User talk:Montell 74

Welcome!

Hello Montell 74, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Athletics Federation of Pakistan

Hi Rumping. You removed my deletion. I think 'Athletics Federation of Pakistan' should be accurately and specified described by own article. Montell 74 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you see someone's redirect you do not like, you have some options, including:

1. Redirect it somewhere else
2. Write an article (even a stub)
3. Raise it at Redirects for discussion, suggesting it is deleted

but blanking the page is not really an acceptable option.--Rumping (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Ponce Grand Prix

You seem to have a lot of interest in this article. However, you are failing to follow wikipedia guidelines. For your reference, I include below the history of my attempts to deal with your multiple reverts of my work. No offense, but your last reaction appears rather impulsive to me. I suggest you give them a second thought:

"My reference is a citation from a reliable source. If you feel it "does not achieve the standards of wikipedia" then say how it does not, rather than just making the statement. The same goes for the "be neutral" note in your message. State how I am not being neutral, rather than just making the statement.

First, you claimed you were just "adding a pic and a link", when you were also, and in manner that could be considered surreptious, removing a sourced statement about the number of spectators both locally and via TV that witnessed the event. When I, assuming good faith from you, responded and explained that sourced content had been lost during your edit and reinstated the sourced information you deleted, you then came back a second time and removed my sourced content arguing this time that my "reference tells nothing about spectators and "hundreds of thousands" via tv!!!"'. For a third time I reinstated the source content, this time (as if you could not read the entire source document for yourself) adding not only the exact text in quotation marks, but also providing a full Spanish-to-English translation. You are now coming back for a third time with a new charge: that the information about the number of spectators given in the news source should not be included in the article because it is "speculation". Very clever of you to keep coming back with new fresh arguments every time your ammunition from your previous arguments has become useless.

But not everything is lost for you: If you now feel the information from the news source is speculation, then I suggest you argue your case with the author of that article: taking your case to me is not going to help as I did not write the news article.

In the meantime, as you have failed to make your case, and as the article statement regarding the number of local and via-TV spectators is properly sourced, unbiased, factual, and verifiable, the entry stays as is, unless of course you can come up with a new argument that is both made in good faith and logical.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message. "

I have reverted your edits for the reason above. If you have a sound reason to revert any work, you discuss it first. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The lead is used to highlight important facts. Why do you want to remove these facts from the lead? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

So we have different opionions about important facts, i think. History facts, infos about the foundation, inaugural edition or may be the growing developent up to the actual edition are good facts for an intro and just after that infos about spectators at the meet or via tv last year. Every meet has spectators. And a lot of meetings are "visited" by thousands of spectators via tv.....Montell 74 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely my point - any event has a place and time, but only a fact such as the number of spectators can set a little league event from a small town apart from the World Series. Thus why that info must go in the lead. Precisely. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Saint Lucia Records

Thanks for your work on this page. I absolutely detest formatting! I think you will find that for most records coming at CARIFTA Games, my articles on IAAF.org are far more definitive than anything in the local papers. However, I hope to do some additional work this weekend trying to get citations and references for as many records as I possibly can, so keep a lookout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryfinisterre (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Terryfinisterre. Thanks for comment. Question: You edited a junior record of 15.10 in the 100m hurdles but Alcides time was set with windy conditions (please see ref of carifta results). Am i right? The former record should be edited. Thank you. Montell 74 (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Montell. Does the oversized track at UK invalidate the record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryfinisterre (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the federation I think. IAAF do not ratify records on oversized tracks. Lexington has a 290m track and therefore the 800m time by Alcide would be problem.Montell 74 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Namespace vio

I have moved My lists to User:Montell 74/my lists. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 11:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Montell 74 (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nguyen Van Hung (athlete)

Please do not blank redirect pages as you did at Nguyen Van Hung (athlete). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion with your rationale for deletion but do not just blank pages. Thank you. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

LTU women mile

Hi, from where you get information that Rasa Michniovaitė reached record in oversise track? LLAF approved this record, so that's mean that it was standard track. LLAF do not approve OT results like Natalija Piliušina's result this year. Bearas (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I got this information from EAA site. Please have a look at http://www.tilastopaja.org/db/rec.php?Ind=1&country=LTU. Moreover the indoor track in Ames is known as an oversized track. Maybe this information is nevertheless wrong.Montell 74 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats weird. Why then LLAF approved it. Something wrong with it. Probably it should be left all three results then . Bearas (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you know whether Rasa Michniovaité and Rasa Troup are the same athlete? I'm not sure. Therefore I edited all possibilities. Thank you!Montell 74 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is one and the same athlete. Bearas (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Stats and corrections

Hi Montell. Thanks for fixing the mistake about Heike Henkel's jump in Karlsruhe. I really appreciate the work you put in as Wikipedia's "statistician in residence". Below continental level, I've not got a great interest in keeping things up to date.

