User talk:Mattdaviesfsic

---

Leave a message Send an Email

If you want to tell me I'm wrong about one of my edits (or worse), you may wish to familiarise yourself with the key policies and guidelines listed here. If something I did is definitely not grounded in policy, let me know in case I was editing in my sleep.

Note that this page is manually archived very frequently - if you posted a message here and were expecting a reply, please check the latest archive in the box on the right. Thanks.

---

Re: Justin Welby

Please come and discuss: Talk:Justin Welby#He is still Archbishop of Canterbury DBD 16:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello, Mattdaviesfsic,

I was reviewing some of the AFDs you closed and, you know what, you have a very very long signature. Would you consider reducing it to just your username and a link to your talk page without any additional quotes? If you look at the signatures of longtime editors, you'll notice that 99% of them are short. When you start including unnecessary content, it can confuse editors who just want to know who closed a discussion. Signatures should not be seen as a great place for personal expression, they are just a necessary identification of an editor. Please review Wikipedia:Signatures#Guidelines and policies especially the comment on distracting or overly long signatures. I'm not trying to squelch your fun, but maybe use the creativity on your User page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Completed Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 08:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent non-admin closes at AFD

Hi Mattdaviesfsic, You non-admin closed a number of AFDs earlier, and I have concerns with all of them from a process standpoint (WP:RELIST, WP:BADNAC#2, WP:NACEXP ref your AFD stats, etc), though your outcomes are mostly likely to be the ones the AFD should ultimately land on:

1. Stephen Barlow (conductor): This should have been left to incubate for another week, particularly since WP:Wikiproject Opera was not notified, but should have been, and the only !vote, a weak redirect, flagged the possibility of offline sources.
2. Zainal Arifin Mochtar The admin who relisted this explicitly indicated that the outcome without further clarification would be No Consensus, but you closed as "Keep" without any additional input.
3. Lycée naval: The admin who relisted this explicitly noted that additional confirmation and/or sources were required to distinguish between Keep and Merge, but you did so in your "Merge" close.
4. Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020): This is a contentious topic (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan) (though support for deletion was clearly lacking)
5. International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election: This is a contentious topic (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics) and a contentious AFD, and should not have been a NAC (or likely even a close)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance Graphique Internationale: Additional sources were provided late in the (first) week. With two keeps vs the nom, this should probably have been relisted for another week to enable source analysis/confirmation.

Could you please review and reconsider where appropriate? (Apologies in advance for any wikistress/discouragement -- hopefully not) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I was just coming here to ask about Zainal Arifin Mochtar myself. I'm not sure why that wasn't closed as "no consensus"? -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And I was just coming to ask about the merge consensus at the election list - it's a valid reading of the discussion, but technically unworkable to merge a 100+kB list into an article that's already over 500kB. Mattdaviesfsic hasn't edited in 3 days, so I'm going to go start a talk page discussion about it. As for the others:

• Stephen Barlow should be relisted due to lack of participation, but if it was going to be closed it should have been closed as no consensus. Overturn to relist.
• Zainal Arifin Mochtar and Lycée naval were explicitly BADNACs. Overturn to relist.
• Azerbaijan in Iran: Endorse keep - keeps had numerical majority, and all of the reasons given for deletion are ones that should be addressed by editing, not deletion. Good close.
• Alliance Graphique Internationale: I would have relisted, but keep is a valid reading of the discussion. The nominator requested a source and one was given, thus satisfying the deletion rationale. They then arbitrarily demanded more sources, which is borderline tendentious.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

All yours. I can't overturn the BADNACs myself as I'm the previous relister. -- asilvering (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Given that Mattdaviesfsic stopped editing immediately after this thread was started and hasn't been back in over a week, are you planning on overturning the BADNACs, or do you want to take these to a formal WP:DRV? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ahecht: sorry, I saw this but then got busy over the weekend. I see you took the election list to DRV already, I'll work on the others. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Barlow (conductor) and re-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zainal Arifin Mochtar as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity, per the request made at DRV. Owen× ☎ 18:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election as "merge", but a merge is not technically feasible at this time because it would cause 2024 United States presidential election to exceed the WP:PEIS limit. In light of this and the above discussion about whether a NAC close was appropriate, would you consider re-opening the discussion? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election

An editor has asked for a deletion review of International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Rather than leave you more templated messages, I am writing to let you know that I have listed three more of your recent closes on the same page. Your comments in those discussions would be welcome. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I think you need a cup of tea to help lighten your mood. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)