User talk:MATThematical

Hello, this is my talk page. Feel free to leave me a comment. I will respond on this page unless otherwise requested. This allows me to see a continuous flow of back and forth comments in one place as opposed to half the comments on your page and half the comments on mine.

RfC: Is it appropriate to use the term "American record" when referring to a national record set by a United States citizen?
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Location (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (Using )

SPA
Thanks for your message. I'm no longer contributing to Wikipedia, but I do still check my watchlist so I have noticed the changes you are making. They seem to pull the article in the right direction, but I also think they are working against the general trend at Wikipedia. I was SPA myself and was essentially banned for it (topic banned from my area of specialization). While I don't think it's a good trend, I think the article needs to note that Wikipedia generally frowns on narrow contributions. My request to have my topic-ban lifted is a good case in point (archived here). Carcharoth articulated the principle pretty clearly:


 * I remain of the opinion that those focused totally or almost exclusively on a single topic should diversify their editing to come to a broader understanding of how Wikipedia works. This applies to both non-expert editors and experts as well ... Self-taught or actual experts won't be able to be as deeply involved or authoritative on other areas, but that is a good thing, as it gives a taste of what it is like at different levels. When editors first arrive at Wikipedia, I think they should be allowed to be "single-purpose accounts" up to a point, but beyond that point, they need to diversify.

If they don't (as I didn't), they are likely to be treated with suspicion even by the Arbs, and if they are involved in controversy they will not be given the benefit of the doubt. More "diversified" editors, on the other hand, are generally given freer reigns than SPAs.

In the "decision-making tags" section, the essay conflates "SPAs" (to be tagged) and "new users": "Some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear who the new editors are [i.e., by tagging them as SPAs]." I've argued all along that this is completely unnecessary. One might tag them as "new" users, for example, and avoid giving the label "SPA" pejorative connoations. Sadly, it now has those connotations, and even the Arbs let them guide their thinking on particular cases. Wikipedia is simply not a place for specialists. It has become a community that demands a general kind of loyalty to "the project" first. So people who make broad contributions have more influence on particular articles than people who have detailed knowledge of the subject. That's my experience, anyway.--Thomas B (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability Essay
I'll be glad to help, but you can depend upon me seeking ambiguity. I'm not too interested in placing hard borders that prevent good stories from being told. Its those stories I'm trying to find and edit. I happen to like mentioning the star Youth athlete who disappeared as an adult (I should write up Obea Moore), the outstanding Masters athlete (I'm waiting to write up Philippa Raschker), or the lesser athlete who made the race significant (I inserted the mention of Paul Pilkington into the Pacemaker (running) article). I want the door to be open to these kind of stories. Again, I'm not yet mentioning some of the ones I've already dropped in because I don't want them to get attacked.Trackinfo (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Figure skating notability & unreferenced BLP deadline
Thanks for the notice about this. See my notes here Any help you can render would be appreciated. Yakushima (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I went though the first 26 skaters, and marked them into categories of notability, most were DN - definitely notable, a couple were in the grey area LN and few were also NN (not notable unless you can find sources that suggest GNG coverage) -MATThematical (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Promoting NSPORT to notability guideline
Do you think that WP:NSPORT is ready for promotion? Thanks --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think its quite close. I would like a little more feedback on the less popular sports such as the Gaelic games where we basically just trust what ever the one person who through up there said. Gymnastics has not been commented on by the gymnastics community, perhaps because they like it, but perhaps because they don't know it exists. Maybe its time for an RfC which would solve this. After consensus from an RfC I think we could make it guideline. It is looking pretty good. I particularly like the wording at the top to be careful when considering local coverage and statistics sources, I think its a good compromise --MATThematical (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a couple of big changes in the non-athlete section, and I noticed that you and some others are still actively editing, so I'll hold off for a couple days. You can try to notify some of the other members of the Gymnastics project directly to get their feedback. Here's the ones who appear to be active:
 * Cheers! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a look at User:LiberalFascist/NSPORTpromo and let me know what you think of the wording. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal part does not look finished as far as the temporary grandfathered in clause. I'd leave it semi vague and have the details worked out in discussion. Have 2 comment sections, the grandfathered in comment section and the general comment section

College Football notability
Great changes and modifications! I wouldn't change a thing that you edited! Thanks for the input and clarity!--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:SpiritCatchesYAYFD.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SpiritCatchesYAYFD.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Galton-Watson process comment
Hi, I just noticed your comment on my talk page from last June (!) since I haven't logged in in a while. I might take a look at some point to see what I can do, but I don't edit Wikipedia that much these days, so no promises. skeptical scientist (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

High school record holders
Category:American high school record holders is being considered for deletion. Please share your thoughts on the matter at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Trackinfo (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yang Sen (athlete), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page T35 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mary C. Cain
You posted her World Youth Best in the one mile with the phrase " it is now officially the world youth best." Actually the world governing body, the IAAF doesn't even cover it "officially." You can see they cover Outdoor Youth Bests, but to not cover the One MIle in that group. They also do nothing about indoor Youth Bests. So the only thing official about it is that we wiki-statisticians are paying attention and have declared it so. Trackinfo (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the correctionMATThematical (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability
I mentioned an edit you did long ago at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) Trackinfo (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viola Kibiwot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Two mile. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Athletics notability
I have not had a problem with any athletics articles per se. By the time I get involved in an article for a track athlete, I've got my sources. As is being discussed by SFB, the hard part is finding out about an article in trouble. During the BlP mass deletion effort, it was quite difficult to locate and source vulnerable athletics articles. Occasionally I find a red link that was apparently caused by an article I missed at the time. My most disappointing AfD (actually it was a CfD) came Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 22 when the Category:National high school record holder came up for spelling semantics. I didn't defend it aggressively and I got blindsided by a group of idiots who deleted the whole category. We now have a whole category of people from Jesse Owens who became world famous to Michael Granville and Obea Moore whose only success came in high school, who should be linked together but are not. But there is now a blackball against recreating the category.

