User talk:Mattximus/Archive 3

Why do you remove the details about station numbers that are under construction? It is perfectly valid information that should be included, and is well referenced. If there are Vancouver stations that are under construction, I hope that someone adds them. Okseroc (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okseroc I added information to Vancouver, but you delete it over and over again. Why is that? Mattximus (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I must be doing it by mistake. Can you please stop removing the details about the Crosstown LRT and Spadina Extension? Okseroc (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well Okseroc first, stop deleting the vancouver data over and over again. Second, Toronto is the second largest system in Canada and I'm confused why you are placing it as number one on the table. Mattximus (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing it at number one on the table because it is currently the largest (by stations) in Canada. Why are you changing it? Can you please stop. If you are changing it because of total ridership, that is an old number (Q4) and an updates reference will be required.

Why use number of stations instead of of system length and total ridership. And yes even new ridership figures would not put Toronto ahead of Montreal. If Montreal is the longest and has the most passengers, surely it is first on the list? Mattximus (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Toronto is the largest system currently, especially when we consider the streetcar system (but that is a different argument alltogether. Can you please stop making this change? Please find new ridership numbers, and update. Perhaps include projected ridership numbers with the Spadina Extension and Line 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okseroc (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the streetcar system, it's about the rapid transit system only. Toronto is the second largest metro system in Canada. You are making false changes so it must be reverted. Those cited are the latest ridership figures, and also we do not post projections because this is an encyclopedia. It reports on what exists, not what may exist in the future. Mattximus (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the World's largest cities page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good try, but you missed a couple of steps. Firstly, you needed to create this page using the {{afd2}} template--this adds several useful links to the discussion page, especially one back to the article itself. It also makes this page visible to some bots that track pages like this. Second, you needed to add this page to a daily log page where it can be seen by the editors who evaluate these things. Therefore, it's likely that nobody ever saw it until I ran across it on a list of month-old requests. No harm, no foul--it's just that the "clock" on the discussion really only starts now. Please double-check the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, and have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 20:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By an amazing coincidence, I was creating the article Gelliodes at the same time you were. I was creating it ahead of writing an article on Gelliodes fibrosa which I plan to do tomorrow. If you look at Gelliodes now, you will see that the formatting of the reference to WoRMS is better. It would be helpful if you could use this format in future instead of the bare url. Keep up the good work! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird coincidence talk! Sometimes when I need to relax I create random lists on wikipedia haha. I was a bit lazy on the citation format I will admit, but I am familiar with proper form. Mattximus (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

the reversion you did to my edit was very unhelpful. Rather than simply reverting I'd like you to think about how to amend the content. Is it possible for you to edit my edit, rather than simply vaporizing it? I think so. Try harder to be helpful rather than be unpleasant, and you'll have it.

