User talk:Peter303x

Your submission at Articles for creation: Freeway Insurance has been accepted

Freeway Insurance, 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.

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!

Sahaib3005 (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hean Tat Keh has been accepted

Hean Tat Keh, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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!

— Bilorv (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MadaLuxe Group (August 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Doric Loon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Although this article has lots of footnotes - too many in some cases (please don't attach four sources to a single piece of information) I do not see it telling me what makes this company notable. Since we do not allow Wikipedia articles on just any company, the fact that it exists, or that its history can be documented, is not enough. Tell us in the head something which shows this company is being talked about, or something remarkable it has done. Also, the issues of tone raised by the reviewer who declined the last time have not been addressed.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:MadaLuxe Group and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:MadaLuxe Group, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Doric Loon (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter303x! Having an article 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! Doric Loon (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure: Articles for deletion/Pedimental sculptures in Canada

I can see you recently closed the Articles for deletion/Pedimental sculptures in Canada discussion as a non-admin closure. I believe this discussion should be closed by an admin due to this being a contentious discussion with significant canvassing.

I am asking you to re-open the discussion for an administrator to close. I am also happy to take this to a deletion review if you would prefer. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter303x. I also noticed your non-admin closure of that deletion discussion. I'm not here to object or insist that an admin close, but I would appreciate if you could more clearly discuss and elaborate on your evaluation of the discussion. There were many arguments made and debated and a wide range of opinions, and your five-word close is simply not sufficient. If you cannot elaborate, it would be better for you to reverse your close and allow someone with more experience closing complex discussions to address it. Thank you. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Total tally: 15 KEEPS and 6 DELETES (including nominator). The last 4 KEEP votes are very convincing. The DELETE votes are not convincing. The rules allow non-admin closure when there is a clear consensus of Keep votes. This is hardly controversial with overwhelming keep votes. Although, I will try to stay away from these sorts of closing in the future. Peter303x (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the other "side" of the AfD discussion (as one of the "keep" !voters), and I too thought that the AfD should have been closed by an administrator. There were good arguments from both sides, with excellent points being made by experienced editors. And also not sure if the discussion had run its course when it was closed. BTW, I was not canvassed - I frequently participate in visual art related AfDs and subscribe to several Article Alerts. Peter, I'm hoping that in the future if you are going to do non-admin closures, they should be completely uncontrovertial AfDs. I'm not sure that you fully understand the nuances of closing yet and all of the policies/guidelines, but I admire that you to want help out. Netherzone (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dully noted. Maybe the Wiki policies need to be better explained. I have been following what is here WP:NACD. But I will for sure stay away from these types of closures, as I seem to have raised some flags! Peter303x (talk)

Non-admin closure: Articles for deletion/Tybouts Corner, Delaware

You recently closed the Articles for deletion/Tybouts Corner, Delaware discussion, through a non-admin closure, with a "no consensus" decision. This has been a long and well supported discussion from both sides and I'd suggest it should have been closed, even after a relativey short period considering the quality of debate, by an experienced administrator.

I am asking you here to re-open the discussion for an administrator to close. I'd be happy to take this to a deletion review if you would prefer. I'd also like to suggest, in the most constructive manner possible, to keep away from such decisions for a period of time. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you had voted DELETE and my action may have upset you, but I have followed all rules when closing this. The main issue here is that discussion was opened on August 25th and renewed twice. It is well over 21 days that is allowed for discussions and the rules state that if there is no consensus by 21 days, it should be closed as such. Clearly we have a mixed outcome on this one, but the more clear outcome is a KEEP to me because of 10 additional citations that editor Editorofthewiki has provided and it seemed that he was meaning to improve it. I am also not familiar on how to reopen a discussion, so feel free to ask an admin to review this and if they feel it is needed, they can do so. Peter303x (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another pointer: Please avoid turning differences of viewpoints into personal animosity. I have !voted one way in AfD discussions and the outcome has many a time gone another way without me raising the slightest objection. This time, I spotted an egregious decision and called you on it, in an effort to remedy things. The fact that you're so inexperienced as to be unaware abt reopening a discussion yet feel confident enough to close it down should make you reconsider your future course of action. Again, I recommend you keep away from closing-decisions for a period of time. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Pedimental sculptures in Canada

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pedimental sculptures in Canada. 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. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closures

Hey Peter, thought I'd drop you a note as someone who non-admin closes plenty of AFD discussions. Being asked to review a close can be disheartening, and you'll get some strong language in response. Most people seem to instinctively understand what should or should not be closed by a non-administrator. And its not as simple as a plain reading of WP:NAC. Stick to non-controversial stuff. Stick to closures that don't require a decision (like where they've been withdrawn with no other deletion !votes or speedy-deleted without the admin closing a concurrent AFD). 9 times out of 10, your contribution to a discussion will be far more highly regarded than your potentially controversial decision to close it. In short - be part of the consensus rather than trying to interpret it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I find the comments by Stalwart111 to be most constructive. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Expertwikiguy per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]