This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Mast303, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fide, Gotland, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type ((help me)) on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fide, Gotland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Improperly set up AFD page (including using a PROD tag, not AFD tag on article)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Mast303, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Sandbox/test3 has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Salvio 22:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Microsoft Windows. DMacks (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  DMacks (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that you recently came back from a block for being disruptive, I'm not sure on the wisdom in engaging in undiscussed moves so quickly especially on a page that has had three failed requested moves over the span of a decade. At any rate, I'm asking that the move you performed be undone as the hyphenation does not seem appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Comida and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § Comida until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. PamD 12:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect R from alt lang and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § R from alt lang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Antinony, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Meszzy² (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Antinony requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Meszzy² (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Govvy (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Nacelle. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@BilCat: I have started a requested move discussion at Nacelle. Mast303 (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Answered. Also, I've reverted you move of Nacelle (wind turbine) to Nacelle (turbine). Aircraft turbines, including turbofans, turbojets, and turboprops, are often in nacelles, so "(turbine)" alone is ambiguous. You have a note above from January about making undiscussed moves. You really need to propose moves from now on until you're more experienced. BilCat (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

When you move a template like ((Redirect-multi)), please remember to move and update the documentation and other subpages. I have finished moving the two templates that you moved yesterday. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: OK. Mast303 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 10, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. You cannot remove my comment per WP:TPO. This is considered disruptive and is not allowed. I have already struck your comment anyway, which is almost the same as removing it. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Mast303. I hate to appeal a "no consensus" close, but I do have to ask about Talk:Gun laws in Washington § Requested move 3 February 2023. By my count there is:

• 2 opposes (Reywas92 & Rreagan007) that say the current title is unambiguous, without explaining why (despite a general wiki-wide consensus that "Washington" is ambiguous as a place name)
• 1 oppose (Station1) citing a guideline that, as noted in response, says the exact opposite of what it's being cited for, and not addressing primary-topic status
• 1 oppose (Mudwater) that is not based on any policy or guideline
• 5 supports (Crouch, Swale; SounderBruce; Gonnym; BD2412; Graham11) arguing consistency and/or primary-topic status
• My nomination statement, arguing similarly

It feels to me like you looked at this numerically, saw 6 to 4, and concluded no consensus. But I think if you look at the strength of the policy/guideline-based arguments made, you'll find very little advanced in opposition, and quite a bit advanced in support. Or, even if we do look it numerically, then we're talking about 6 out of 9 policy/guideline-based arguments being in favor of moving.

I hope you'll reconsider, or at least write a full rationale for why there is no consensus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I have updated the RM discussion page. Mast303 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Far as I am concerned, the talk was closed too early, I've reported this account at ANI before as I don't trust this user. Just look at the dodgy editing history. Govvy (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I also question the close, its quite clear that in this case we need to match the main article. I don't even think the move should have been reverted. Per Graham I don't see a reason to treat this one as an exception as its clearly ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Gun laws in Washington. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  DMacks (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your NAC close of Talk:Gun laws in Washington#Requested move 3 February 2023 crossed the formal line in my previous final warning.[1] The fact that you did not include an explanation in a non-clearcut closure in this case is itself a problem, as well as whether it was a reasonably-correct closure at all, emphasizing that you should not be doing this. Therefore, this block. If you have anything you wish to contribute to the move-review discussion, you are welcome to post it here on your talkpage, and another editor will copy it to that discussion. DMacks (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO you're being generous: Special:Diff/1138810700 seems like a willful understanding but attempt to conceal the clear direction you gave them, which they had just violated shortly after the warning. I'd suggest an indef block until they explain the NAC performed after being told explicitly not to to prevent further damage to the project. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mast303. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Olga Seleznyova, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Competing in the Olympics is a creditable claim of significance. Thank you. BangJan1999 01:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Ancient biography stubs has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Eagleash were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:French Defence, Winawer Variation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eagleash (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mast303! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eagleash (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)