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.
- 1 RfC: Is it appropriate to use the term "American record" when referring to a national record set by a United States citizen?
- 2 SPA
- 3 Notability Essay
- 4 Figure skating notability & unreferenced BLP deadline
- 5 Promoting NSPORT to notability guideline
- 6 College Football notability
- 7 License tagging for File:SpiritCatchesYAYFD.jpg
- 8 Galton-Watson process comment
- 9 Talkback
- 10 High school record holders
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for December 20
- 12 Mary C. Cain
- 13 Notability
- 14 Disambiguation link notification for August 27
- 15 Re: Athletics notability
- 16 Invitation to discussion
- 17 Invitation to discussion
- 18 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 19 WikiProject Athletics Happy New Year
RfC: Is it appropriate to use the term "American record" when referring to a national record set by a United States citizen?
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)
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
- 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
- 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)
- 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
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 Wikipedia: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)
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.
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)
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.
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 Wikipedia: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)
Invitation to discussion
Invitation to discussion
You have been cordially invited to discuss Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gymnastics#Major competitions and medal records for athletes following this and this discussions. Thanks for your quick and prompt response.
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)