User talk:Jancyclops

Welcome!

Hello, Jancyclops, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

First of all, I am fairly new to Wiki, so even though I have read a lot of the help pages I am well aware I might completely muck something up.

I only keep an eye on one Wiki page which is the Enfield Town FC page (I am the club webmaster). I want to stop the continual attacks the page gets from a person (I am assuming from the IP address that it is only one) who has a grudge against the club.

Because of the way Enfield Town FC was set up there are people who just don't like us. I don't mind if someone has a different opinion to me but this person keeps accusing us of hijacking the then existing Enfield Football Club. This is a personal opinion and is not verifiable. As it happens Enfield Town FC was a completely new club in 2001 and Enfield FC continued until 2007, so if we hijacked it in 2001 we didn't do a very good job!

This person says there can be no comparison between us and AFC Wimbledon and yet the chair of AFC Wimbledon called Enfield Town FC "an inspiration" in 2006 (which *is* verifiable, but the attacker keeps removing my reference). I can't ever revert to an earlier page using "Undo" because there are always too many amendments from the attacker but that isn't a problem because I can easily change the page manually.

The attacker has not cited a single reference in posting his/her opinion. I should point out that I have left in (although edited) comments about the Enfield Town FC support which were added during an earlier attack. These have the "citation needed" markers by them. As it happens I think those comments are true, but that is from my own unverifiable experience, hence the markers. The attacker could have put some pretty nasty things in about our support which I would also believe to be true but they would be unverifiable as well!

What I would like to do is to block any changes to the page from people who aren't registered. I don't want to stop other people posting to the page but at least if posters had to be registered there could be some discussion with the attacker (even if he/she didn't reply!) whereas right now I just have the same IP address appearing time after time and unverifiable personal opinions (with which I do not agree) appearing on the Wiki page. I don't want to block the page to amendments from people outside the club, I just want the content to be verifiable.

Jancyclops (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do is ask any admin for help. You can visit Requests for Page Protection or ask an admin directly on their talk page. You can find a list of sysops by going here then select administrators in the drop down menu. Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia! MacMed (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield Town FC

If you look at what has been written, it merely states the point of view of many fans in the Enfield area as to the motivation of those who set up ETFC and at no time does it claim this to be "fact". This is something that should be mentioned and recorded when the origins of the club are published anywhere.

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.

Whilst it is true that the formation of ETFC proved that something of the sort was possible, the fact that AFC Wimbledon's fans experienced a substantial drop in the level of football that they were watching and their main motivation for the setting up of the new club is the reason why there is no comparison between the actions of the ETFC fans and those of AFC Wimbledon. They acted purely to stop franchising which, say what you like, was never the case with EFC/ETFC and therefore there is clearly a significant difference in the motivations of the two sets of fans.

However, it is a verifiable fact by way of public record that ETFC were successfully sued over the false & libellous allegations made on a website about Costas Sophacleous, the then Chairman of Leyton FC and this should be published as should the fact that there are still members of the Brimsdown Club who object to the presence of ETFC and believe - albeit misguidedly - that the tenancy should never have been agreed to.

These are NOT just "personal opinions", but are facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsback (talk • contribs) 07:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at what you have written these are not verifiable facts. What goes on Wiki is supposed to be verifiable fact and not POV. Your amendments are just points of view which you yourself admit. It is a verifiable fact that the people from AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester both described Enfield Town FC as "an inspiration". It is a fact, although I can't verify it by pointing to confirmation on the internet, that Wimbledon FC supporters who were at that point boycotting their club's matches followed Enfield Town for the first year to see if that was the right way to go. It is also a fact, again one which I can't show anywhere on the internet, that supporters of Chester City approached Enfield Town FC when they were having their major disagreement with the then Chairman, Terry Smith. Jancyclops (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} The Enfield Town F.C. page is still having unverifiable POV added to it by Ericsback. He still seems to think that what he considers to be "fact" should be left in, such as the claim that Enfield Town FC "hijacked" Enfield FC. It didn't. Enfield FC carried on going. I don't want to get into an edit war but I also do not want to have unverifiable POV quoted as fact on the Enfield Town FC Wiki page. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be aware that Wiki is only supposed to contain verifiable content! Jancyclops (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan. First you haven't written anything on the article's talk page raising your concerns, which is usually the first step when there is a content dispute over an article. Second you haven't broached a dialogue with the user you are in conflict with, which is usually the most basic second step. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before doing anything else. Note also the existence of the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and be aware of the burden of evidence when unsourced material is attempted to be readded. By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jancyclops

