User talk:Matt574

It is at the head of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/missing articles, and is an invitation to create only the articles which meet Wikipedia's criteria.

The list below curates aviation accidents that do not have their own article on the English Wikipedia, some of which meet WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, some of which don't. Existence in an aviation incident or accident database is not enough to establish notability, though it may be a good starting point for discovering additional sourcing that would support inclusion. Many of them can be translated from other wikis. Articles that are not red-linked are either redirects to the aircraft type or airline accident list or have already have existing articles. This list is incomplete, with many other aviation accidents yet to be written about. Dig in! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

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).

Matt574 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Wrongly blocked

Decline reason:

You were blocked from doing very specific actions on Wikipedia after having been warned. You are not blocked from the whole of Wikipedia. Please take some time to show that you can be a valuable contributor, then come back later to request a full unblock. I suggest at least one to six months. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

I feel that Wikipedia has blocked me unnecessarily. I feel that I use Wikipedia responsibly for its' intended purpose (editing, article creation, etc.). The main concern is that some articles that I have moved from draftspace to mainspace have been moved back even though nothing appears to be wrong with the article. Everything seems to be included in the article with every reference properly cited and referenced. Some users say that the article is not ready for publishing and I am not sure why. Matt574 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have learned from this encounter. I intend to contribute to Wikipedia and not misuse it. Matt574 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Before applying to have your block be reviewed, I recommend you take a moment to thoroughly review the following policies and essays:

• WP:Verifiability
• WP:Reliable sources
• WP:Notability
• WP:Notability (events)

If you're interested in taking on the role of an Articles for Creation reviewer, then you need to have a deep understanding of everything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions and follow the process for becoming a reviewer.

Finally, considering that it took a block to stop you from engaging in disruptive editing, even after you acknowledged requests to ask you to stop, I would not expect to have it removed any time soon. Spend more time editing, perhaps taking a bit to review WP:AFD discussions to get a grasp on notability guidelines in action, and then request your block be reviewed. nf utvol (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I mistakenly clicked the reviewer link. I am not interested in becoming an AFC reviewer, just a regular Wikipedia user. Matt574 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I was not sure what that was for. Matt574 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You were blocked from moving/creating files and pages because you kept causing problems in this area.

You can still do literally anything else on Wikipedia, so I strongly recommend you build up a history of productive editing before asking for page move access to be returned. Blue-Sonnet 07:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I still create new articles (i.e. from a red link meaning the page doesn't exist) but not moving a draft? Matt574 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like creating pages is currently blocked, but you're more than welcome to work on improving existing pages - there are millions to choose from; you can look for a WikiProject that interests you for some ideas, or use the Community tab to look for suggestions on things to do.

There are so many pages that need sources, copyediting, NPOV fixes, almost any fixes that you can think of. Those are great places to start!

A lot of editors go for the "glory" of making new articles, when Wikipedia desperately needs help fixing what we already have - in fact, this is a great way to build up your experience of what makes a good new article - you'll then be able to show admins that you've got what it takes to make a really good article from scratch in any eventual appeal. Blue-Sonnet 16:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Matt574, you can remove anything except the declined appeal box itself. I've reinstated it, you can delete this discussion if you like but the orange/brown box has to stay as long as the block is active, I'm afraid.

Be aware that deleting other things will make the declined appeal more obvious, so it's up to you how much you want to get rid of. Blue-Sonnet 00:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

"You're more than welcome to work on improving existing pages".
@Blue-Sonnet: This user has a rather unusual view of how a Wikipedia article should look and doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V. See below. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah. Well I was originally going off the admin decision to give a mainspace block instead of indef, it's disappointing to see further issues arise since then.