47.54.8.231 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk, I did leave you a message on your talk page. You removed almost the whole lead, and put it into the body of the text, which is against the manual of style. You also added a section with a list of links to pdf articles randomly in the middle of the text? Also the paragraph you added was not clear exactly what you wanted to say. I know reverting was a bold move, but there were too many errors to simply fix. Reversion was the simplest way to remove these errors. I hope this makes sense. Mattximus (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the guideline you posted, however it also stated that "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes". Can you specify why you insisted the removal of flags in infoboxes of some cities (Montreal and St. John's) but not the others (NYC, Seattle, etc.)? Even of you are a Quebec separatist, the status of both MTL and STJ are not subject to political dispute since they are currently under undisputed Canadian control.C-GAUN (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C-GAUN, It's on an aesthetic grounds. Specifically, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.". I find they just clutter up an already cluttered info box. They are optional for human settlements true, but they are often way too small to be meaningful. Can you tell the difference between Manitoba's flag and Ontario's flag at that resolution? Mattximus (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thanks for making that percent change template many years ago. I'm wondering if you would be able to help me find a solution to a little glitch in the template. In my sandbox you can see that a reference placed by one of the input numbers turns the output percent into a NA. If the reference is placed at the end, it appears only in the output column. Is there an easy fix to this you would be willing to help with? Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Yours aye,  Buaidh  03:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimp has substantially enhanced my original version of Template:Change. You can add a reference with "suf=", but it will appear with both numbers. We could create "suf1=" and "suf2=" to create individual suffixes for the numbers. I suggest you ask User:Jimp to add the features you desire. Yours aye,  Buaidh  23:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will do. Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattximus. I'm just posting to let you know that Cantons of Costa Rica – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 19. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just so you know, EelamStyleZ (talk · contribs · logs) has moved all the pages pertaining to TTC streetcar routes to the format "Route 5XX (Name)". Since I saw you have moved 501 Queen back to its original location, you might want to do the same for the rest. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do, please check out the discussion at User talk:EelamStyleZ. Thanks. — EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made this edit but didn't leave a source. I'm not sure where you got your data. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magnolia677. Just the US census. Take a look at Blythewood, it grew faster than Bluffton. Mattximus (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluffton article had a reliable source here supporting that it is "the fastest growing municipality in South Carolina with a population over 2,500". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magnolia677. Your source appears to have made an error. The raw data from the census found here [1] lists it as number 2. Specifically, Bluffton had a 882.7% increase (which is ridiculously high), but Blythewood had 1,096.5% increase. I haven't had time to completely check the list but it's safe to say Bluffton is at least second. Mattximus (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factfinder shows that Blythewood had a population of just 2,034 in 2010. The original edit on the Bluffton article stated "the fastest growing municipality in South Carolina with a population over 2,500". Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of municipalities in Georgia (U.S. state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgetown, Georgia. 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) 09:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say it bluntly: the next time I come across a mess like this (320 different links to 102 disambiguation pages), I will no try to solve it. I will revert the unhelpful edits. The Banner talk 12:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, I've been doing this for every state list in order to get them up to featured list status. I've already had success with 2, and 3 more are in the queue, and 5 more are nearly complete. That is 10/50 lists that were originally full of errors, missing places, out of date, unsourced... they are now all of very high quality. Sometimes it takes a bit of time to make them perfect, but the end results are always very good. Ask yourself: do you want lists like this List of cities and towns in Montana or like this List of cities in Texas? Mattximus (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want proper work, not hundreds of links to disambiguation pages. Delivering sloppy work while chasing honours is not the right way. The Banner talk 13:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An accurate and well formatted page is more important than some disambiguation. That is the least of my concern. The content, and ability for users to read and get information quickly and accurately is my main concern. Mattximus (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I'm happy that you, The Banner, are helping with the disambiguation. That is also needed for it to be promoted to featured list. There will be more coming unfortunately, I'm not done the cities that span 2 counties. But there are not that many of those, fortunately! Mattximus (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not kidding about reverting unhelpful edits. I strongly suggest that you start using Wikipedia:WPCleaner and check the articles yourself. The Banner talk 13:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave that for other users who want to help improve articles. Many have helped in the past. The Banner, you seem to be good at it, but it is, of course, your choice whether you want to help or not. Mattximus (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am unwilling to help the unwilling. The Banner talk 13:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, did you see what the article looked like before? It was like the texas one I linked you up above. It is clearly looking better than it was before, I think you will agree. If you want to help with the disambiguations, that's great, but if not, others will step in. That's the beauty if wikipedia, it's a team effort.Mattximus (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care how bad an article was. I care about how bad an article is after your edits. The Banner talk 14:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, did you compare before and after? It's still a work in progress, but honestly, do you think it was better before? Click here[2] to find out. Please actually click and let me know. Mattximus (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care about how bad an article was. I care about the present state of the article. And I see sloppy edits and an editor willingly ignoring the mess (by now 16 links) he creates. The Banner talk 14:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner...so you would rather have a bad article with disambiguation, instead of a good one without disambiguation? I'm not sure you understand the purpose of wikipedia... good quality articles are more important than nit-picking the disambiguation systems. You would rather an encyclopedia full of terrible articles (but disambiguated), instead of great articles like this? 14:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you just have to up your own game and don't blame others for your sloppy work. Be responsible for your own edits. The Banner talk 15:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, when did I blame others? I don't understand what you mean. Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You point at other bad articles as excuse for your own substandard work. I am not buying that. Bad work is not an excuse for bad work. And I am not kidding about reverting. Get your game up to standard and solve the links to disambiguation pages yourself. The Banner talk 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, I think you misunderstand how wikipedia works. You are being argumentative and overall negative. While we spoke, another user fixed many of the disambiguations on the page I am working on. This is how it should be, team efforts, community actions. I've brought many pages to featured status with the help of the wikipedia community, this is the first time I heard my work as substandard. Please look again at how the page looked before I started on it, would you rather that? Is that the wikipedia you want? Why not help out instead of making threats. Mattximus (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in, much later, I tend to agree with Mattximus, that they were going ahead and improving articles, which is a basic positive. It may have created links to disambiguation pages, and they left "fixing" those to others, but there are in fact very good specialized tools used by very skilled editors who can fix those very efficiently ( I know, I have participated in Disambiguation drives and used some of the tools, and once "won" the monthly disambiguator award, and I spent time today tracking down and fixing all the ambiguous links created by my seeing the need for a new disambiguation page ). Wikipedia does work by allowing specialization, and letting people do what they like best and/or know how to do best. And in general it is not fair to criticize an editor for what they did NOT do. I have been on the receiving end of criticism like this, most recently about my having used some redlink categories (allowing category specialists to create the needed categories and file them properly, or for them to find and apply already existing categories) and I feel pretty strongly that it is unfair. I have some notes somewhere that I oughta expand about this. --Doncram (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of municipalities in Georgia (U.S. state)