Reply to comment by Jancyclops. As it now seems that this dispute is in some way resolved I will put to you the reasons for my edits.

As a football lover who is resident of Enfield and regularly watches games at every level all over the country, I have a first hand knowledge of what's gone on at both clubs from the day that they left Southbury Road.

As someone who has supported only one club in my entire life - Brentford - it annoys me that whilst the breakaway fans who formed Enfield Town FC were courted by the local press as heros, those fans who remained loyal to the original club were seemingly ignored and their point of view was given virtually no coverage at all.

Having spoken to some of them at a recent function it was clear to me that they are still resentful in some way at the fact that ETFC's fans always seem to claim the moral highground and that they are treated almost like embarrassing relatives, i.e. no one ever talked about them or took them seriously, and I felt that their point of view should be published.

Many fans of football all over the country, whilst acknowledging the fact that the formation of Enfield Town FC proved a vital point - that fans matter and can make a difference - also feel that the reasons for the breakaway were in some ways at least, questionable, and that the reasons for the formations of AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester were therefore different and "more honourable".

Whenever I used the word(s) "hijack(ed)" I always used inverted commas so as to emphasise that this was an often used phrase with no further basis than that, even though at the time of the split team playing kit was taken from Enfield FC as was a PA system and the ownership of both was disputed.

You are happy it would seem, to ignore the fact that I created the section about your fans and that I could have gone a lot further with my comments as the behaviour of a large number of them is appalling at times so much so that I sadly, will no longer attend your games. Furthermore, you don't acknowledge the positive points I made about the unfounded fears of the Brimsdown members or the legacy that your tenancy will leave behind. These are also "points of view" but I see no objection from you or anyone else

It is a verifiable fact and a matter of public record that the club were sued by the Chairman of Leyton FC and that this was a significant event in it's history, but the fans, and it appears yourself, seem to think that if you all ignore it for long enough no one will ever ask about it and it will go away, so that you can effectively sweep it under the carpet.

However, this is Wikipedia, not Pravda and such things should be brought out into the open so that anyone using these pages for research can see the full picture.

I have no axe to grind with anyone, but have been accused of "vandalism" of the ETFC page, so I have to say that if ensuring that the truth is brought out into the open then I am an unashamed vandal. If you, or anyone else wants to contact me through wikipedia, then I am more than happy to speak to them because as I 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. Ericsback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsback (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jancyclops" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsback (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ericsback

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) 22:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jancyclops

The fact is that a prominent member of the group of fans who formed Enfield Town actually retrieved the PA system from the old ground - without the speakers - and said that it was "his property" whilst another person who is no longer involved with your club said that he owned the kit and took it. This kit was offered to 3 different sunday league teams in the Mercury Waltham League for a price of £75 a strip and all 3 turned it down. This is something I know to be true - although I accept that I can't prove it - and are the reasons for certain people using the innapropriate "hijack(ed)" term.

Also, It brings a smile to my face that the original strip purchased on the clubs formation is still in use, now that's what I call value for money, this could only happen in non-league.

You will, if you look at it closely, see that at no time did I say that your club took the kit, just that the ownership was disputed, but this is really a side issue.

