Hello, MatthewDavid41!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Cheers! Rockingpotato (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cheers! Rockingpotato (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Carr Bank Park, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Lijil (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Matthew. Thank you for making many edits and improvements to several UK cities, namely Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham. Its even more impressive that you made these edits on mobile (as indicated by the 'mobile edit' tags) and used an edit summary on (almost) all of them! Therefore, I am giving you the award for this! JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you I really appreciate that! 🙂🤗 MatthewDavid41 (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.

OhNoitsJamie ^talk 15:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have made it clear the reasons why I have started this discussion. This may not be in your rationale. But to block me is a severe.

I feel this is an invasion of my human rights under Section 12 of the Human Rights 1998. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think MatthewDavid41 is a sock of Greenfrog23, even if I do think the discussion he has started is a very silly one (and urged on by a temp account that may well be Greenfrog23). Perhaps he is – has a checkuser been done? – but I would be very surprised if so. I'm aware of the history of the issue on the Brighton article, and my guess is MatthewDavid41 has cluelessly waded into it and likely doesn't understand that he's being accused of being a sock. MatthewDavid41 has a very distinct editing style and idiosyncratic approach to edit summaries, and a very extensive history of editing away from the Brighton article (sometimes creating problems and perhaps a little annoyance for members of the UK geography wikiproject who have to tidy them up, but I think always with constructive intent, even if not always constructive effect) which I can't imagine Greenfrog23 going to the effort of cultivating. Joe D (t) 15:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I’m not linked with anyone. I don’t have the time in my hands to be a sock. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Joe D see GeoEditorUk; similar cultiviation efforts. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 15:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I fear you are defaming my character. May I suggest the edits I made to Mansfield and the history I have created. You are giving false and inaccurate unlawful Information which is slander. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have no affiliation with anyone else. I am not a sock and you have made a mistake designed to cause harm on me and my character. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mansfield MatthewDavid41 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have made no attempt to speak with me at all, you have blocked with your aggressiveness accusing me of false identity with no reason or rationale. Because you believe I’m someone else. Maybe I was silly to get involved in this argument, but I did but you have waged into this are silencing me MatthewDavid41 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do not even know what a sock is. That you have accused me of MatthewDavid41 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

How can you be accused of something you don’t understand? This isn’t a trial in court but this all appears a punitive action with baseless evidence, rationale, or dialogue. This appears an infringement of my human rights as set out in UK Law and the European Court of Human Rights. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/12

of which Wikipedia and editors must comply. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

See also https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26 MatthewDavid41 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

See WP:NLT. You are free to threaten or pursue legal action, but will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia at all, even this talk page, if this is the route you are taking. And, for the record, it is utter and complete nonsense to claim being blocked on a private website is an infringement of your human rights. --Yamla (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am not so sure you understand or appreciate the human rights in the UK. And human rights includes freedom of speech, that’s said whether on a public website or not. My rights have been breached and you have blocked me for no clear reasoning or rationale and no dialogue. I have not threatened anything but OhNoitsJamie has. Because you think I am a sock. It’s absolutely atrocious and outrageous. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have no freedom of speech here. See WP:FREESPEECH. This is important for you to understand. Just as I cannot come in to your house and give you a fifty seven hour lecture on astrophotography, you can't come to this private website and say whatever you wish without consequence. --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

That is a direct threat. Do I consult the police now? MatthewDavid41 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I raised a matter maybe stupidly on a talk page as the original editor advised, I was set into a trap then blocked. And now I’ve being bullied and punished MatthewDavid41 (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it. (Freedom of speech) doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 15:05, 13 June 2026 (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).

MatthewDavid41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I merely added a query unto the wiki page. I was subjected to a pile on. Led by OhNoits Jamie, I raised a genuine question I did not see the issues had been raised before but I did not expect to be blocked without someone explaining why. I feel also that I have been ridiculed by this wiki editor and others in a chat discussion. I have provided a vast amount of edits to Wikipedia with lots of evidence base information and this has caused upset for me. I don’t want to go into the Brighton page again and don’t want anything to do with it. But I won’t be subjected to such ridicule and oppressive language. We are all volunteers and I have always expressed respect for others. But why can’t people do that for me? I raised things in a way that I should do, is it right that I should be barred in the way I do. Please can I be unblocked? MatthewDavid41 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

None of this is relevant at all. You are blocked for violating WP:EVADE. That and only that is relevant to getting unblocked. Yamla (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2026 (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.

You don't get to remove declined unblock requests. If you do that again, you will lose access to your talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 16:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MatthewDavid41, legal threats. Yamla (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being 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 posting of this notice.

 voorts (talk/contributions) 22:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply