User talk:Matthewjoule

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Matthewjoule. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Mansfield Town F.C., you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Your off-Wikipedia public posts suggest that you have a relationship with Mansfield Town Football Club, John Radford (businessman), and the football venue known as Field Mill or latterly One Call Stadium. For the reasons stated above I must request that you no longer attempt to change or expand any of these topic areas. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Town FC[edit]

Good afternoon and thanks for your message,

As part of my role, I am required to keep the Mansfield Town FC and John Radford (businessman) pages up to date.

Therefore, I will be continuing to edit the pages.

Matthewjoule (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattewjoule: Thank you for your response. As it is normal to concentrate discussions into one user's talk page, I have copied your message (seen directly above) back into your own area, leaving my page intact as record. Further messages may contain warning(s) which need to be linked and visible.

As I have tried to explain politely, you may be in violation if you continue; whereas you would be allowed to request correction of factual errors (by an uninvolved party) you would not be welcome - as an employee - to continue where there is concern about the content. This particularly concerns derivative use of the retail business name 'One Call', use of which may be deemed excessively promotional. Continuation of this may have consequences.

I have examined your LinkedIn profile and I am satisfied your past contributions amount to 'paid editing'. Initially I surmised you may be a volunteer, which would still amount to a grey area. I also have to inform you that the second image you uploaded File:John Radford portrait photo.png is also likely to be rejected as copyrighted promotional material from the football club's archives - it would be better for you to take a head and shoulders shot on your own 'phone, that way you would be the 'owner' (copyright holder). You have your own online portals - it would be better to concern yourself with the content of these, and leave Wikipedia to non-conflicted contributors.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Above initial response, timestamp 14:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC) from Matthewjoule, copied from talk page of Rocknrollmancer]

@rocknrollmancer

I will be continuing to edit the page Mansfield Town FC as it is factually incorrect.

Matthewjoule (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you won't, if you include material that doesn't cite reliable sources. You are not the owner or keeper of that page. And because you have a WP:Conflict of interest concerning that topic, you should not be editing it at all. It is acceptable for you to make minor typographical corrections and revert obvious vandalism, but for anything more substantive, you should propose your change on the article's talk page for others to review. Any statements not cited to a reliable source will be removed or reverted; the article cannot rely on your word alone for information. If you want full control over the information about Mansfield Town FC, Wikipedia is not the correct venue, you should find a hosting provider. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Portrait photo of John Radford.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Portrait photo of John Radford.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Portrait photo of John Radford.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Portrait photo of John Radford.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 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. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:John Radford portrait photo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:John Radford portrait photo.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Mansfield Town F.C.. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong What content is unsourced? Matthewjoule (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewjoule: 'Unsourced' is an individual's own thoughts, findings, conclusions, and comments. Wikipedia works on the basis of citing content sourced from published pieces by accredited writers, journalists, authors independent of the businesses concerned. Please see reliable sources. Any additions need to be ascribed to the publications concerned, at the time of making the changes. Generally, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram should be avoided, although we see a lot of sport and media students trying to 'out-cool' the next editor by being the first to 'get it on to Wikipedia', by surveilling the stars. Wikipedia is not a news organisation.

Connected contributors are not considered to be independent-enough to contribute neutrally, due to a vested interest in their paid employment. As a professional media-sector worker, you disqualify for authorship of content to the Wikipedia topic areas identified. Thank you for your openness in declaring your involvement at my talk page, and I hope you can disseminate the info to those ranking above you in the football club, whom you have stated are requiring you to make changes. You have already attracted a number of incremental warnings despite my previous advice - please stop attempting to change the content of any article you have a connection to.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mansfield Town F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Mansfield Town F.C.. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Are you making these threats to the other person editing my CORRECT content? Matthewjoule (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mansfield Town F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Mansfield Town F.C.. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Mansfield Town F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
If you continue to edit war and not discuss your edits on the talk page or explain them in edit summaries you will eventually be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

March 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Mansfield Town F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are still edit warring without any discussion on the talk page Theroadislong (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting my edits. Please stop.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mansfield Town F.C.. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at Mansfield Town F.C.. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Theroadislong (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mansfield Town F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Despite being previously blocked for edit warring you continue Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 30 days for Promotional 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 ~~~~}}. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 23:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for 30 days because, despite having a conflict of interest, you continued to edit the Mansfield Town FC article. Indeed, you seem to have edit warred on that article. We welcome accurate information, as long as that information is backed by reliable sources in compliance with policy. "I say this is correct" doesn't cut it. If you intend to contribute to this project, you're going to want to review our policies and comply with them. First and foremost, You Cannot Edit the Mansfield Town FC article or related articles. If you see something inaccurate about these articles, you are welcome (once the block expires) to note sources that show the correct information. This can be done on the article's talk page. You cannot edit the information yourself, because you have a conflict of interest. Please review our policies. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 23:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A note[edit]

About your insistence on writing that Field Mill is now called the One Call Stadium- it's already highlighted on Field Mill. On Mansfield Town F.C. we are just using Field Mill, because Wikipedia does not generally use sponsorship names, as it does not give out free advertising. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthewjoule, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Mansfield Town F.C., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Add92 (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:John Radford MTFC AAD.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:John Radford MTFC AAD.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:JohnRadfordBusinessman.png[edit]

The file File:JohnRadfordBusinessman.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]