Before you accuse me of "spreading round rumour and points of view" you should look to address the fact that it was me who made the positive points about your tenancy of the Brimsdown Club which is my "point of view" but as it's a positive one, in your club's favour, you have no objection to it which shows that you are perfectly happy with some "points of view" but are not prepared to accept any that you disagree with.

You were, until my edits, quite happy to try to sweep under the carpet the VERIFIABLE FACT that your club were sued by the Chairman of Leyton FC so it seems that you are not just selective with "points of view" but that you are just as selective with facts as well.

Anyone who visits games at AFC Wimbledon or FC United - which I have at both clubs - will find that it is a verifiable fact that among a number of their supporters there is genuine opinion that their reasons for forming their own clubs were in many ways more honourable than yours, so this is not "pure speculation".

As I say, I have no axe to grind with anyone, but whilst I accept that you all felt you had perfectly valid reasons for taking the actions that you did, there were and still are, many out there who believe that if Enfield FC had enjoyed success on the field at Borehamwood it is highly unlikely that Enfield Town would have been formed. This was and still is an issue with many fans locally and needs to be addressed in any encyclopedic article, be it on Wikipedia or elsewhere.

What I have sought to do is air the views of a number of people who have an interest in the matter but who are normally ignored and I have done this without expressing my own personal opinion although, I do accept that in the early edits I could have tempered the tone of what I wrote somewhat, but as I say, I have no axe to grind with Enfield Town or anyone else for that matter as I am no more than an honest football loving person who just wants to see the truth spoken, and for those involved to acknowledge it rather than to try to ignore any facts that they are not comfortable with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsback (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)EricsbackEricsback (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Reply to Ericsback

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) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jancyclops

If this is "going round in circles" then it is only because you are being evasive and are refusing to acknowledge anything that you are not comfortable about facing up to.

If you are going to dispute what I have written then you really should read it all first and not just "cherry pick".

I always clearly stated in my edits regarding the setting up of the new club that there was another reason "cited by many". This wording shows clearly that it is peoples opinion and at no time did I try to pass it off as anything else. I am stating that it's a fact that certain people hold a certain opinion.

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.

Also, you have NEVER acknowledged that the fact that you tried to gloss over the VERIFIABLE FACT that your club were sued by the Chairman Of Leyton FC which was, whether you like it or not, a significant event in your club's history which you did well to recover from, and nor have you explained why you have no objection to the section added by myself about your supporters which includes my "personal point of view" about the legacy that your tenancy of Brimsdown will leave behind.

Like I say, your attitude appears to be, to paraphrase George Orwell, that "points of view are not verifiable, but some are more verifiable than others".

I repeat that I have no axe to grind with anyone, and have acknowledged the fact that my early edits could have been a little more responsible and less, shall we say bombastic, but you yourself seem to have a pretty large axe to grind with anything that you either don't agree with or would rather ignore, so 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. Ericsback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsback (talk • contribs) 07:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ericsback's message 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 this 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) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply To Jancyclops 9th June 2009

The fact remains that you will still not admit that had I not first posted that your club were sued, you nor anyone else connected with ETFC would not have mentioned it and would continue to pretend it never happened. As for points of view, I am still waiting for you to explain why you have no objection to my positive "point of view" regarding the legacy that your tenancy of Brimsdown has left. This it would appear is a "point of view" that you have no problem with as it shows your club in a positive light, so at the risk of repeating myself, your attitude is somewhat "Orwellian" when it comes to "points of view". You also have a problem it would seem in understanding plain English as the term "seemingly comandeered by members of Enfield Town FC" implies that the kit & PA was not taken by the Club itself, but by members of it acting on their own free will and I repeat that at no time did I imply in any way, shape or form that your club sanctioned or were in any way complicit in this. I hide behind nothing and nor am I economical with the truth, something which you are it seems, highly skilled at. The PA in question - minus speakers - was removed from Southbury Road prior to demolition by someone who claimed it to be his and probably rotted in his garage or shed or wherever he kept it as no one was ever going to buy it from him and as far as I know the kit went into landfill because the 3 Waltham league clubs it was offered to did not want anything to do with it. People logon to Wikipedia to find information on a given subject, not to read self congratulatory witterings of self promotion by you or anyone else and unfortunately, that is what the ETFC page mainly consists of. Although you have, albeit belatedly and somewhat grudgingly accepted that your club were sued you still seem to have a real problem in accepting anything that you don't agree with or are uncomfortable about facing up to. So to repeat myself once again, remember that this is Wikipedia and not Pravda and unless you are going to raise the same objection to every "point of view" that is posted then don't bother objecting at all. Ericsback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsback (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ericsback's message 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) 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jancyclops' message dated June 9th 2009

