User talk:Mattc123

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)

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 Please do not cite the website in articles, as you did with Reece Beckles and 2015–16 Woking F.C. season.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)

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

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 Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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. 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&#160;(talk) 10:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.

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 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&#160;(talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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:. GiantSnowman 08:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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