User talk:Vlz.matthew

Welcome!

Hello, Vlz.matthew, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Radamel Falcao, 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Alex Morgan. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matthewishere0,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username DannyS712 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Naples United FC for deletion, because it seems to be an article that has been already decided by a consensus decision to be unsuitable for inclusion.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|DannyS712}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

DannyS712 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Two issues I saw with your recent edits to René Higuita: 1. Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Please remove the link. 2. What's up with that Google search you used as a reference in the "Personal life" section? Was that a copy-paste error? [Edit] I went ahead and removed the Transfermarkt link. Another thing: Wikipedia headings are in sentence case (see WP:TITLEFORMAT) so "External links" is correct, not "External Links". Robby.is.on (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: Sorry, I didn't know Transfermarkt wasn't a reliable source. Also, the google search wasn't an error, but it was the only source I could find about his children. However, I didn't put a lot of effort in putting work to find more sources, so there is definitely a better source you can find. I see that it is still up, you can remove it if you want. Thanks. Matthew is here zero (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've removed the info on his family as I've been unable to verify it. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: I found these sources talking about Higuita's relationship and children: [1] [2] [3]. You can consider adding them if you want. If not, then that's fine. Matthew is here zero (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at them. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matthewishere0,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username DannyS712 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Naples United FC for deletion, because it seems to be an article that has been already decided by a consensus decision to be unsuitable for inclusion.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|DannyS712}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: For a strange reason, when I tried to create the page, it was deleted, but when someone else created the page a few months later, it was accepted. Why? My rejected draft looked almost identical to the accepted draft, and some users claimed that the club "was unnotable". Matthew is here zero (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthewishere0. I pulled the nomination because it isn't ready for a promotion. The article has failed three times before and some of the issues raised in the reviews still haven't been addressed, namely the reliable sources. If you wish to nominate this article in the future, I'd advise you to get it WP:PR first. I know Wikipedia discourages ownership of editing but because it is an important entry with a lot of information it would benefit from one or two editors taking a proper look and then nominating it without disruption. Hopefully this doesn't discourage you from editing the article in future. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Estadi-Johan-Cruyff.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. Whpq (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello! I recently came across Talk:1968 European Cup Final/GA1, and would like to note that is not how the GA reviewing process works. Please give a read to WP:GAREV, which lays out exactly how GA reviews should be carried out. You should also carefully read Wikipedia:Good article criteria. GA reviewing usually benefits from significant existing content work, so that you understand how content should be created. Reviewing includes carefully checking sources, suggesting copyedits, ensuring formatting is correct, and dealing with images, among others. Before you work on reviewing some articles, might I suggest trying to create a good article? I see you quite like sports, taking on a sports article and improving it by finding sources and writing it up could be a good project. You could probably find a mentor at WP:WikiProject Sports if you were interested. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to User:Mattythewhite, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The move you did here failed to provide reasoning on why it was a helpful rename. In future, for moves likely to be controversial, open a requested move discussion. Please reply to this message so I know you have got it. — J947 ^[cont] 20:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: Just to let you know that Matthewishere0 can choose to ignore this message. It's not obligatory that he responds to you. JMHamo (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking he responds. — J947 ^[cont] 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JMHamo, Wikipedia:Communication is required, and the user has yet to reply to any of the numerous complaints raised recently. They certainly can choose not to reply, but that is an increasingly bad look. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I don't have to reply if I don't want to. And yes I have replied to the "complaints" that have been raised recently, I just left it on their talk page. Don't assume things buddy. Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: I requested the move because I see many articles where the club name is "Club Deportivo" have titles as CD and not Club. Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see that you did reply to SounderBruce, though not in a way I'd describe as particularly WP:CIVIL. Just as a heads up, more communication is generally better than less. Wikipedia is based around talking things out :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Yeah I realized it wasn't civil, was just ed up with something at the moment and being unprofessional and rude. My apologies Matthewishere0 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2009 U.S. Open Cup Final, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Do not remove valid citations used to cite prose even if they appear to have dead links. It only takes a bit of searching to find a suitable replacement. SounderBruce 20:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: You really think I didn't try to use the Wayback machine to see if there was an archived page for the dead link? I did and there were no saved pages with that URL. What is the point in keeping permanent dead links? There was a valid reason in removing it, my edit summary had "removed a ref" in it. Yes maybe I should've explained better, but that doesn't justify that just because one person makes a good edit without having an edit summary you have to revert it. There are many edits out there that aren't constructive and don't include any edit summaries Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yeovil Town F.C. you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Yeovil Town F.C. for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. SounderBruce 06:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Matthewishere0, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Football in Iraq have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The4lines: I can still say it wasn't copyright though because it had a verifiable source, although I could've worded it better. You know that. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew. The "ping" probably didn't work, see Help:Fixing_failed_pings for details. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: It says it worked. Matthewishere0 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you replied earlier today to a comment from over six months ago on the Wayne Rooney talk page. I would probably say there's no need to do that, since (as you pointed out) the guy's point was already addressed in the article. Also, you probably didn't need to be so passive aggressive about it. Cheers. – PeeJay 12:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: I think you're right, I didn't really look at the date to be honest with you. Thanks for letting me know Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you try something like this again your next block will be indefinite. The logged-out disruption needs to stop as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/30746 is now closed. Response carried over:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. "Check user blocks must not be reversed by non-checkusers." Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account. This is a tough one, 'cause it also has hints of a compromised account. As you still have access to your talk page, and as there is no private information associated with your appeal, please post your unblock request to your user talk page for administrator review. Place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Unblock Request