Your reaction tells me that you weren't going to include it. That along with the fact that you repeatedly removed any reference to it whilst leaving in the "points of view" regarding the tenancy of Brimsdown. You don't have to be Einstein to work that one out. Your most recent rant only serves to confirm how blinkered you are and the fact that you are not interested in facing up to the truth. Think about it, you still tinkered with the section regarding the objections of the Brimsdown members many of which were minuted at the time that your tenancy started. As I have pointed out to you, this is an encyclopedia and not the official publication of the politbureau and should be used to inform people not to pat yourself on the back and this remains a fact regardless of your constant reference to the "five pillars". You don't seem to take on board that when your club was first set up fierce passions were roused and lines were clearly drawn so as a result, strong opinions were expressed by people on both sides of the debate. It is therefore vital to any reporting of the club's history that the issues that people raised at the time are put clearly into perspective and that both sides are made clear in any encyclopedic article so that anyone researching the formation of the club can get the full picture of the dilemma that the fans found themselves in before deciding which way to jump. The fact that I am writing such things does not mean that I am "slagging off" ETFC nor does it mean that I have any axe to grind with anyone, but you seem extremely sensitive about anyone expressing anything that you disagree with. Could it be that your dilemma still exists? Only you can answer to that and I will not even try to guess. I am always receptive to genuine debate and discussion, but would suggest that if you reply to this message that you use a little more rationale and take a good look at what has been written before going off on one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsback (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ercsback's message 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) 15:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jancyclops

Interesting to see that you have now resorted to ranting and raving. What will it be next? Personal abuse no doubt, which would be consistent with the behaviour of some of the people that follow your club. I will continue to monitor the pages of wikipedia, yours and others and have no intention of complying with your "orders". Such arrogance does you no credit whatsoever. I am sure that as the "webmaster" of ETFC you do an excellent job, but this does not make you the Kommandant of Stalag luft 13 and you cannot dictate to me. As I said, the formation of your club split the fans more or less down the middle, and this is all that I have tried to show so that people who have no knowledge of your club can then see the full picture as to the dilemma that the fans were in at the time of the split. I have acknowledged that I could, and should have thought more about how I worded the earlier edits and have acknowledged that the "hijack" remark is not appropriate although it is often used, but you are very sensitive to any statement that you see as making you and your club's fans look anything less than as pure as the driven snow. So there it is, I shall continue to edit as I see fit no matter what you say and that's my final word on the matter. Ericsback (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ErcisbackEricsback (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go away please

I will no longer engage in any discussion with you as you are incapable of holding a rational discussion. I have responded directly to Jez and will direct all future queries through him. Ericsback (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go away please ?

Mr Wall, for a start you ask me if I am going to resort to personal abuse and yet you have been giving me that pretty much all along. Then 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 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. --Jancyclops (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I won't

Like I said to Jimbo. I am going nowhere, and your wittering will not make me. Ericsback (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Danny Francis (footballer), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Giant Snowman 15:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added in now. Jancyclops (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been quoted and the truth is now on the page. Eric spoke the truth throughout his edits, but made the error of editing specifically to annoy you - with no small amount of success - and it eventually became a slanging match. I will continue to edit this and other pages and quote sources in order to show up what you did was morally reprehensible and inexcuseable. Truly True 20 April 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]