@Matt574 can you please look at the below warnings and let us know your thoughts? You were given several links to read above over a week ago, did you do that? Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 21:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I took the time to read what makes a Wikipedia article notable and cited with appropriate, reputable sources. I won't make any more drastic changes to articles such as the ones below, just basic proofreading edits and adding extra information if it is missing with appropriate sources. Matt574 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel that the "mistakes" below are not really mistakes as I didn't make any misleading changes to the articles. I thought that the extra information was taking up space in the article and was not needed. Matt574 (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for coming back to us - I'd like to see what @Moscow Connection has to say so please give them a little time. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 01:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: The incident is over (for now) I guess. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess for now it is enough to keep this person blocked "from doing very specific actions on Wikipedia" (as Significa liberdade put it). --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I only wonder why the user came specifically into the articles I had edited just recently. It was as if he decided that the articles he had created were better... And he decided to prove that by "remaking" other articles in his preferred style. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into which version is better here, that's better discussed on the article talk pages, but I would caution @Moscow Connection that this particular take is extremely close to violating the word and spirit of the WP:OWNER policy. nf utvol (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nfutvol: No, it is absolutely not "close" to anything. Please don't make baseless accusations. Moreover, I integrated all Matt574's additions into "Waitin' for the Train to Come In". Even if they weren't adequately sourced.
As for "Sarah Vaughan singles discography", it was virtually impossible to re-add the notes he added without breaking the discography table guidelines. (Possible, but too time-consuming. Moreover, the layout of those tables is not mine. Maybe if ChrisTofu11961 and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars or other editors active in the music field agree to revert the tables back to Matt574's wonderful version – see here... But they definitely won't.)
What Matt574 did looked so bad that it could have even been mistaken for vandalism. Or for an attempt to make a WP:POINT. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nfutvol: I could have just reverted and went away. I even took time to explain some rules like WP:N, to explain why the Billboard reviews were there. And I even pointed the user to the table layout help page. And you accuse me? --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nfutvol: Come on, go and re-write "Sarah Vaughan singles discography" to integrate all Matt574's additions. After you are done, you are welcome to accuse me of not spending 2–3 (up to 10) hours on that. Or just revert to his version, I don't care, I'm done with this discussion. If you revert, I will just notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the changes you have made. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nfutvol: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Sarah Vaughan singles discography – I have notified the music project. Now I'm off here.
As for the two other pages, I know they are just stubs and I always welcome additions and I immediately integrated everything Matt574 added. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nfutvol: Let's see what the music project members will say. Maybe they will say: "Please unblock this editor, what he does is wonderful."
(IMO, he should better work in draftspace for now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

"I feel that the "mistakes" below are not really mistakes." – It was a mistake to think the extra information was not needed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Btw, the Billboard reviews are there for a reason, they "contribute toward proving the notability of a subject".
In addition to WP:RS and WP:V, you don't understand WP:N and wiki markup. Please don't make "drastic changes" until you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Read Help:Basic table markup. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Many of these articles do not meet either the general notability guideline or the event notability guideline, and even some that do would likely be better covered as a section of another article (such as a related airport's "Accidents and incidents" section). Please take a moment to review sources before adding articles of uncertain notability to the already-extensive AfC backlog. If you have questions about an article's notability, I recommend seeking guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. nf utvol (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

Matt574 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I took some time to think about how I can contribute to the Wikipedia community I feel that I have looked over Wikipedia's policy guidelines thoroughly and I have taken some time on how I can contribute to the Wikipedia community.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, I've fixed the appeal template for you, but I think it's not going to be successful.
You need to explain why you were blocked, why that was disruptive and what you would do differently. In your case, you also need to explain why you need access to page moving and creation, and you should also probably go through you recent history and show that you've got a long history of productive editing to reassure admins that you won't cause the same issues if they give you access again.
Considering the block was very recent and you've had multiple declined AFC drafts (I can't see any that have been accepted), I think this appeal is a really bad idea right now. I wouldn't appeal until it's been at least six months, and/or you've had a dozen accepted drafts. Please consider the advice you were given when your last appeal was declined only three weeks ago. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Joy General Aviation Flight 6005, 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. Do not remove reviewer comments from drafts undergoing the Articles for Creation process as you did here. nf utvol (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)