I think with meetings especially, the records complement the prose and help show the quality of the competitions. The British seem especially poor at documenting the life and histories of these types of events – it surprising that for something like the Aviva Indoor Grand Prix (Britain's top indoor for decades) it is very difficult to find the year that the first annual meet was held! I think with athletics we are reaching the point where most major things have been documented at a basic level, and you've been a big help with that! Happy editing and take care. SFB 10:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Alina Astafei

Alina Astafei in 1995 rapresenting Romania, see here. --Merteselle (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Astafei got approval from romanian federation at January 9, 1995 and german citizenship at march 1, 1995. Montell 74 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fernando Acevedo in the 50m run

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/recbycat/location=i/recordtype=ar/event=0/age=n/area=sam/sex=M/records.html

He holds the record, that is the source. Automatic timing? Doesn't sound fair to me. He ran in in Germany in 1978.

He should be in the top 4 in history. Unless you think the link is not official.

Not just that, but on the list you have Manfred Kokot, who ran his time in 1973, also in Germany. If automatic timing was considered for him, how is it not for Acevedo, in the same country, 5 years later?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.60.7 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC) 

He holds the record because IAAF accept hand timing marks if no other is recorded. Automatic timing depends not on country and time but on the meet itself. There are manual timed meetings all over the world still today. And there are a lot of hand timing marks around acevedo's time in history of 50 m sprint (!!!). This wikitable just includes automatic marks. Sorry, but that's fair to me. Look at the IAAF top list: http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=i/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=50/detail.html

Montell 74 (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Different person here, this post seems interesting nonetheless. My question is how you know that in Acevedo's meet, automatic timing was not used? How are you validating your argument? Simple question. It there was a link to the meet, or something online saying hand timing was used in that particular meet, then ok. But if there isn't, how do you take away an athlete's accomplishment if he already exists on the South American record books, and there is proof of that, as the gentleman previously posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.199 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Automatic timing would be a 5.60 (!) But it's just a 5.6 . So that's the reason why you don't find this mark in the IAAF top list. And so you shouldn't here. Have a look at the 60 Metres: http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/records/inout=i/discType=5/disc=60/detail.html Dwain Chaimbers european record is 6.42. Lithuanian sprinters run 6.4 for 4 times [1]. But you can't find any of them in the Top 10 [2]. Montell 74 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

IP adding incorrect information to multiple runner's articles

Great job on removing vandalism. FYI, since this is continuing- there are now three known instances. Special:Contributions/89.241.137.21, Special:Contributions/89.241.208.38, Special:Contributions/89.241.211.81. Two of them have been blocked temporarily. If you see it continue, please report to wp:AIV. Thanks! --CutOffTies (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Montell 74. You have new messages at Basement12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sukma Games

I added the latest 2011 medal table and will put references soon. --175.141.93.165 (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

10 second barrier

In your most recent edit to 10 second barrier you stated that the track in Clermont, Florida does not fulfill IAAF regulations (since reverted by another editor). On what grounds does it not and do you have a source for that remark? Trackinfo (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read it in some online news. [3], [4] (in german) But it is just about the fact, no reasons given why or what is wrong with the track. I don't find a reference by IAAF itself. But when IAAF now list the times, all seems to be ok with the track. Montell 74 (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We have several US Masters records set there and I was wondering if there was anything official. I know IAAF has a certification program for tracks worldwide, which the USA almost completely ignores. I think there are about 6 tracks in the entire country who have undergone such certification, and popular tracks like Mt. SAC, Sacramento State, Penn, University of Texas and most lesser tracks are not on that list. That does not affect their certifying records apparently. Its just another revenue source for IAAF. I thought that was the issue you were raising. Trackinfo (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!Montell 74 (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Hi Montell. You made a cut and paste move at the NACAC Association page last month. In future, please request an admin to make the move instead because the history must be properly recorded. This is really important as the history is needed to give attribution to the people who have written the articles! Thanks. SFB 18:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, regarding the stat vandalism from that random IP user. I advise you to apply for the Rollback privilege. This gives you a click-able "rollback" button in the user's contributions list which will automatically undo all their vandalism. I applied for it a month ago and now it only takes me ten seconds to undo all the vandalism! A good time saver. SFB 21:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all this.;-) Montell 74 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Montell 74. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!Montell 74 (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Swimming records" category

