User talk:Mattdaviesfsic

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Mattdaviesfsic is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation.

Your help in cheering this user up would be appreciated.

He will return when his wikistress has dissipated and his confidence in the wikicommunity has been restored.

This user is currently experiencing depression, which may affect his Wikipedia editing in various ways. He may have difficulty with:

altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to him;
reduced availability on Wikipedia during times when he experiences issues;
limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page or email messages in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete his usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.

Thank you for your understanding.

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.

Archives

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:

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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]