User talk:Mathtick

Your submission at Articles for creation: Markov Representations (July 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Amkgp was:

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:Markov Representations 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:Markov Representations, 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, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Markov_Representations Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amkgp&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Markov_Representations reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~ Amkgp 💬  15:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Markov Representations


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

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! S0091 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The effective marginal maximum tax rate in the UK is 60%. Current description is misinformation. Questions on will editors fight me if I enrich this page to highlight.
I want to highlight the effective marginal tax rate which takes into account the loss of personal allowance above 100k. I would add a new column.

I want to know ahead of time if there will be some direct opposition to this. Editing and clarity is fine.

I view the government web site and any presention not pointing to the *TRUE MAXIMUM MARGINAL TAX RATE* as deliberate misinformation. It divides people and makes it very hard to talk about tax policy.

Concern regarding Draft:2022-23 HMRC Online Calculator Error
Hello, Mathtick. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2022-23 HMRC Online Calculator Error, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2022-23 HMRC Online Calculator Error


Hello, Mathtick. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2022-23 HMRC Online Calculator Error".

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. When 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! 17:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Hi! I reverted your edit to Vince Foster as it changed Suicide of Vince Foster to Suicide of Vince Foster and there is no section with that name in the article. Ttwaring (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Mar 24
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality
Please note that it's not non-neutral to use phrases like "Islamophobia" if that's what sources say. Indeed, that is the neutral option, and to whitewash that is not neutral. In answer to your statement of as one would not use the term "Judeophobia" – well, we do label things as antisemitic if that's what sources say. — Czello (music) 13:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "Islamophobia" is a contentious and hate-filled word to many people in the world. Using it is exclusionary and aggressive towards ex-Muslims. It denies the lived experiences of ex-Muslims and those who have lived under religious tyranny and violence of any kind. Theocratic violence does exist and those who survive it have every right to be fearful of the Priest that molested them, the gang of zealots who beat them repeatedly or whatever it is they experienced. Let's not exclude people by using the phrase invented by their oppressors to deny their existence and dehumanize them.
 * Replace with something like "Fear of Islamist aggression", "Fear of Islamists", "Worry about Islamist ideologies". I favour leaning heavily away from "the individual" and towards the belief structure which is mutable.
 * Criticizing religious ideologies is totally fine. There is nothing wrong with being against Christian Zeolots etc. "Islamophobia" is a word used to inflict agression and shut down conversations.
 * Muslims themselves are the first and foremost to bring up worries over Islamists (Islamic Extremists). Extermists themselves have a huge interest in obfuscating the difference between `Moderate Muslims and Extremists and using the word "Islamophobia" is a clear path to doing this.
 * Again, the Buddophobia, Judeophobia, Christianophobia, Sikhophobia are nearly unused terms.
 * Also in several places race is being confounded with thought and ideas. Anyone who implicitly or explicitly believes with certainty that race is causal to ideas is horrendously racist and should be banned from the platform.
 * I repeat this: it is extremely unlikely that race is causal to beliefs. To express an opinion that ideas are born from race as a matter of fact, either implicitly or explicitly, is extreme racism of the highest degree and must be dealt with appropriately.
 * I know this is a difficult subject, but I also know the people at wikipedia are a diverse and talented crowd who take these things seriously and are not merely there to protect their ideology. This will take some time to consult with various people and make sure these pages are not promoting hatred and misinformation.
 * Several decades ago, I don't think anyone could imagine that a pro-gay-rights, anti-racist group that shows up to support anti-semitism rallies, that fights theocratic ideologies would be labelled as "far right". But here we are.
 * The labels are not useful anymore. More than that, they are harmful.
 * Any specific harms EDL has done should be described fully and in detail. It is too hard to even find out what bad things they did because of the poor use of language. That is what I came here to initiall find out. What exactly do they do that is so bad? And I couldn't find it easily. Mathtick (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We use whichever terms are used in common discourse – in this case, "Islamophobia" is the most common term to describe hatered of or prejudice against Muslims (not just Islamists). It's not incumbant on us to change that wording if some see it as problematic – that would be righting great wrongs. — Czello (music) 13:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there no limits to "most common term"? Is the n-word allowed for instance? Arguably it is VERY common in popular usage in music for instance.
 * "Righting great wrongs" is interesting and I was not aware of it. It makes sense to me in some ways but I am not clear on how language choice factors in to this, as I can see that it would make sense to leave in false information if it was commonly cited (wikipedia is not suppose to be opinions).
 * Perhaps a better outcome would be to change the page on Islamophobia to be coherent.
 * Are there any policies on coherence (de finetti style or otherwise) that could be useful here? For example, I would like to understand how ex-Muslims who live in fear of their family should be spoken about on the wikipedia page about "Islamophobia". Mathtick (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well we have Nigger Honor killing, but if RS call something Islamaphobic so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To add to the concerns about neutrality above, I'd have to suggest that you also seem to lack any understanding of Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing. This edit in particular, is deeply concerning, and I'd have to suggest that until you have gained a proper understanding of Reliable sources guidelines, you shouldn't be editing such contentious topics at all. We don't cite Reddit, and we aren't interested in your own personal opinions on 'reverse fears'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, if you were proposing to start a new article, Template:Kafirophobia is entirely the wrong way to do it, since articles don't go in the 'Template' namespace. Please take the time to find out how to do things properly before rushing in - you are creating unnecessary work for those cleaning up after you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Muslims are not a race. And the word for hatred of Jews isn't Jewophobia but anti-semitism. Jews are a race either. Yet far too many people hate Muslims and/or Jews. Christianophobia and Christophobia  are real words Anti-Christian sentiment, perhaps you haven't read enough. See also .  Doug Weller  talk 11:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Kafirophobia


Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Template:Kafirophobia, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)