Hello, I am a bit confused about the categorization of Pan Pacific Swimming Championships in Category:Swimming records (via Template:Records in swimming), additional to List of Pan Pacific Championships records in swimming. I agree having the template there makes sense, but perhaps the category shouldn't automatically follow, as the page is about a swimming competition? The same can be said about FINA. Alternatively, if we include both template and category, wouldn't it be consistent to add these to other tournament articles, such as Swimming at the World Aquatics Championships as well? Thanks in advance! By the way, my compliments on your contributions on records, among other things. Gap9551 (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there's no evident reason for Category:Swimming records. But how can we keep the template without automatically following of this category? Is it possible? I don't know. Thanx for compliment.Montell 74 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, I looked into the code and changed the template so that the Category isn't automatically inherited to the articles having the template. Only four of the articles listed in the template didn't include Category:Swimming records explicitly, so I added it to those. Gap9551 (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done.Montell 74 (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Angus Cooper

I'm getting a little tired of this. Stats lists have no authority when it comes to records that is solely the up to the governing body, in this case as New Zealand athletic records, the governing body is Athletics New Zealand. That the media continues to use the term records (from stats lists) as equivalent to Records (as verified by official authorities) doesn't help (the Jacko Gill age records being a classic example). I have it on good authority that the 73.96 was made during a comeptition which was actually just a training session and that the throw was measured by Angus and a friend. If I get a chance I will talk Angus and get this confirmed. Even though that could be classified as OR the facts are that this performance clearly fails any definition of the word "record" and has no place in a New Zealand athletics records article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody contests, that AZ is recognising marks as records. But please, why are you against giving more information then just the representation of NZ-Record list here in wikipedia? We have the chance to give more information. Perhaps we have to think about to change the intro. Well, this article is about the NZ records but maybe we include the best performances! Is it ok for you? Apart from that # remarks that this throw is NOT a record. You are welcome to find out, what is the reason for unratification of Coopers throw. This is an interesting fact, which can edited in Angus' wiki-article and here too.Montell 74 (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is this performance is nowhere close to meeting the requirements for a record. It is so far from being a record that including it detracts from the integrity of the article being about legitimate records. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Athletics at the 2011 Island Games

It is vandalism removing that section of the text. It is not a universally known fact, regardless of whether or not you know it. Should we also remove "Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun" in Earth? I bet a lot more people know that than about the athletics. How about "Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia" from Wikipedia? I'm fairly sure everyone on here knows that too. Don't remove article sections because they're "obvious", as not everyone would feel that way. The only reason they're obvious to you is that you found out about them somewhere. Remove where you found out about it and no-one would know. Sellyme^Talk 04:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what nonsens you write? The schedule declares itself. This sentence is nothing more than "Oh. Look at the difference!". No helpful information. Maybe you gonna write it in all athletic competition articles? Yes, Wikipedia is free, but here I think you're more defending "your" article than being constructiv. Montell 74 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I believe having it in all Athletics at (insert MSE here) would be helpful (Including any other differences in scheduling, such as at Athletics at the 2011 Pan American Games), as a lot of people will see "100m" and "110m" and think one of them is a typo. I really do not see why there's a problem with having a bit of prose explaining it. Where else are you going to find out that difference if you're insistent that everyone knows about it? I posted two examples of "obvious" statements above, so should they be removed too? The helpful information is pointing out the difference in a nice, un-obstructive prose format.

