User talk:Igetwet

Matty Hackett
This article was a non-notable biography according to the criteria set out in WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 21:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

February 2014
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wanderlust (Sophie Ellis-Bextor album), 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.  Snap Snap  22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Wanderlust (Sophie Ellis-Bextor album), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Snap Snap  05:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Wanderlust (Sophie Ellis-Bextor album). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Snap Snap  16:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Wanderlust (Sophie Ellis-Bextor album), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

First of all, you know absolutely nothing about my personal life. Secondly, accusing me of "threatening" you does not change the fact that you're insistently adding unsourced information to Wanderlust (Sophie Ellis-Bextor album) (see WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY). So unless you're start complying with Wikipedia guidelines, you're the one who will end up getting reported and possibly blocked.  Snap Snap  20:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You should add content to to TALK page, not the USER page, as you did at MartinEvans 123. If you do that again you might get blockeed, because it will be considered vandalism, and you don't want that, now do you. Hafspajen (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. Unsupported as in... you provided no sources. What is it exactly that I "do best" as you put it (... so that I can stay doing it)? If you'd like me to "make some phone calls and make some enquiries regarding this" you'd have to give me some telephone numbers, presumably of very important radio executives. Except such action is considered as WP:Original Research at Wikipedia and is thus not allowed. Yes, I'm pretty much "unknown in the music industry", and so I don't have a personal point of view to push in Wikipedia articles - see WP:POV. But I expect that you are very well known. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Your recent editing history at Sophie Ellis-Bextor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Sophie Ellis-Bextor. DVdm (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for persistent disruptive editing, including edit warring and adding unsourced statements to articles. The unsubstantiated claim of someone who chooses to create a Wikipedia account that he or she knows is not a reliable source. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Wanderlust (Sophie Ellis-Bextor album). While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I work on the tour and was obviously present when Sophie announced her new single and its release date. There is nothing more sourced as the horses mouth and the album went silver last week, something else Sophie announced. Idle threats of barring an industry executive for posting facts are exactly why this dump of a webpage is so unreliable. You obviously prefer crap from sad fans with nothing better to do. The moment you or anybody else adds the new single information, be it next week or next month, it is being removed.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Wanderlust (Sophie Ellis-Bextor album). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your behaviour on Wikipedia
I am raising your libellous comments to Philip Cross and myself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#threats_by_another_editor- - Alarics (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already raised my concerns with them. I have been contacted by them confirming their investigation in to your history of editing. Your wikipedia profile has also been handed to Detective Superintendent MacDonald at Scotland Yard who is in charge of the VIP Paedophile Ring investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igetwet (talk • contribs)


 * What do you mean by "them"? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. 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 below this notice:. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. -- GB fan 12:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)