added links pointing to Montgomery County, Franklin County, Madison County, Carroll County, Fulton County, Bibb County, Cherokee County, Pickens County, Harris County, Stephens County, Jackson County, Hall County, Wilkinson County, Wheeler County, Walton County, Thomas County, Talbot County, Polk County, Pierce County, Newton County, Mitchell County, Lee County, Jones County, Houston County, Hart County, Douglas County, Dodge County and Brooks County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you continue adding large numbers of disambiguation links to pages, your editing privileges will be limited to prevent you from doing so. Please fix all disambiguation links you have created before you do anything else in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 14:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T, it is threats like these that have pushed many editors to quit wikipedia. My goal is to make high quality articles, and I have already promoted 10 to featured list status. Here is a recent example of the quality of my work: List of cities and towns in Montana. Now your demand that I fix everything on this page that is in progress right now is rude. Wikipedia is a communal effort, and one person simply can't fix everything right away. Your threat is a response to how I fixed dozens of broken links by sending them to the correct disambiguation page, which is very much an improvement. Would you rather broken and incorrect links that go nowhere or to a disamb page? I can't do everything at once, nor should I be expected to. Mattximus (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you are an administrator. You should be more constructive and collaborative instead of threatening if you do care about the project. I have several friends that stopped editing due to comments like yours. Is that the wikipedia you want? Fewer and fewer editors? Mattximus (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links to disambiguation pages are errors, and are worse than "broken" links because they create the appearance that the problem has been fixed, when it has not. Of course you can't do everything at once, but the one thing you are doing, you can do correctly. Right now you are the single biggest source of new disambiguation links needing repair in the entire encyclopedia. bd2412 T 16:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fixed the Georgia links. For future reference, please note that all links to county names in the U.S. should include the name of the state, e.g. Union County, Georgia. bd2412 T 16:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true. Missing or broken links are worse than disambiguation pages, since all you need 1 additional click and you are at the right page. Before I fixed them, they did not link to any county, which is much worse. Why not consider the person fixing the disambiguation links to be a collaborator? Various people have fixed links on pages I've been working on over the years that later became featured. This is the team spirit of wikipedia is it not? Thanks for fixing the links on this page, perhaps you can help again when I get to the next list. Mattximus (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you before that I will start reverting when adding a massive amount of links to an article, as you did with "List of municipalities in Georgia (U.S. state)". You are lucky that they were already solved when I came across it. But the warning still stands. The Banner talk 20:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk, there will be fewer and fewer serious editors if you keep threatening people... Mattximus (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just bring your work up to standard. The Banner talk 06:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mattximus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus. I should be grateful for a review of List of Local Nature Reserves in Essex at FLC if you have time. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattximus. I'm just posting to let you know that List of cities and towns in Alabama – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 23. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some extra time after you're done reviewing the above, a review of List of United States military premier ensembles would also be appreciated. Many thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm planning to take 2003 Cricket World Cup Final to FAC. Sarastro1 has suggested me to invite a few non-cricket specialists to have a look at the article. Any feedback would be much appreciated. —Vensatry _(talk) 15:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of municipalities in Nova Scotia page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus, did you see the centering suggestion here? Once done, assuming it is possible, I intend to collapse all my comments as resolved leaving nothing but the final Support comment for ease of the FLC decision makers.