You wrote about "two major disciplines". Track and Field (39 events). Road running (2 events) (???). By the way, what about men's pole vault? I think, your intro is a start. Not more. Now it's up to "us" to make things better. Apart from that why you don't link the disciplines. So anyone will have the chance to get more information about the differences 100m/110m hurdling.Montell 74 (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought I did link them. Huh, I'll get on that. The major problem with these things is that the Island Games website is horrifically unclear. As the events progress I'll be able to clearly work things out, and improve the articles accordingly. Thanks for trying to help, anyway! Sellyme^Talk 06:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

CIF California State Meet alumni

Hello Montel, You know the nature of my work, we have paralleled on many articles. This is one of my new articles, obviously I think is a valid article to show the long history of notable performers in this event. Another editor thinks its junk and has taken to AfD. Please look the article over and drop a comment in the nomination discussion. If you think its junk, maybe I should re-evaluate the article's value. Trackinfo (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I know the problem. Now this list is well done, much better then the former simple enumaration. I would like to see the list in the article. But i wanted to create a meet record table there too. In fact, both lists would overload the article. So i'm a little bit torn. So this list just make sense in an own article. Well, i'm not sure about giving an explanatory statement.Montell 74 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase would be merge. That was the original way I had it. Would you please post your analysis into the AfD for the article or all this information could just be deleted with a prejudice to it ever returnig. Trackinfo (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

World Records in athletics

The modifications I made are minor corrections that match this which was just published in the last 2 days. Trackinfo (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also regarding the latest addition to Decathlon, I see two National records listed as Walnut, California. WP:OR in recent years the decathlon associated with the Mt. SAC Relays actually takes place at Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California rather than at Mt. San Antonio College in Walnut. The difference is something like 14 KM. I cannot state that this is in error, particularly in regard to C.K. Yang in 1963. I've seen pictures of him competing at the Walnut track, so I can't offer contradictory evidence. 1987 might be after the time they made the switch. I'll see if I can find any documentation to prove it. Trackinfo (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the date at Prefontaine, you are correct, now that I remember the race was June 3rd. I doesn't surprise me that IAAF got it wrong in a publication. The actual record time (en route) is still in question. I went with what IAAF published, which I assume is what will be submitted. I guess, since this is still a pending mark, we will have to wait to see what is ratified. Speaking of which, both of Seko's marks are still the official record until that happens. We are getting a bit premature in declaring a record before it is officially ratified. The 61030 document had to have been released in the last two days because it includes the results of the recent IAAF administrative elections. I take that as it being updated, but perhaps only that one section. You and I know the difficulties IAAF has in keeping all their information straight. Trackinfo (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Pending??? It's no pending mark! It's officially ratified as IAAF posted on NEWS site!Montell 74 (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Old website links

Hi Montell. In the case where old competition websites have expired (like here) you can search out an archived version of that website via Archive.org's "Wayback machine". Official websites can be very very useful for historical study. The problem is that it becomes very difficult to locate the old addresses because nobody links to them when they have been removed.

The archive machine can be immensely useful in other cases too. For example this website has all the information about the old International Cross Country Championships, should we decide to create results pages for those competitions (not readily available data!). It is a tool well worth remembering for the future. SFB 21:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!!Montell 74 (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Athletics Bridge

Orlady (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Popov's 1958 marathon time

I am really puzzled by what happened at Marathon world record progression. I removed a note (diff) and you seemed to revert me (diff) with a comment suggesting it was a simple "undo" (Undid revision 452672700 by Thincat (talk)) but in fact your edit corrected the extended time. Your edit was better than mine. But what actually happened? Seeing what I took to be a reversion I studied the matter further and found the corrected time to edit it in. However my second edit (as it turns out identical to yours) seems not to have been recorded. Weird. Did you in fact correct the time in making your undo? Thincat (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I edited the new fact manually. Sorry for the "Undo" but this was the easier way for me, just to put in the correct time.Montell 74 (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That explains it. And my edit, being a "no change" on yours, would have been ditched. I came across Popov because he was the first man to run faster than the current women's record. Remembering 1958 (and I do!), it was only after that that women could compete in the Olympics at 400 metres and above, except, curiously in 1928[5]. I expect the officials worried the women might get out of breath, poor dears. Thincat (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Montell 74! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

November 2011

Just want to drop by and say thanks for adding swimming national records to the 2011 World Aquatics Championships article. Your edits are appreciated! Philipmj24 (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!Montell 74 (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Japanese 100 m record

Japanese records in athletics says 10.03, while IAAF says that Koji Ito ran 10.00 (as duly noted in the article), and that Nobuharu Asahara ran 10.02... GregorB (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between IAAF's Statistic Handbook and the official meet result (?!)Montell 74 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately these kinds of discrepancies happen surprisingly often. Had a multiple case with Lisa Stublić... GregorB (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