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

--Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 22:05, 5 June 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I apparently had a sockpuppetry block, which means I couldn't even go create a new account. The person doing the vandalism was not me. I left my computer at a friends house that day, and he decided it would be a good idea to vandalize wikipedia with a fake account he created and with my IP. He has a history of vandalism, and even told me he has been blocked before, although i dont know his username. Notice the timedifferences between when the vandalism was commited and when I logged into my account again. It caught me by surprise when I saw that I had been blocked. I think the one week block was a little harsh, considering that i am an autocomfirmed user that has made over 1,000 edits. That on a random day would decide to commit vandalism? Instead of saying "Here lets just block him for a week he knows what hes doing", you could've just given mewarnings so we could have talked it out. I hope you can appeal my block, or reduce it. Thanks Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We have no way to know who is sitting at your computer, only that inappropriate edits came from your IP. Perhaps this should be a lesson to you to better secure your computer from misuse by others. And yes, people with many edits do sometimes occasionally decide to go off the rails and vandalize. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2020 (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.

@331dot: Thanks for reviewing my block. It seems like you didn't take account of the circumstances of what happened, and it is more of a "lets just block him, hes pathetic". I have made valuable contributions and i guess you arent helping me get that right back. Thanks again Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are pathetic, I think you made a serious error in judgement and behavior. You are free to make another request, to be reviewed by someone else- though a Checkuser must consent to the removal of this block. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling, or incompetence, or extreme lack of maturity.

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this charming piece of idiocy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you were unblocked after posting to UTRS. I do see where I declined. Your block just expired. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 14:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Their block didn't just expire, it's indef. They were blocked at the end of May, appealed at UTRS, you denied it, they appealed here, that was denied, and the block expired. Then, 4 days later, I blocked them indef, they appealed here, and it was denied. Are you responding to a new UTRS appeal? You seem to be responding to something they didn't say on-wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the timeline I had. I was particularly responding to the nastigram they gave Ponyo." I got my talk page unblocked after I submitted a UTRS appeal." They were not unblocked as a result of their appeal on UTRS. Perhaps this goes to the CIR issue.But I have commented on the latest UTRS. I hate to lose a constructive editor, but I don't see a way back at this point. They just keep deepening the hole --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 14:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I forgot about Ponyo's page. Yes, I think they were claiming they were originally blocked from editing their talk page too, and this was restored after UTRS, but as you've seen there's no truth to that either. Anyway, I gather there is a current UTRS request. If anyone needs more info on the block, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Floquenbeam: Seriously? Just because you think I am an idiot? What does 21st century have to do with this? That just shows that you're ignorant. You should be blocked for blocking people for no reason. Nobody cares if you think I am an idiot or not, and you have a rep of personal attacks. This is the first time someone has called me an idiot, and I wasn't even blocked because someone thought I was an idiot. "Trolling"? Where? Incompetence? You are the one being incompetent by being ignorant. Lack of Maturity? You are by personally attacking me. I hope you actually listen to this request and not block my talk page because of your reputation of being ignorant. And you should've let Ponyo respond, instead of defending him, becuse he was the one that blocked me and you don't even know what happened.