Also, when you get around to updating the municipality lists in Canada with the 2016 census results using the template format, I trust you will remove all existing 2011 census columns in favour of the new 2016 census column equivalents? We should avoid comparing 2016 back to 2006 due to some municipal boundaries being different in 2006 compared to 2016. Also, please ensure the templates used produce center justified cells (again, assuming it is possible, and if it is not we can make the appropriate requests at the template talk page). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've figured out and fixed the centering issue at the Louisiana list. Hwy43 (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I figured we would eliminated the old 2006 column. The templates I put should be centred, but I will check to make sure they are all centred. They should be easier to update since we don't have to manually input the percent change column. Thanks for fixing the Louisiana one. Mattximus (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. If I can make one more OCD request... When you replace the table content, I recommend white space between the pipes and the contents of each cell for ease of navigation while editing after the fact. Compare the legibility of the below.

• |scope="row"| {{anchor|A}}[[Acme, Alberta|Acme]] || Village ||align=center| {{sort|1910-07-07|July 7, 1910}} ||align=center| {{nts|653}} ||align=center| {{nts|656}} ||align=center| {{nts|-0.5}} ||align=center| {{nts|2.47}} ||align=center| {{nts|263.9}}
• |scope="row"|{{anchor|A}}[[Acme, Alberta|Acme]]||Village||align=center|{{sort|1910-07-07|July 7, 1910}}||align=center|{{nts|653}}||align=center|{{nts|656}}||align=center|{{nts|-0.5}}||align=center|{{nts|2.47}}||align=center|{{nts|263.9}}

I've got my Excel spreadsheet ready to go for a quick swap in of the 2016 results on Wednesday morning for List of municipalities in Alberta. I'll do that after I update the Demographics sections and infoboxes of all Alberta municipalities. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I don't mind updating the ones I have templates for, it's actually quite quick, and I'll then run it through some filters to make sure the white space is there. Thanks for the suggestions. Mattximus (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious but why this? Did you mean to round something else in the article? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBW, see the thread arising from Vensatry's second comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Nova Scotia/archive1. Mattximus, for the others you fixed, please go back to make sure the old, unrecommended source is removed and replaced with the proper source to avoid similar understandable questions from sharp editors such as CBW. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops good catch, all the others should be from the source you recommended. Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of municipalities in Prince Edward Island page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was really blind looking at the wrong column, sorry. Marcos Hunter (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you lived in the United States, perhaps you would realize just how incorrect it is to say that these regions are not controversial. There are many Census state classifications that are the subject of controversy, and this includes more states than just Oklahoma. Americans rarely look to the Census when trying to define regions, and even within the U.S. federal government, there are different groupings. All the "controversial" bit aside, that wasn't even why I originally added the "-Central" bit (it was more like extra justification on the side). "Southern United States" is not as accurate as "South-Central United States". Even going by the Census, Oklahoma is classified as "West South Central". Would that be preferable? It looks like you, apparently single-handedly, added these sentences to every single list of this type in 2016, so if you could direct me to the discussion (if there was one) where the specifics of these sentences were agreed upon, I would appreciate it. Perhaps more guidance can be sought there. I see that you have put a lot of work into many of these lists, and I'm not questioning the benefit of all that work; it's just this one tiny bit I am referring to here (the "Southern" vs. "South-Central" bit). I don't mean to come off as angry or unkind here (as I think some of my earlier revisions of this may), so if I do, just know that it is unintended. Perhaps you have a great rebuttal or I missed something obvious; I'm all down for hearing it. Master of Time (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well User talk:Master of Time, we can start by asking if you have a source for your statement? I provided you with the official US. Census Regions (and a link). The US census is where all the data from the table comes from, so I thought it was best to use consistent sourcing. Why use one source for the table and a different source in the lead? Also, click on Southern United States, shouldn't this list match up with other wikipedia pages? Why have your different classification here, and then use US census regions on those other pages? Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattximus. I'm just posting to let you know that List of cities and towns in Montana – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regardless of the stated source, the recent reversion you made to my "Richland, Mississippi" edit is historically inaccurate and I would appreciate it if you would return it back to my prior edit (i.e. "Fixing typo"). The "February 18, 1850" municipal incorporation date that you reverted it to was, in fact, an original incorporation date of the now unincorporated community of Richland, Holmes County, Mississippi.

