Welcome to Wikipedia, SpacedFarmer! I'm Mujinga, and I've been assigned as your mentor. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mujinga (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that your PRODs of ListenBrainz and then MusicBrainz and then Freedb, all of which were removed. I would suggest you get more experience with editing and notability before nominating articles for deletion. I think it's in pretty bad faith to redirect articles after the PROD is removed so I'm going to undo that; if you think they're not notable, send them to AFD, which you apparently know how to use. Legoktm (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I made the decision to redirect was that they were thin on notability. Redirecting it will strengthen it. The main reason why I redirected Picard is, only a few apps and softwares of websites (such as iTunes) are notable on their own. Is there a point of nominating an article for deletion when i only want to merge SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SpacedFarmer -- I've declined this A7 partly because there's a minor claim in the Top Gear appearance, but mainly because the article's been in existence since 2007, with multiple editors over that time. That suggests it's been fully assimilated into the encyclopedia and should not be deleted by speedy (ie by a single editor and admin), without an opportunity for review by the community. I'd suggest WP:Articles for deletion, if you believe notability is not there. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Nissan Skyline RS Silhouette Formula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Hobbs. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have changed a bunch of articles to redirects, following consensus for a merge. However, you can't just do a redirect and call it a day. See WP:PROMERGE for how to properly merge an article into another. Most of the information in the articles to be merged is worth keeping. Thanks. --16:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Vossanova ^o< 16:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please merge the contents of your deleted MusicBrainz Picard page into the redirect target, MusicBrainz, @SpacedFarmer? Aerozol (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still moving text from one article to another without attribution, particularly multiple WP:SPLITs from Macau Grand Prix without attribution. Diannaa has already explained the need for attribution. Reading the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Macau Grand Prix, I don't think consensus to split was obtained, and, as pointed out in the discussion, the correct place to hold this discussion is at Talk:Macau Grand Prix. There may well be people who are interested in the article that do not watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport. My advice would be to self-revert your changes and then start a discussion on Talk:Macau Grand Prix, which may well generate greater participation. --John B123 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot revert created article now I done what I wished for, breaking the two into their own articles; both has potential for their own articles anyway and deserved it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for what one editor 'wished for' especially when others disagree. WP is based on collaboration and consensus between editors, and has defined procedures to assist this. As your initial changes to Macau Grand Prix were reverted by Rpo.castro with the edit summary Discussion is still ongoing and not closed, and if discussion reaches conclusion of split, the content should be deleted after the split not before!, your continued splitting of the article could be viewed as WP:EDITWARRING. --John B123 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpacedFarmer,

What is with all of these AFDs? You have only been editing for a few months and have gotten in way over your head especially choosing to do bundled nominations which are very complicated and should only be done when articles are similar to the point of being almost identical. There is no reward for getting articles deleted and should only be sought if articles can not be improved through editing or finding additional sources that can bolster notability claims.

If you wish to stop these AFDs, the procedure is for the nominator to make a formal comment, underneath their nomination statement, expressing the wish to "withdraw" the nomination. If this is your intent, then please follow this AFD custom. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be simpler to bundle them together as Conyo suggested in one of the nominations. I have to admit it is tricky. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thierry Mugler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1959 Cadillac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you're placing merge proposal, as you've done here and on other engine-related pages, remember to put the relevant template on the other page too, so the readers of both pages can contribute to the discussion. Remember to start a Discussion on the talk page too! See WP:MERGEPROP for more details. Klbrain (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SpacedFarmer,

Just a reminder, but it's typically not helpful or productive to reply to everybody who votes keep in an AfD discussion. Your behaviour in some discussions has been bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpacedFarmer,

I just came here to say something similar. AFDs and all deletion discussion can cause raised tempers as editors become overly invested in the fate of nominated articles. I see you lashing out and losing your cool recently. It's not uncommon for editors to receive topic bans from deletion discussions, even long-time editors, when their conduct isn't civil. You seem to spend a substantial amount of time considering articles for deletion and responding to comments in AFDs so please do not attack, mock or belittle editors who hold a different opinion than your own.

