User talk:Anonymoususertd2008

March 2020

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Eusébio, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Andrew Robertson, 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) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are ridiculous If you think I didnt edit without a scource Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to David de Gea, you may be blocked from editing. Serols (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Manchester United F.C.. Serols (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This website is absolutely ridiculous. You have Banned me for no apparent reason and you refuse to let me do anything. Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. You are not banned, but temporarily blocked. This was done to protect the encyclopedia, and to hive you time to read our policies. Opinions and insults (such as this edit), are not welcome. If you want to contributre to the project, start by reading the help pages. If you persist in vandalizing the project, you will be blocked indefinitely. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, please ask at the Tea House. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right so I have been temporarily blocked for nothing then. And you have the dignity to call me insulting Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Amad Diallo, you may be blocked from editing. Diallo is expected to transfer, the deal has not been completed yet according to reliable sources Joseph2302 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Joseph. Reliable sources such as transfermarkt and Sofascore and the Manchester United website have confirmed this fact. I am sorry that I have tried to undermine your 'reliable' sources and make any apologies needed for this edit. I will try and confirm on MORE reliable websites next time. Yours Truely Anonymoususertd2008 Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source- see (WP:TRANSFERMARKT), and I've never heard of Sofascore before. But sources such as Soccerway, which is a reliable source, list him as Atalanta, and there are no news sources confirming that he has move to Manchester Utd. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So statistically the best website in the world, A football app based on players and the club website is against it but you stick to your soccer way which is also proven to not be used as fact but a general Idea. I'm so sorry for quoting 3 major organisations and I'll quote wikipedia itself on his page "signs for Manchester United in January 2021". But obviously your right and I'm wrong. Yours truely Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also side note you said sources and have only provided 1 source so please could you provide another Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Football related edits

Just message on here to message me about football edits or questions or even suggestions Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Jesé, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Mattythewhite, I had checked all availible websites and the official social media page of Las Palmas which also said that Jesé had joined the club Sorry for any chaos I caused in the edit and due to the amount of messages I have received about being poorly scourced by checking the clubs website, I will make sure it never happens again

Thank you, Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Chelsea F.C.. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox timestamps

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.

You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucas Omar Rodríguez Pagano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Club Atlético Unión. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mussa Tsalikov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ordzhonikidze.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posting unsourced death hoaxes after final warning

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:46, 14 April 2021 (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).

Anonymoususertd2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no death hoaxes posted after final warning Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's a mystery to me why you haven't been blocked indefinitely. Anyway, you don't seem to be denying that you posted a death hoax so the block is valid. You haven't said that if unblocked you would edit constructively, so I'm not going to unblock you. PhilKnight (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2021 (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.

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).

Anonymoususertd2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I categorically deny that I have posted any death hoax of any kind and will edit constructively. I have also reviewed my previous reply in Febuary of this year and have not found any mention of an "unsourced death hoax" of any kind. Thank you for replying so quickly and although I'm disappointed with the first outcome for obvious reasons I do hope you will review again with the new implementation. Thank you in advance. Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This edit is an example of an unsourced death hoax. As you clearly are just trolling, I have extended your block indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2021 (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.

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).

Anonymoususertd2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To Yamla This is not a troll and I would quite like to be unlocked I dont see what I have done wrong and indefinitely blocking me was , in my opinion, a step too far

This has spiraled into chaos through me and [mattythewhite] having a conversation back in Febuary of this year.

I have looked through the text in question and have seen no sight of a death hoax

The quoted text refers to me trying not to stir any chaos as I had been blocked before for supposed vandalism.

Hope this message finds you or any others involved in the appealing process and I hope to hear from you soon

Just another reminder that this is no troll or joke to me Anonymoususertd2008 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not sure if you lack the maturity and skills needed to participate here or are just trolling us, but since you deny making a death hoax when you clearly did, and potentially caused harm to the person, Wikipedia is better off with you blocked. I am declining your request and removing talk page access to prevent more time wasting for all. If you choose to approach this matter differently, you may use WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2021 (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.