User talk:Snaz01

By sports on Sport in Australia
Hi. I removed the by sports sections on Sport in Australia. There was an RfC on the article that said this was not the way to have the article. The article is about Sport in Australia, not about the individual sport. --LauraHale (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi I'm not sure why you removed the recent things I added to the article, nothing has been taken away. Yes article is about (Sport in Australia) and the way it was before it made it difficult to find out what sports are played in Australia by having to sift through the hole article looking in different places. Also there is information I have added that doesn't belong in the (History of sport in Australia) section. Also nearly every other country has this format, I'm not saying just because they do it it's right but when nearly every other country has it that way it's a fair indication. Like I said nothing has been taken away from the article it has just been added to. I'm looking forward to hearing from you, thanks.Snaz01 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've forked your content to Popular sports in Australia.  The method you did was rejected repeatedly before.  If a person wants to to learn about individual sports in Australia, they can read say Soccer in Australia.  Popular is non-neutral.  Please comment on the talk page before readding the removed content.--LauraHale (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

How is popular non- neutral that doesn't make sense, I've talked about every sport that deserves to be mentioned that's neutral. Like I said nothing has been taken away from the article, and there is information I have added that doesn't belong in the (Sport in Australia) section how do you plan on solving that problem? I don't know what happened before but that fact nearly every other country has that format would indicate it's the right way to have have article.Snaz01 (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine, thanksSnaz01 (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rugby league, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Rugby league
You broke the reference, so I undid your edit. Please check your work with the "Show preview" button before saving. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For the same reason, I undid your edit today. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

At the same time as the initial edit, this was added the AFL article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_rules_football&diff=prev&oldid=579573838 This IP also made this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rugby_league&diff=prev&oldid=579573415 In short, not good faith edits, but a non-NPOV agenda.

Last good faith warning
You insist on removing referenced content even after having been told several times now that you should not do so.

When doing so, you claim it is "unsourced" or "untrue and not verifiable". This is not correct, as there is a perfectly acceptable source used as a reference. If you feel so strongly about this issue, instead of simply removing the referenced text, the way to go about it is to raise the issue on the article talk page and reach consensus among other users for removing it or otherwise modifying it.

Please consider this the last good faith warning. You are basically edit-warring, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked temporarily, or even permanently, if it is decided that your editing constitutes vandalism. --Technopat (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Rugby league
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rugby league, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Keith D (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)