wild stretch of the imagination you can construe my original message here as disruptive, then please feel free to report my actions at WP:ANI or another venue of your choice. I did some checking in google books and was trying to find a reference to add, was on my way here to help this new editor with referencing when I saw your message. So, please take your assumptions of bad faith elsewhere. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannondale didn't edit war, but added a reference to the Rothmans Football Yearbook, which is a perfectly reliable source. OK, the citation wasn't formatted perfectly, but surely it's the job of experienced editors to help with formatting rather than to dismiss the addition of references as vandalism?Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to point me to where I called the edits vandalism? I didn't. The very first line of WP:3R states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion". Each and every editor you have called out here for being "disruptive" attempted to discuss the referencing issue with Cannondale1, only to be reverted repeatedly without discussion. That is edit warring. You can have whatever opinion you would like regarding how much additional help or discussion you personally believe should or could have taken place, but it is just that, an opinion. I notice while lashing out at those who tried to help, you haven't yourself tried to help the editor in question with the referencing. So, what exactly are you looking for here? Did you post this just to tsk tsk your fellow editors? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also Phil Bridger's talk page for another part of this discussion. Peridon (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to David McCaig, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]