List of world records in masters athletics

The official list of world records is maintained at http://www.world-masters-athletics.org/records/ thus those are the official distances. Those records are maintained by Sandy Pashkin, who also maintains the American records. She approves legitimate records with military precision, meaning if every i is not dotted or every t is not crossed, she will ignore a superior performance. She does this by the hundreds, thus the permanently pending records and multiple other sites that document the failures. You probably picked up information from masterstrack.com, from one of the foremost masters track journalists, Ken Stone. I know him personally. Lots of volunteers feed him information, most of it highly researched and credible, but in this case apparently not 100% credible. There are lots of people watching over each other's shoulders, Martin Gasselsberger, Weia Reinbound, Jeff Davison, Jeff Brower, Eugene Anton and myself. We're trying to get this stuff right by the various lists that are compiled. Wikipedia is an excellent final public destination for those efforts, so I feel this list is far more accurate than the official site.

Feel free to create a list of non-standard events, though I fear this particular page is far too long to fit it on this page. Its already a slow page to load. And I didn't cover the myriad of racewalk records that should also be part of this. Instead, I suggest a separate article for that, as I intend to do for racewalk when I have the time to start something that big. Thanks for watching and all the detailed work you do with records. SFB, Pietaster, you and I seem to be the major people trying to keep out the vandals who regularly try to deface T&F information. Trackinfo (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Masters multi-event scoring is done with a conversion table. First row the actual mark is recorded, then it goes through an age-graded conversion which would normally show on a second row. That converted mark is the one that goes through the multi-event table for a score which shows on a third row. At M35, the age grading factor is small, but for an older person the conversion is much larger. So in a more extreme example, an M90 might run a 20 second 100m. That would be a zero on the normal table. But for that age, its equivalent to a 11.47 worth 759 on the decathlon table. An excel calculator is available at www.stefanwaltermann.com/Database/Model2010multiagegradescore.xls

The way I created the multi-event scores (which you might consider using for the Open records layouts) was to create a specific template per record. It forces the layout necessary for proper display of multi-events. So if you edit the template Template:Kip Janvrin M35 Record or other similar templates (the names are) embedded in the results, you can edit in the information. For brevity I left out the converted marks, obviously it takes some explanation--what they mean. Also, of note, after age 50 various hurdle heights and spacings change and implement weights change. To confuse historical results, those changes have changed, so what someone threw or jumped in the 1980's or even 90's is not what is officially done in that same age group now. Most are easier now, lighter weights, lower hurdles, closer together. That has resulted in many superior, old records being invalidated--or left permanently pending as I have posted them. Trackinfo (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.7.141 (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting advice regarding abuser/vandal using multiple ip addresses

Heya, nice to talk to you! Instead of completely spamming the WP:AIV page, may I ask some advice on how best to deal with a person who's been using 10 (and counting) different ip addresses to spam a biography, its talk page and subsequently my personal pages since 2010? The biography in question is Dave Colclough in case you want to have a look, and semi-protection of the page doesn't work because the guy just resumes spamming angry nonsense once it expires. All the best, JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I can't give better advice than to warn the user and leave a message at the WP:AIV page every time!. Maybe some accounts will be blocked for month and years. Try! I put Dave Colclough to my watchlist! Thanks for asking.Montell 74 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that's what I'll do. I'll keep 'em coming as they happen (I've no doubt they will continue to do so) and I'll be sure to specify that they're the same crazy guy. Thanks! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Trandafir's 22.45

Montell, hello, hello. On the Romanian Records, I merged the two 22.45's by Norbert Trandafir as it seemed more likely that the swim at the 2011 World University Games is when he did the time, rather than he swam it twice. The World Rankings from 2008 don't have the time in them (he'd have been tied for 61^st. However, I now see that FRNMP has results from the meet with the time. Is there a secondary source for the result from 2008? The Fed also doesn't list that the time was swum twice; just that it was done once and it lists the 2008 time as the record (and the record listing was updated after the 2011 WUGs...). -- Hooperswim (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hooperswim, hi hi. It's difficult to find a reference about the competition, but see [6] and [7]. Seems to me that there was a record in 2008. Keep on! Montell 74 (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)