"

 History of Liverpool F.C. 

Hi, I have reverted your latest edit because it appears to be a verbatim quotation from someone else's work, and therefore, if not a breach of copyright, plagiarism. We cannot do this, for legal reasons. May I invite you to rewrite it in your own words, adding a citation to your source? That would fix the problem. Thanks. andemu 
Editors have moved further information to the History article to make sure that we present a coherent and concise description of LFC as a whole. We should have only the most relevant and important info in the main article. E.g. That the City of Liverpool has made a World Cup bid is verging on off topic, especially when LFC's involvement is only with the use of its stadium. The rail station info has nothing to do with LFC in the slightest.
Liverpool's split from Everton was already mentioned, and described in detail in the article about Liverpool FC's history. What facts exactly am I supposed to be ""getting over""?   
Also, I do not like being described as a vandal. Especially when that's clearly not how I've been acting. It's quite insulting. Please read here for a description of what a ""vandal"" is.   
Agreed. Removal of unsourced information, particularly if it may be a breach of WP:COPYRIGHT is not vandalism and saying that it is breaches our policy on personal attacks. Please don't add it back without citing its source, and certainly not without rewriting in your own words in a narrative style, because I'm afraid if you do, you will be blocked from editing here. Furthermore, references to Hitler are equally likely to get you blocked. Please take some time getting used to our policies before going much further. Thanks. andemu 
Abstract
OK, well we now have a citation- thanks- but merely quoting from an abstract isn't quite there yet. What we need to say is something like ""In a study by Leeds University researchers X and Y, it was stated that .. "", although if different researchers have come to different conclusions or present different facts, this should also be mentioned (with sourcing) for balance. andemu 
Believe it or not, we are trying to help you here, but I've had to remove this university study again- the citation you gave just did not support the content you added, and therefore, your edit failed verifiability policy. You need to take points from a full, published, version, not just an abstract. Even if it is your own work, it is original research and not permitted here. Any further disruption may lead to a block, but at least that would give you some time to read other articles to see how they are written, and sourced. andemu 

OK, I've rewritten it to cite the research. There is no need for there to be a section on the research; the article is about the club, not the research. Hopefully that shuold get us somewhere. UK  

 talkback 

UK  
===========

I really can't understand what world you are in. You discredit uni research. It is clear you have never been to one. I have done uni research. It is very intensive and no stone unturned. 

You appear to think it is about ""research"". The research article highlights the prime points of the split - no it wasn't rent at all.  It is about the split and how it came about an dhow LFC were formed.  I have the 28 page article and have read it, there is verifiable link to it.   I dragged out the prime points and put them in bold