Dcroberts91

June 2016

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Owen Coyle has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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) 17:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello my comments were factually accurate and I am going to restore them.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Owen Coyle, 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) 18:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, hope you're happy.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Burnley F.C., you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

My comments are factually accurate and sourced. My comments will be reinstated. Please stop removing or I will report for being disruptive.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Burnley F.C.. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fenix down (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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).

Dcroberts91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was adding correct factual information with sources and was still removed, despite relating to club.

Decline reason:

If you make additional unblock requests that do not address the reason for your block, your talk page access will be revoked as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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).

Dcroberts91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason here Dcroberts91 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL^{Query me!} 23:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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).

Dcroberts91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Completely confused. I was accused of not being relevent. But the content I add was all relevent and relating to the clubs history :/ and removed partisan comments on another page and made neutral

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL^{Query me!} 23:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Your refusal to acknowledge the blatant WP:NPOV issues with your additions indicate either (1) you are trolling or (2) you do not possess the necessary competence to edit Wikipedia. The result is the same for either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 15 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fenix down (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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).

Dcroberts91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I added factual information for a club I support Blackburn Rovers. Editing facts that were inaccurate and in places partisan. I added sources for all my positive edits? In no way was I being disruptive

Decline reason:

If you think that adding phrases such as "much history to be proud of", "proud fact" or "incredibly highly attended" make the article less partisan, your conflict of interest is far too strong to neutrally edit the page. Huon (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC). 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The next block will likely be for indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)