My reference to Facebook sources was not related to athletics. It was related to world beauty contestants, where I ran across the worst excuse for a mass wikipedia editor we have. He attempted to delete dozens of Miss Universe contestants on the basis that their notability came from a single event (where he felt they were just a name on a list, so I also had to show articles focusing on each contestant). My successful rebuttal was (as we have with athletes) in order to get to the world event, each contestant must have won their national contest (which he unsuccessfully contended were all part of the same single event). To prove this fact--it was a battle--I looked up the history of each of these contestants in their home press. In that process I found major national newspapers from more obscure countries like (and I'm not sure I have correct specifics because I deliberately avoided using Facebook entries during the debates so there is no history of my search) Montenegro, Botswana, Bolivia, British Virgin Islands and Gabon using Facebook as their public primary on-line presence. I equated that to a potential problem if I had to go to that level in Athletics. Trackinfo (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no trouble with expanding beyond 60. If their name can make any of the annual lists, I am confident that somewhere there is a history of accomplishments that will suit GNG as well.  You just don't show up once and make such a list, you don't get noticed doing so, without a history.  And the Rosie Ruiz absence of a history would make them even more notable by attracting attention. Trackinfo (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw your addition to the notability page. I additionally hedged while writing the above comment.  IAAF is doing a great job for contemporary lists, but that is not a historical guarantee.  ARRS, ATFS and several other ad hoc groups (or individuals) have done considerable work in other periods of time.  I consider those lists to be adequate substitutes.  Even the small ad hoc lists seem well researched and have undergone reasonable historical review over decades and should be considered as valid for establishing notability of their day (until proven otherwise) as the modern formal lists. Trackinfo (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw your editing of the athletics notability criteria and I thought that rather than changing it back and causing an edit war, I'd come straight to you - what was your rationale for deleting masters gold medals as criteria for notability? JDWFC (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I googled several 2015 gold medalists and most got zero GNG coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. My concern is especially the 35-40 age division that in general has particularly bad athletes in them for the age grade. The good 35-40-year-olds are still elite and hence don't enter masters meets. For example, the women's 5k the 35 year old division was won in over 18 minutes! There are at least a handful of 35-40-year-olds that can run fairly close to 15 minutes. The 5 year age grades dilute the fields too much. And in addition, a very large percentage of the best masters athletes do not attend the world championships because they do not have the money to do so. Very little sponsor money goes to athletes in this event. Simply put the masters meet is nothing like the youth one, where the best athletes have to qualify in national championships to go, and get all their accommodation paid for. Such processes make for high quality fields and guaranteed notability of athletes. MATThematical (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion
You are cordially invited to take part to this discussion, thanks. --Osplace 21:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion
You have been cordially invited to discuss Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gymnastics following this and this discussions. Thanks for your quick and prompt response.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Athletics Happy New Year
Wishing you a Happy New Year on behalf of WikiProject Athletics! You can read of some of the project's achievements this year at the project talk page (please feel free to add your own thoughts and achievements!). SFB 18:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The challenge
Your reference to +- 90% bears no reference to NSPORT or GNG. Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) Essentially you pulled that number out of your ass. That said, I'll take your challenge. You give me your random group of names from the 2015 World Masters Athletics Championships, I'll source them, build viable articles and we can end this discussion permanently. Its a chunk of work. No guarantee on how fast it will happen, particularly if you load up on non-english speaking countries, but I'm certain I'll be able to get the job done. Trackinfo (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While the number certainly is arbitrary, I did not pull it out of my ass. It is the one Ravenwing as been using on the talk page for quite some time. Please note I am not being adversarial. It would be my pleasure to add gold medalists back or even all medalists if you provided some evidence that they pass GNG. I'll provide you the names shortly.
 * I generated two sequences of random numbers (the first from 1-33, 1.XX.__) and the second from (1-23 the 1.__.XX). Please look up the gold medalist in each of these events

1.6.1 Fatiha Idmhand 1.7.15 Ihar Dolbik 1.7.1 Maria Jose De Toro Saiz 1.10.2 Thomas Oberhofer 1.15.15 David Carr 1.20.6 Sue Yeomans 1.21.23 Gerhard Windolf 1.22.7 Terhi Kokkonen 1.23.10 Galina Kovalenskaya 1.32.2 Bianca Schenker

If you have difficulty with all of non-english speaking winners, you can alternatively do the first English speaking winner above the number generated. Good luck. I am rooting for you to prove me wrong. There is nothing that I would love more than to know that these athletes are getting GNG coverage! I'm just a skeptical person. -MATThematical (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nature Ecology and Evolution


The article Nature Ecology and Evolution has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Balta (genus) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Balta (genus), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Balta (genus)
Hello, MATThematical. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Balta (genus), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Balta (genus)


Hello, MATThematical. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Balta".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)