Decline reason:

This is not a compliant unblock request. Please do not abuse the unblock template. You will lose your talk page access again. Tiderolls 19:33, 9 June 2020 (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.

@Tide rolls: I was perfectly compliant in my request. Did I personally attack anyone? No. You are hating by saying I was abusing the request. Please do not be ignorant and use logical fallacies. Matthewishere0 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you were a troll and an idiot and 10 years old. i just meant that you were at least one of those things. "The worst part is I was blocked by a girl" is prima facie evidence you're one of those 3 things - or a caveman, but this being the 21st century I ruled that out - and all 3 are timesinks for actual productive editors. You've wasted enough of other people's time. Please go play somewhere else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Wow, you were really hurt when I said "I was blocked by a girl". You calling me an idiot and mentioning 21st century. You're wasting my time by blocking and doing nothing helpful for the encyclopedia. You also have a massive reputation for poking at people and false blocking. This has nothing to do with a caveman either. Matthewishere0 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rich Smith was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Google Drive is not a reliable source

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:School Board of Highlands County and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:School Board of Highlands County, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 20:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is understandable that someone else could have used your computer. Unfortunately, once a user announces their account has been WP:COMPROMISED, it is difficult or impossible to know if the account is now under the control of the original account holder. In most instances, the account remains blocked. So I think you were the beneficiary of an unusual boon. And it's understandable to be angry after being blocked, but the snarling incivility is over the top. And the sexist remark just did not help you at all. Not sure what will happen next. It couldn't hurt to apologise for the outpouring of vitriol. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: - I know it's frustrating because the admin that blocked me personally attacked me so I responded with that. After I appealed to her, she didn't even respond. I've made many constructive edits and now I am permanently blocked which I thought would never happen. Matthewishere0 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, the blocking admin, is a "he". Like I said, an apology for all that incivil snarling could not hurt. Floq's concern is I believe, that you seem to have a problem with women. Repeated here in this thread? Hence the comparison with a troglodyte or an immature child. (Don't know about Ponyo, whom the "blocked by a woman comment" was directed at. Their gender will never be a factor in my life. But I think of Ponyo as a "he".) You will need to deal with the reasons for your block in a new request. An apology and indication of an understanding of why all that snarling was inappropriate is a good start. I can't get past the WP:COMPROMISED issue. Ponyo would have been justified in permanently blocking you for that. That your rant followed the expiration of your block casts everything in a bad light. You owe Ponyo an apology for lashing out over the block. There are people who make a hobby of hijacking Wikipedia accounts. The block could have been infinite, instead of for one week. I was recently trolled by one of those hobbyists, and can never know you are not that person playing games. Sorry, but I felt like a deeper level of explanation was warranted. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. What's this crack about Floq's reputation? He has my utmost respect. That comment in and of itself opens another can of worms. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, {{gender|Ponyo}} yields "she". I agree this block need not be infinite, but we're going to need some reason to believe the sexism and childishness will not resume. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: - I have no problem with women at all, and that doesn't justify that Floquenbeam reason for blocking me was a "charming piece of idiocy" when that is just someone's opinion. Let's stay on track here. I personally thought it was pretty funny when I made that comment and savage at the same time. Someone just took it too much to heart. They also mentioned my comment on being blocked by a girl by saying "did you really say that in the 21st century?", which I don't understand because the century does not fucking matter at all. They then proceed to call me a "10 year old" which makes zero sense because anyone at any age can make comments like that. This is why I believe the comment was a personal attack on me. I made my comment after they called me a "12 year old" and saying i was "whining".

You continue to refuse to address the reasons for your block. Please do not ping me further. I will not debate with you. Please feel free to request unblock as you have been instructed. Good day. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 23:39, 18 June 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

2nd unblock request, as @Deepfriedokra: told me I was free to do. Obviously the sentence I made, "the worst part was that I was blocked by a girl" was something I shouldn't have said and I regret it, but the same should go for @Floquenbeam: by using curse words and being unprofessional, something administrators shouldn't do. Also its my mistake for the personal attack at Ponyo, I didn't expect the message to be taken that seriously. I took the chance to do it after my block expired because I had my talk page access taken away. Thanks for reading, and next time I will pay attention to my belongings much better, since I understand how no one can tell who is actually behind the screen. Matthewishere0 (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your history of logged-out vandalism, harassment, and sock puppetry, you need to demonstrate significantly more maturity before I'd be willing to unblock you. At a minimum, we're talking about the standard offer: six months of trouble-free editing on another Wikimedia project without any sock puppetry on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2020 (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.