To illustrate my point, I am providing you with the following quote and external link to "House Concurrent Resolution 113" commending Lester James Spell, Jr., D.M.V., the 1st Mayor of Richland, who was...

.

Thanks. Lieutcoluseng (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutcoluseng, it looks like you are correct, you can put back the year but we would also need to include a reference since it contradicts the other reference. Do you know the exact date of incorporation? That would be ideal. Great catch! Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", 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:Administrators' guide/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! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Municipalities of Mexico into Municipalities of Colima. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 55-66 HDR PAN.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattximus. I'm just posting to let you know that List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 23. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-review Territorial evolution of the United States - I've added an intro, and moved the notes below the table. Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSTITLES Primergrey (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that branch of the MOS is for legal articles, but I won't quibble. Primergrey (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lees station should probably be a disambiguation page, because there is an obvious naming conflict with Lees railway station and Lees Station, Tennessee. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can be renamed Lees station (Ottawa). Mattximus (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate you might not be a native English-speaker, so I'll keep that in mind, but I'd like to know why you are wholesale REVERTING some of the edits I have made, just because — for some unknown reason that isn't explained — you don't agree with the punctuation corrections?

Seriously, do you have an expert knowledge on the English language, because I don't wish to continue this unless I have that ascertained. No offence, but you seem unfamiliar with hyphenation rules.

Also, the other thing I'd like to let you know is that in one edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_municipalities_in_Delaware&action=history) you berated me for putting the word FILE within those edits. I did not insert those. Those tags were automatically placed in there by Wikipedia's system upon the completion of the edit.

Having said that, generally speaking, if you have a problem with a particular part of the edit (but not necessarily the whole edit) don't revert the ENTIRE edit — something that took me several minutes to fix. Change the specific thing what you feel you need to change and then state the reason in the edit summary. Pretty simple. In the past I've seen editors like you before — don't be that guy.

Do the right thing please. Thank you. :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.29.182 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

You moved TTC's subway station to the title Islington station. Please see the disambiguation page Islington Station which shows five similarly named stations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you bring back the "List of Urban Areas by Population" page please? It contains consistent data for urban areas and is more reliable than the new table in the "List of Largest Cities" page. Or at least put the Demographia data into the table as well? Right now the only population data available for urban areas is from various data sources and is not accurate (e.g. Sao Paulo and Mumbai has larger urban population than metro - which is not possible, because by definition a metro area is larger than urban). The "List of Urban Areas by Population" page was really useful for comparisons of various cities, which also contained good definitions of source methodology, and I'm sure it's useful for other users too. Thanks July 11, 2017

Hello, I see you didn't sign so I hope you get this message, but nothing was lost at all from that list. It was merged into List of largest cities. All population numbers were exactly copied over, and used the same sources as before. So it should be identical. I believe it started as only one source, demographia, but slowly people changed it (before I moved it over), so I just maintained whatever was there. I agree with you about the single source being a good idea, however it wasn't the case even when it was in a separate page. Maybe if we went into it's history we could pull a more pure version? What do you think? I could work on this on the weekend. Mattximus (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, maybe the data got changed in the "List of largest cities page", e.g. in the original "List of urban areas" page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_urban_areas_by_population&redirect=no, Delhi had a population of 26.4m whereas in the current list it's only 21.7m (urban area)? There are also other examples like Sao Paulo or Chongqing. So, it'd be good to have that demographia data included into the new table too. Thanks! (I don't edit that much so don't have a username) 65.48.111.2 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the page back until we sort this out, just so everybody is happy. I think the end goal would be to have a consistent source like demographia for urban populations and have it in the same page as the other definitions to reduce conflict. Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have this in common. We've both visited 18 countries. Which ones have you been to? Sca (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, just counting ones that I've thoroughly toured (not passing through)

