User talk:JacintaOBrien

March 2020
Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Melbourne Celtic Club. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Hi - I've no idea if it's true or not, but over 90% of the content you reverted back in was unsourced, and there was no secondary sourcing at all. Given its obviously controversial nature, it must not be reverted back in '' Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The content is meticulously documented with reference to the publicly available material of the Club. Just because the people who are running the Club into the ground want to shut down all other input doesn't make it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacintaOBrien (talk • contribs)
 * As I noted above, large amounts of the content didn't have inline sourcing to any source, and Wikipedia places a firm priority on reliable secondary sources. My reversion of the content didn't have anything to do with the club's actions (or lack - I've no idea what they do in terms of shutting coverage down). If suitable sourcing isn't available it doesn't mean a waiver to switch to other sourcing, with content as controversial as this, it usually means it doesn't warrant inclusion. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)