@NinjaRobotPirate: - I've already done over 6 months of disruptive free editing on the Simple english wiki and some edits on the spanish wiki. No sockpuppetry. Matthewishere0 (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The timer starts with your last edit here. Please reread WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it would start when his existing block for disruptive editing on Simple expires. Take a break, Matt. Come back when you understand the problem and can articulate a change in behavior. Kuru (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:, @Kuru: - So what do I do, just delete my account? Because there's 0 percent chance that I am going to be unbanned. I've already been blocked on the English wiki for over a month, and I was using that time to improve the Simple English Wiki. I made a small copy paste mistake and was blocked, so I guess I'm going to have to leave forever, since I also can't make a new account. One small mistake made by not paying attention to my belongings ruined it for me. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not banned, you are blocked. These are two different things. We've clearly explained what you need to do. If you are unable to understand the instructions, I can revoke your access to this talk page for six months to help you along. --Yamla (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: - Then make the block 6 months then. I can assure you in 6 months of doing wonderful and completely normal edits, I won't be unblocked. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, your access to this talk page has been revoked (via protecting the talk page) for six months. At that time, you are free to request your block be lifted by following WP:SO and WP:GAB. At that point, you'll need to address the concerns that lead to your block. Note that WP:UTRS is available, but I strongly suggest would be a waste of time, over the next six months. --Yamla (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

71.215.246.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

I think I am autoblocked. What do I do?

• Blocking administrator: Ponyo (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: One open unblock request at a time. You are not autoblocked, you are blocked directly for "trolling, or incompetence, or extreme lack of maturity". Yamla (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted block evasion as 71.208.32.185. Note this information is based on disclosures on that user talk page, not based on checkuser evidence. --Yamla (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: - I was told I would be unblocked after 6 months of non disruptive editing on other wikipedia projects, but I see that it is still marked as indef. Do the 6 months still apply? I've followed this 6 months offer and made edits to the simple english wiki and the spanish wiki. Thanks Matthewishere0 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what you were told. You were told six months is the minimum before you can apply under WP:SO. You still need to apply to be unblocked. Note that I raised concern that you were evading your block last month, so six months has not yet passed. --Yamla (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: You were correct, but I think you still understand what i'm trying to explain. @NinjaRobotPirate: said what you said in July. A month ago, I raised a concern because it was not letting me edit on my IP. I think that is because I had a checkuser block, but if I had not raised the concern, I would've been following the terms of the SO. You blocked my ip for block evasion, but you know that I didn't cause damage. You marked it as block evasion because I gave you this account. Note that if I had not said anything, I would've completed the standard offer, and I would still be allowed to edit using my ip today. I didn't know that editing under IP was attempted block evasion and part of breaking the rules of the Standard offer, so my apologies for that.

Also, note that I am technically still following the standard offer from the moment I received it in July, since I have been editing on the Simple English wiki and the Spanish wiki without any concerns, and because I did not make any more requests or comments about my block on this account until this moment. If you remove the time when I made an unblock request on my IP talk page, then I would still be following the rules in the standard offer, but I don't want to request an unblock if we don't come to an agreement. Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were editing articles here via your IP address, in December. You were blatantly violating WP:EVADE in December. The WP:SO is not available to you at this time. This isn't a technicality, this was a blatant violation from you. If you didn't know this was a violation, you lack sufficient competence to be trusted here. Claiming that you could have actively mislead us shows that you aren't operating in good faith and, frankly, I'm disgusted with your approach here. And for the record, we would have checked when you requested an unblock under WP:SO, and we would have found it. I have nothing more to say to you now, and will take the next six months to consider whether or not to oppose your unblock once you are eligible for WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting, despite your claims to the contrary, you have had substantial concerns over on the Simple wikipedia. I see numerous warnings given to you there, including a block. --Yamla (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't blatantly trying to evade blocks. That's kind of like saying "oh since I am blocked on the english wiki with my username, then I shouldn't edit on the spanish wiki with my IP or a different IP. All of my IP edits since my block in July have been in good faith, so I don't like that you keep assuming I am trying to vandalize pages or anything like that. Yes, I understand that I should've known that IP editing is attempted block evasion, but that doesn't mean I lack competency for not knowing, since I've edited on the simple wiki using my IP as well, which isn't evading a block even though I was already blocked. user Floquenbeam would be lacking competency too if that is your definition of it, since they were using unrelated phrases as an argument against me. Also, like I mentioned before, in the past 6 months I have not gotten complaints on the Simple wiki. The last messages on my talk page were in July 2020, and consensus was eventually reached. Also to be noted, If I move locations I could still be technically evading the block. I will wait 6 months to write you back. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You had access to your talk page solely so you could contest your block. Instead, you were using it to request other users edit on your behalf. This is not appropriate; see WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. I have revoked your talk page access. You can use UTRS to request reinstatement of your talk page when you are next ready to apply to have your block lifted. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

