User talk:Mattc123

Mattc123, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mattc123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello, and thank you for trying to keep football-related pages up to date. When you add the source for your information, please remember a couple of things. First, the source must be what Wikipedia calls "reliable": that means mainstream news sources, books, newspapers, club websites or official club twitter feed, and not fansites, blogs, gossip sites like CaughtOffside or HereIsTheCity, or other social media. See WP:Reliable sources. Second, it must verify what you add. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Biographies of living persons.

For instance, in this edit, you cited a journalist's tweet that didn't mention anything about the player's spell being impressive, or how many goals he scored. You'd do better looking for something that reported what Mr Hill actually said. And in this edit, you cited an Instagram page that doesn't seem to exist. If you want to write about why Peterborough didn't extend the player's loan, you need to find a report of what they said, and social media isn't the place to look. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Cameron Norman. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt

Since most of its content is user generated, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Please do not cite the website in articles, as you did with Reece Beckles and 2015–16 Woking F.C. season. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naismith

I think you must have not noticed an edit conflict and accidentally reverted me. ([1]) I'll remake the changes, but please be careful next time. --Dweller (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kelechi Iheanacho, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. What was this edit about, removing a previous edits to insert factually incorrect matchtime and round? Qed237 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hubert Adamczyk for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hubert Adamczyk is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert Adamczyk until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Qed237 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Marcus Rashford. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeated addition of unsourced content, despite a final warning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Giant Snowman 08:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm Egghead06. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Adam Newton, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at 2016–17 Woking F.C. season. Clubjustin (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2015–16 Vitesse season. As has already been explained to you, Transfermarkt is a user-generated source, meaning it is not reliable and should not be cited in articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woking season articles

Hello Matt. Please do not recreate the Woking season articles. There was a community discussion in which it was unanimously decided that they should be deleted. General consensus is that we should only have season articles for clubs in fully-professional leagues (e.g. League Two and above). Thanks, Number 5 7 13:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Gareth Seddon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Addition of unsourced content. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Mattc123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Mattythewhite, can you please clarify the 'disruptive editing' I have done?

Decline reason:

Based on the warnings you have received, it was the addition of unsourced information. PhilKnight (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2016 (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.

Mattythewhite may want to look again; if the supposedly unsourced edit was this one, then the information in the table is backed up by the external links given in the article. It would be possible to turn them into references; is not doing so sufficient cause for a week-long block? I rather don't think so. Am I missing something? Huon (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links are not sufficient as citations, as per WP:ELPOINTS. How are we to assume our readers will know the career statistics table is cited by one or both of the external links? And I went for one week as the user has previously been blocked for 48 hours for the same reason. But I'd be happy for another admin to take another look at the length of the block. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite, so the next time Mattc123 should remove the "external links" section heading, thereby turning the previously-external links into a part of the "references" section (inline citations are not strictly required, though of course they would be nice to have), and all will be okay? Is that what you suggest they should do differently? I'd also like to point out WP:NOTVANDAL; while Mattc123 should indeed have clarified what his sources were, I really don't think you can argue it's vandalism to not remove a section heading as part of an otherwise-valid edit. Huon (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They ought to be cited inline, like here or here. In any case, how do we know Mattc123 was accessing his data from the external links? He may have been going off another source that's not included in the article, or using his own knowledge. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, inline citations are not strictly required. I don't know where Mattc123 got the information, but I checked the information against that supplied by those websites, and voila, it turned out to be backed up by those websites. Huon (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that Mattc123 has been avoiding his block using Mattc20000 (talk · contribs). I have indefinitely blocked this account. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Mattc123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Mattythewhite, could you please clarify which articles I 'vandalized'? Because when you use the term 'vandalize', it seems that your interpreting that I have ruined or given false information, which in this case I have not. On the career statistics I have edited e.g. Lee Sawyer, there is an external link of the Soccerbase page (http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=46517), which displays the exact career statistics given on the article I edited.

On a side note, don't you think a ten-day ban is a bit lengthy, considering I have really done little wrong? Mattc123 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've extended this block to indefinite for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:36, 24 June 2016 (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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mattc123. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]