Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fernando Torres, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Josh McEachran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ashley Young, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Andy Carroll. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Jamaal Lascelles, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Cohen. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
The reason you were blocked is because you continued to add the table against consensus, without engaging in a discussion when requested. It doesn't have to be "vandalism" per se, but it is disruptive. If you feel that the block is unwarranted, you can challenge it by adding {{unblock|with your reason here}} to your talk page. ...discospinstertalk23:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Brian Little (footballer). When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wavehunter (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Fernando Torres without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please STOP removing the runner-up honours in players' articles (and i should tell since you don't seem to know, a third-place in the FIFA Confederations Cup or FIFA World Cup or Copa América IS an honour).
I see you have also been asked not to add (1) or (2) to the honours since it's so evident, but you continue...
I am sorry if my message came across as aggressive or "bossy", but can we reach a compromise on the matter? Please? Thanks --AL (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Govvy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ledley King without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Please don't remove runner up medals as you did to Ledley King. Govvy (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Steve Bruce, 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.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to John Wark does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!
Please listen.
You have every right to prefer a different format for the honours section used in any article. What you shouldn't be doing is making changes, particularly when removing content from featured articles like John Wark, which have been through a detailed community assessment of content and layout, without using the edit summary to outline what you're doing.
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Chris Cohen without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's definite benefit in including the divisions; it allows readers to place the statistics in a more complete context, especially those who are unfamiliar with the subject. I don't see what benefit is derived from removing them. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 1968–69 Coppa Italia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Tentinator11:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Guy Moussi, 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Add92. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Danny Collins without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Add92 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On career stats tables: please don't forget we're doing these for the benefit of the reader. Changing the national cup column heading to just "Cup" from "FA Cup" or "National Cup" isn't helpful to the reader, nor is removing the as-of date. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And nor is removing the sources used to cite the table, as you did at Sammir, though I'll assume that was a mistake...
Incidentally, I've put the League division column back into Henri Lansbury's career stats table. It's been there since 2010, so it probably belongs. I sympathise with your wish to standardise tables, but it'd probably help the encyclopedia and its readers if you tried standardising them by including information helpful to the reader rather than removing it. Just a thought..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second Stuway's comments about the tables. **Please** can you try your best to keep them consistent with tables used by the majority of editors and for the majority of clubs. We already have enough issues as soon as someone plays for Leeds with the dates getting re-ordered. The thing you need least of all in this sort of situation is for a player to move clubs, get "re-done" in the club style and then move clubs again - guess what, stuff gets missed out or mixed up and the data ends up being even more incomplete than it usually is. Seriously - you don't want a style for each club - it's a disaster waiting to happen. I'll reset them on Lansbury's page - I'd expect you'd want to talk to both myself and Stuway before you change them back again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your edit summary earlier: because I happen to have Lansbury on my watchlist. FYI. I did consider chasing up others via your contribs but, frankly, it was time to cook dinner. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you doing similar strange formatting at Sam Hutchinson - please do not introduce such formatting to tables. If you continue to edit war and edit disruptively you will be blocked. GiantSnowman17:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating 3RR at Henri Lansbury, and general disruptive editing elsewhere. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason= ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
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).
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.
Redlinks are not an issue, just because an article doesn't yet exist there is no reason not to link to something that will potentially be created in the future. There is nothing in the MOS about avoiding them.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being awakward about this matter. You've already been blocked for editing against consensus and refusing to discuss your edits other than to say you want your own way. Since returning from your block, you've now removed the division column twice at Henri Lansbury. That content had been stable in that table for three years until you began removing it before your block, and the discussion at the talk page, in which you have not participated, supports its inclusion. At Matt Derbyshire, I retained your format, but tagged the section as unsourced (it IS unsourced) and accurately added (loan) to the player's first season at Olympiacos; your format includes bracketed loan where appropriate, yet you reverted for the sake of it.
Please stop being disruptive. Removing information from tables doesn't benefit the reader, and removing sources damages the encyclopedia.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring and editing against consensus. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Joshua, please listen to me - if you return to your disruptive editing once your block has expired then you will be re-blocked immedaitely, without further warning, and for an indefinite period of time. GiantSnowman11:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unblock|2=reason=i want to know why all my edits are being reverted when nothing is wrong with them it is not exactly extreme vandalism even the career stat boxes i added on david morgan and ismael miller were removed for no reason at all all i want to do is make all forest players career stats tables the same and why do you just want henri lansburys stat box like that so itis different to all the others why dont you look around for people onhere who are actually vandalising the website ~~~~}}
GiantSnowman when will my account block end i think i have learnt my lesson i just want to edit on here and it is really annoying not being able to i apologize forall of my actions on here we all just want the same thing to edit on here and keep thing upto date and not all of my edits have been disruptive i have done a lot of good on the forest players please reply to me so we can discuss this
Bladeboy1889 (talk has changed lots of links in forest stats tables to ones that do not exist i think this makes it look supid and horrible with red links what is the point when atlest if you have a link to the season you have some information insted of none at all. Also he has removed the numbers that are next to the honours all i ahve done is copy the style of teams such as man utd, chelsea liverpool a they all have numbers next to the honours as most teams do
Joshua - I've no desire to annoy you or get into edit wars over articles. You've obviously spent a lot of time trying to develop the Forest articles and have done plenty of good work which should be applauded. In terms of the two issues you've highlighted: The general consensus is that player stats tables should link to the relevant club season articles. Obviously not all of them will exist but if they would count as notable then we should link to them anyway. Just because an article doesn't exist today that doesn't mean that someone won't create it tomorrow. Redlinks are not an issue, the idea is that hopefully finding one will encourage an editor to create the relevant article. As for the honours numeral - the last consensus at WP:FOOTY was that they are irrelevant unless signifying a significant number (eg 5 or more) and therefore should be removed. People can count to one and don't need a number to help them. There are plenty of articles still including them as editors often copy existing formats rather than seeking out consensus or MOS. You've run into problems because you've insisted on reverting edits and making changes without referring to MOS, providing reasons, or being prepared to enter into any discussion. If you try to work more collaboratively you'll find Wikipedia much less stressful. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to GiantSnowman, Mattythewhite, AL you are still accusing me of creating other accounts and evading my block i can honestly say i have not done anything like that will you all just stop accusing me of these things AL accused me of editing oriol romeu a few weeks ago and i told him it certainly was not me and he gave me an apology wich was very decent of him i just want to assure you that i am not vandalising anything on here
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fernando Torres, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Kieron Freeman, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as seen in Lewis McGugan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Guy Moussi, 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Jamaal Lascelles, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sam Hutchinson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Final warning - if you continue to disruptively edit statistics tables against consensus then you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
