User talk:Sir Francis Drake (not really!)

Welcome!

Hello, Sir Francis Drake (not really!), 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! Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hill, Back, Dallaglio

The article Hill, Back, Dallaglio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, POV and OR article. No independent verification that this is a notable group of people.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dancarney (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd. If you knew anything about the subject you would know what it was about. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

Please read WP:NPOV. Describing a game as "stunning" does not adhere to the strict policy of maintaining a neutral perspective. Regards, Nouse4aname (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neutral description because it's accurate. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's your opinion. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. The facts indicate otherwise. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Hill, Back, Dallaglio. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. noq (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hill, Back, Dallaglio. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You claim it is not original research and say that it is sourced by you. That is contradictory and you have failed to give a valid reason for removing the maintenance tags. noq (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research. It is also quite true. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not original research then you need to show this by citing reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It might help if you have a read of the Wikipedia policies on original research and reliable sources to see how to address this. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly not original research. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Hill, Back, Dallaglio

An editor has nominated Hill, Back, Dallaglio, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill, Back, Dallaglio and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Clearly you are taking this more personally than it is intended. My nomination of your article is entirely in good faith. I believe you have been given ample time to provide sources to establish notability for the article. You have failed to do so, and it is my opinion that the subject matter fails the general notability guideline. If the subject is worthy of an article, then it will remain. Feel free to improve the article whilst the AfD is in progress. As for the 1999 World Cup article. I have explained why the word "stunning" is inappropriate. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:PEA. As for Jimmy Stafford and Scott Underwood, these are not "back door deletions", but are being redirected according to the notability guideline at WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you knew something about rugby you would have grounds to say anything on the subject. I presume you know bugger all about music as well. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know plenty about both subjects thanks. However, I do not let that cloud my judgement regarding what makes an appropriate article for the encyclopedia. There are notability guidelines for a reason. Unfortunately, some people seem unable to accept that their favourite band/song/person etc just isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. Like I said, if you can reliably source your article then such that it meets WP:GNG then it will remain... Nouse4aname (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do know about that, why do you demonstrate your profound ignorance of rugby and Wikipedia policies. You are a vandal; someone who needlessly takes pleasure from destroying someone else's legitimate work. You may be in denial about this, or you may be a liar. Since it is plain to see, I think it may be the latter. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a good read of WP:CIVIL before continuing to make any further accusations. As for being a vandal, clearly you do not understand the meaning of the word. Just because you think your article is notable, does not make it so. I have directed you to the various policies and guidelines regarding notability. Instead of actually attempting to improve your article and reliably source it, you seem more intent on accusing others of destroying your work. I take no pleasure in destroying anyone's work. There is plenty of information regarding how to write an article, how to source an article and what is actually worthy of an article. If people cannot be bothered to read and understand these instructions then I cannot be held responsible. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions speak louder than your words of protestation. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should allow your actions to speak louder than your needless accusations. No one has a personal vendetta against you. Establish notability for the article by adding reliable sources and it will remain. If you are unable to do so, then there is little I can do. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit summary you accused another editor of vandalism. Please don't use that word unless there is a real cause for it. Favonian (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip Favonian. In this case, I'm sure any reasonable neutral observer would agree that it clearly was vandalism. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC

As per WP:MUSIC, redirecting an article that fails to meet the notability guidelines is an entirely valid course of action. Try taking a read of it: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song" Nouse4aname (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again, this is your opinion masquerading as fact. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the opinion of the wikipedia community. It is called consensus. Now, take a read of WP:CIVIL before engaging in any more discussions. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. More lies. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, quit wasting time having a go at me and find some sources for your article. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1999 RWC

See here Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#1999_Rugby_World_Cup. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2001/02 Zurich Premiership