• Canada
• United States
• Costa Rica
• Ireland
• United Kingdom
• Belgium
• France
• Monaco
• Spain
• Italy
• Vatican City
• Slovenia
• Hungary
• Czech Republic
• Austria
• Germany
• Denmark
• Sweden
• China

Oh, that's 19, should update. Mattximus (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're one up on me. Perhaps you'd like my idea of posting a strip of small flags of those countries. Sca (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I declined your merge request because Chicago is too large to be a town or a village. The two articles will be seperate forever. Todd (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd, what does the size of Chicago have to do with the merge request. Almost all states have merged their incorporated places into one list, why is Illinois different? Mattximus (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Okay I see what you did. Changed census stats source from “population centre” to “metropolitan area”, although not sure why you did that. But I don’t see the 123,798 figure. The total I see now is 161,175 (at top, population, 2016). I’m obviously not seeing something or am totally confused. Still learning about how to use census data obviously. Can you clarify? Thanks!  BC  _{talk to me} 23:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure  BC . There are several census divisions used by stats can, however by far the most commonly used unit is the municipality, in this case the city. The population for all municipalities in Ontario including the city of Kingston can be found here: [3]. Metropolitan area is another measure that includes neighbouring municipalities, and makes the most sense for places like Toronto, where neighbouring city borders are blurred in a continuous urban expanse. Those are usually the two reported measures. Stats can also does population centre measurement, which is mostly for large municipalities with a small core (Chatham-Kent is a perfect example), but even then we prefer to use the municipal population on wikipedia, since the population centre is arbitrary and does not involve any administrative boundaries. Does that help understanding? Please let me know if you have any more questions. Mattximus (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, thanks for this. But where did you get the 123,798 figure for the total? I only see the 161,175 figure at the top for the total here:[4]- BC  _{talk to me} 04:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 BC , the link you provided was for the census metropolitan area around Kingston, not the city of Kingston itself. That would be found in the link I posted above, along with the populations of all other muncipalities in Ontario. Mattximus (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Mattximus, thanks for creating Former municipalities of Nova Scotia!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your splitting of List of schools in the Toronto District School Board, making the elementary schools list into a redirect. It was flagged at a Wikipedia criticism site as consisting largely of secondary schools, and I found only one purely elementary school in the whole list. I've merged in material from the elementary school article's lead to form a more comprehensive lead for the high schools list.