@Yamla:, are you sure WP:EVADE applies here? "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." – The suggestions above are entirely constructive and helpful. Beyond "fixing typos or undoing vandalism" I cannot think of anything more helpful than giving reliable sources. We shouldn't punish contributors for being constructive. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: The subject of a block is granted access to their talk page so that they may seek unblock. They are blocked from editing elsewhere; this includes proxy editing. Tiderolls 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVADE states: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Reads like there's some leeway… Robby.is.on (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That leeway applies to the unblocked editor. Blocked editors cannot edit. Full stop. Tiderolls 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #73824 . User must not abuse the talk page. Must not proxy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is closed. User is asked to request unblocking here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am very passionate about soccer, and if I get unblocked the first articles that I will concentrate on editing are south american articles. my main goal was to make cristiano ronaldo a GA but as time went by i noticed that there is a lot of work to do in other sectors. In the future if there is any problem with my edits I will do my best to solve it in the best way possible, without any trolling, lies, or edit warring. I want to personally apologize to @Floquenbeam:, @Deepfriedokra: and @Ponyo:. Now that I reviewed all of my statements I realize how immature I was, my actions turned a one week block into an indef bock and then a talk page block instead of trying to solve the problem and apologize for my actions, these people showed me extra patience because they responded to my attacks without having to, It looks like I was just trying to put blame on them for no reason which I regret and apologize for wasting their time, I wish these people the best and I have definitely matured enough since these incidents were circa three years ago while I was still in high school. I am just eager to get back to editing and put this incident behind me, it was an impulsive decision to launch attacks at other editors and I will make sure it doesn't happen again. Thanks in advance.

Accept reason:

Enough time has passed that I am inclined to accept this in line with WP:SO. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew is here zero (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, note this user engaged in block evasion less than two weeks ago. It's unclear if that would have affected your decision to unblock this user. --Yamla (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniel Arango (footballer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Naples, Florida, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 21:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No improvement since the previous decline.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniel Arango (footballer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greenman, I asked you how to improve the article and you never responded. I dont know why you think this professional athlete is not notable, he has stats on soccerway and worldfootball.net, which if you didnt know are some of the biggest databases. Give me some ways to improve it based on your opinion

thanks in advance. Matthew is here zero (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to List of Atlético Nacional seasons. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and per WP:CSC, "lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) article ... don't belong in the main namespace". I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your decision, I think I should use the sandbox improve it and then submit it again, I honestly wanted to get the "seasons" link in the Template:Atlético Nacional away and I feel like i rushed it Matthew is here zero (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you put up a peer review request for Arena Corinthians, but you haven't made any contributions to the article besides a quick grammar fix. You're more likely to get input if you've shown that you're interested in improving the article and that you've already done everything you can to improve it. Alternatively, if you're no longer interested in improving the article, you can add Template:Db-g7 to the review page at Wikipedia:Peer review/Arena Corinthians/archive1 to undo your request. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay thanks for the advice Matthew is here zero (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matthewishere0. Thank you for your work on Juan Fernando Leal. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: - thanks a lot man first time my work has been recognized on wikipedia. Let me know if you want any help Matthew is here zero (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matthewishere0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Daniel Arango (footballer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matthewishere0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Atlético Nacional seasons, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mdann52 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:NFOOTY - he does not appear to meet the guidelines there.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniel Arango (footballer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mdann52 (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2003–04 Sporting CP season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sousa, Manoel and Leonardo. 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) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to 2018–19 Primera B Metropolitana. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]