We are talking about discussions about articles on a website while the people who edit here are real people with lives online and off. If you want to continue to participate in AFDs and the projects, maintain calm in deletion discussions and work to lower the temperature, not get into disputes. You'll last here longer if you can avoid getting emotional during arguments. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them: User:SpacedFarmer/AFD list. Conyo14 (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more, I hope. I realized I needed a fighter kill mark now that I almost reached the end of the run for college sports. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As all the easy ones are almost done now, I'm taking time analysing the sources of the tough ones. It's a 50/50 that it might not happen, who knows. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your hero would've turned in his grave at the sight of you, you getting upset at the use of 'snowflakes' and 'nerds' that you have to report me to ANI twice. People like you are what is shit about modern motorsport, no wonder why the once great sport full of pussies like you nowadays. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpacedFarmer, you have to put a lid on these personal attacks. If you continue, you can expect blocks of a longer duration and, eventually, an indefinite block. You are a valuable editor and if you could just be civil to others, you could stay editing on Wikipedia for a long time. Behavior that is tolerated on social media and message boards and forums, just doesn't fly on this platform. We all have others we don't get along with but we learn to edit like adults in spite of this. Please keep this in mind when your block is over. The future is up to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of code names has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Lists of code names. Please see WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 15:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have closed the AfD above per your wish to withdraw it and nominate them separately. Please note that you have nominated A.C. Milan (Superleague Formula team) and A.S. Roma (Superleague Formula team) which are redirects to the actual articles AC Milan (Superleague Formula team) and AS Roma (Superleague Formula team). When you are doing the individual AfD's make sure to nominate the articles and not the redirects. If you want redirects to show up in a slightly different colour in-text, you can copy these codes into your own vector.css (and just remove it later if you don't like it). Styyx (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Govvy (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 13:07, 16 August 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

What have I done that is construed as 'personal attack'? I had suggested to a user that he should clean his mouth with a toilet brush given his use of foul language. This was not intended to be an attack on him. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you see nothing wrong with these uncivil comments, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2024 (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.

@331dot: I did not intend them to be uncivil. This may had been unintentional. I do accept I made a comment mocking editors for being so overenthusiastic in creating junk articles, my resolve after was not to make such comments again. I accept I made another mocking English football fans (and not intended to be on an individual) but who doesn't think they deserve a mocking? SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to lose access here while blocked? Because that's the only place this is going with that continued litigation. Star Mississippi 17:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpacedFarmer,

Please do not ever mass-nominate over a dozen articles for AFD discussion over a short period of time again (I think I counted 17 AFDs you posted today). We have a limited number of editors who participate thoughtfully in AFD discussions and they can spend hours reviewing articles and sources and looking for additional sources to help establish notability. Having so many AFDs on the same general subject during the same 7 day period can be burdensome. What I typically see in these cases, unless we get particularly motivated editors, is low participation and several AFD relistings. This can result in Soft Deletions which means that an article can be restored upon editor request for any reason at all. What we want to happen is to have editors come to a solid consensus in a discussion which means we have decent levels of participation by editors who take the process seriously. The likelihood of this happening when we have a flood of AFD nominations with basically the same deletion rationale posted on the same day is low.

So, in the future, no more blitzes of AFD nominations with cookie cutter deletion ratonales on the same day, pace yourself and do a couple a day if this is a task you are working on. Just remember that it can take minutes for you to post an AFD nomination and tag an article but participants can easily spend an hour evaluating articles and sources crafting a response to a single nomination. Doing that 17 times can, honestly, just be a chore. Thank you for reconsidering how you approach nominating articles for deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to mass nominate as I did previously but was advised of WP:TRAINWRECK, this explains why I did. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I just saw this. I have relisted 3 of them due to lack on consensus. But this is new territory for me now. Should I continue relists or something else? Pinging @Star Mississippi, too. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed them all as no consensus. I think it's clear that these nominations were not going anywhere and were done without a careful search for sources beforehand. This kind of AfD behavior is borderline disruptive. I would recommend editing for quality going forward, seeking to make very few mistakes. Malinaccier (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before they were closed, I was going to offer a rebuttal to the keep votes, they were weak reasons to assert notability. Before I nominated them, I had a check and there is nothing to back it up, hence why I nomiated them in the first place. How possible to nominate them again? SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is largely because of the decision of one WP:ILIKEIT vote that could be contested easily. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have much to do with the objection of that editor. It is due to the mass nomination of these articles with copy-pasted rationales and clear lack of careful prior examination of the subject of each article. As Liz has pointed out, this flood of nominations usually leads to lack of engagement across all of the discussions. Malinaccier (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it okay to nominate them again at a later date, considering there was very little time window to adress the WP:ILIKEIT keep vote? My plan is to bundle them in small groups (example, those without sources and by the same editor). SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at ANI looks likely to topic ban you from all deletion-related activity. You should consider trying to address the concerns stated there before the ban is enacted. Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay @The Herald. I've been offline and am not sure which AfDs you & @Malinaccier are specifically referring to but I'm sure you were patrolling in good faith. Star Mississippi 01:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpacedFarmer,

You know, when editors are discussing issuing you a topic ban from AFD on ANI, you should probably pause nominating articles for AFD discussions. It just is unlikely to help your situation. Read the room. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:SpacedFarmer please listen to Liz. Continuing the practices that have led to an active ANI against you is a very bad idea. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, i will. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpacedFarmer, per discussion at ANI (perm), you are indefinitely topic banned from deletion and deletion-related processes, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, participation in discussions at WP:AFD, WP:RFD and similar spaces. This also means you may not nominate articles for deletion nor WP:PROD them. I'd also like to warn you that more personal attacks will likely result in an indef block. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpacedFarmer, I believe this is a topic-ban violation. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]