Please do not create names with non standard names. The convention used in Wikipedia is for date ranges to be seperated by an ndash (–) not by a slash. I moved the above article to the correct naming convention. Please put your edits on the standardly named article instead of just overwriting the redirect. noq (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comment on my talk page. I do have better things to do and I would prefer to be doing those rather than arguing with you. Looking at your interaction with other editors I think you should calm down and read the relevant policies and guidelines. The links given at the top of this page are a good start. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and has standards to make things easier for everyone. You seem to be determined to ignore those standards and accuse anyone who tries to point them out to you of vandalism. This is really not helpful and if you continue being antagonistic to other editors then you may well find yourself blocked from editing. noq (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sir Francis Drake (not really!). You have new messages at Noq's talk page.
Message added 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

noq (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and such

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meh. They do bad things to me. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a perfectly civil -- yet accurate -- comment on the contributors. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hill, Back, Dallaglio

A tag has been placed on Hill, Back, Dallaglio, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. noq (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Hill, Back, Dallaglio, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted articles and accusations of vandalism

Please stop - as has been explained to you, Wikipedia is not just for any article and the Hill, Back, Dallaglio article was deleted after following the proper process - just because you disagree with that decision just not make it vandalism. If you disagree with the outcome you can take it to [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]. You cannot just ignore the consensus and call it vandalism. noq (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point: There is no consensus. If you just read the article in stead of voting cos a small group of editors who know nothing about rugby or Wikipedia say you would agree. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you had listened to the points other editors made instead of blinding insisting you are right and everyone else is either clueless or a vandal then you might have been able to save the article. As was pointed out repeatedly before the article was taken to a deletion debate, you need to show WP:notability of the article with WP:reliable sources. Instead of looking to improve the article when it was tagged as missing these, you merely removed the tags - in one case claiming the source was you - this would violate WP:OR. Now, if you keep on being disruptive you will end up being blocked from editing. noq (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right. Unfortunately the article did say why it was important, and this was ignored by the herd mentality. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

If you recreate an article that has been deleted via WP:AFD again, you will be blocked. As noted before, you need to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you disagree with the consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, Look again: there is no consensus. Only people following the crowd. That is not consensus. It is being a sheep. Don't be a sheep. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make a personal attack against me or anyone else will also result in a block. The AfD was properly closed as a 'delete'. Period. Take it to deletion review if you disagree. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

baaa. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, angry sheep. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mmm.... mint sauce... Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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).

Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason given for the block, "Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule: flew too close to the sun" is plainly false. I have not violated the 3 revert rule, and I have not engaged in edit warring. These are plainly false accusations. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The block reason was "disruptive editing." You repeatedly recreated an article that was deleted per WP:AFD despite several warnings to stop doing that, then continued to make personal attacks after being warned not to do that. You probably should be blocked indefinitely, if you're just here to fight with people and throw around insults. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should be desysopped for abuse of your admin responsibilities. Unilateral action is disgraceful. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not achieved at WP:VFD, btw, naaa. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So far has unilaterally banned me for the following:

48 hours
55 hours
1 month

This is clearly a vendetta against me because I insulted his ego.

I also note he has been banned in the past. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is after deleting a perfectly good article for no good reason. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was that it was a recreation of an article that was deleted via AfD. If you had just taken it to deletion review, and didn't keep removing the CSD tag, you would not have been blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that doesn't explain why one admin decided to take what amounts to excessive cruel and unusual punishment. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly cruel and unusual punishment, a lots of Admins would have gone straight for indefinite. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what purpose would that serve? Take a chill pill man. What am I going to do, write an article? That's what it says you're supposed to do! Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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).

Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. * It is no longer necessary because I: ** understand what I have been blocked for (creating a valid article) ** will not cause damage or disruption (which I have never done) ** will make useful contributions (which is all I have ever done) Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Trolling unblock requests are never granted. Block is upped to an indef. Talk page access revoked. All future unblock requests may be e-mailed to: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Smashville^talk 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nomination for deletion of Template:2001/02 Zurich Premiership Table

Template:2001/02 Zurich Premiership Table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. noq (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2000/01 Zurich Premiership Table

Template:2000/01 Zurich Premiership Table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. noq (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]