In going through the elementary schools list, I found some schools that are not listed in what was the high schools list. In some cases I believe this comes from our having an article on a now closed or merged school, but I was going to insert them all in the comprehensive article for completeness' sake, but the tables use different parameters. So I'm going to list them on the talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are far, far too many Elementary schools (in the hundreds) to be mixed with the secondary school list. The list would be even more enormous. Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your recent edit on List of mobile network operators, where we reverted each other's edit over the flag icon. My explanation to that is (no1) China Mobile is from China so the Chinese national flag in the company column. now in main markets column China Mobile primarily operates in mainland China, and CMHK operates only in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region so there should be Hong Kong flag, as CMHK doesn't have any network operation in mainland China. Just like (no23) "3" is from Hong Kong so Hong Kong flag. I'm from Hong Kong and Hong Kong's flag is not just any other subnational flag, Hong Kong is a SAR of China. Hope you understand, cheers! S 0524 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit 1, edit 2 by me, edit 3, edit links for reference! S 0524 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattximus. Unlike FAC, FLC doesn't have a mandatory wait time before renomination. If you're confident that you've fixed the issues that were raised at the first nomination (and it looks like you did), feel free to begin another FLC at any time. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the last oknazevad's reply in the List of metro systems talk page, I feel it's time to try putting Tyne and Wear Metro again into the list; however, I think that a respected editor like you, who sits among the first twenty "top contributor" of that page, would be more suited to do it than some anonymous (that's me). So, if you want to assume the honour and the burden ... 93.57.255.93 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk you can do it but I'll watch for reverts. Mattximus (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try. But, due to the protection, my contributions (being anonymous) are subject to revision and this will almost inevitably lead to the rejection of such an edit. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Awaiting review (with fingers crossed) 93.57.255.93 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to give protection to the Mangalore article and monitor it, regarding vandalism.
No Administrator is protecting this article and it could be delisted (removed) from the list of Featured Articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Mangalore 223.186.38.187 (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mattximus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mattximus. You have new messages at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems.
Message added 21:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Mattximus, thanks for creating List of Xi'an Metro stations!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add catergories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah even I realized that the additional 15 stations in Delhi Metro are basically inter-change stations coinciding other lines, thanks again. Blesson 12:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessonprakash92 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Mattximus. I'm just posting to let you know that Municipalities of Aguascalientes – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus. Noticed your post on the NM WikiProject page. The New Mexico Municipal League might be a helpful source. Does the info on this page get at what's missing from the lead? Also noticed a couple of newer cities missing from the table: Anthony and Rio Communities. Let me know if I can be of more help with this. Quercusechinus (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Quercusechinus. I've went through your links and significantly added to the lead. I will work on cleaning up the refs later. I'm not sure about the quality of my writing, so I'm wondering if you have time to give that paragraph a once over? I'm thinking of nominating this for featured list once the lead is looked over. Either way, thanks for your help! Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of stock exchanges. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nihlus 18:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattximus. I'm just posting to let you know that List of municipalities in Nova Scotia – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for September 24. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mattximus. You have new messages at Talk:List of metro systems.
Message added 22:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of municipalities in Rhode Island, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Desist from reverting wholesale and work toward consensus on talk page. Dilidor (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dilidor (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the report at WP:AN3#User:Mattximus reported by User:Dilidor (Result: ). EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned per the result of the edit warring complaint. You and the other party are both risking a block the next time you edit List of municipalities in Rhode Island unless you get a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of municipalities in Rhode Island, you may be blocked from editing. You were already warned by Admin, yet you have renewed the edit war regardless of lack of consensus. Dilidor (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattximus, I recommend you undo your recent change to List of municipalities in Rhode Island. You are risking a block for continuing the edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As co-nom of List of municipalities in Manitoba and numerous others across Canada, providing you with notice of Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba#Merging redundant articles. I will be posting my position and comments tomorrow evening at the earliest as (working tonight in prep for a meeting tomorrow morning). Another set of lists was merged through an AfD for another province's municipality child articles a year or so ago with limited notice to and consultation with interested parties via applicable Wiki communities, affected article talk pages, original editors, etc. I will improve on that by apprising these parties about this one. As always, value and respect your thoughts, regardless of your position. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattximus. I'm just posting to let you know that Municipalities of Colima – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 9. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mattximus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0025315407056871, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the same article, you included material copied from Arturia tenuipilosa. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa I did not write any of the descriptions on this page, I was just placing the paragraphs into a table format so that it is easier to read. I suppose this triggered some bots? Mattximus (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you did is copy some material from other Wikipedia articles into Arturia (sponge). When you do this, you need to provide attribution, like I said in the second paragraph of my post. The content you copied from Arturia alcatraziensis is a copyvio added by another user to that article back in 2014. The copyright material has now been removed from both articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just happened to notice the incomplete table in the Brazil section of the page linked above while reworking it to have a column for the states. I just wanted to see if filling out the population data is still in your to-do list before I go ahead and do it myself. Thanks in advance! If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|JalenFolf}} to your message, and signing it. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved on to individual province/state lists so no problem, thanks for asking (talk) Mattximus (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattximus. I'm just posting to let you know that List of municipalities in Mississippi – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 26. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I hope I'm not bothering, but I would very much appreciate some comments on my current FLC linked above →. Just disregard if you're too busy at the moment. Many thanks and have yourself a good day Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time that you have blanked this redirect. Please stop! If you have a valid reason why this redirect should be deleted, please take the redirect to WP:RFD instead. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of Toronto District School Board elementary schools, is incomplete and partial list that needs further development before it is ready for mainspace. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barkeep49, I have to disagree with your choice to delete the page. I've been editing on wikipedia for over a decade, I've brought up dozens of lists to featured list status and of the ones I created I always start with a stub like this and work collaboratively with others to build the full list. I've never been cut down so early in the process before. Surely an incomplete list is better than no page at all. Isn't that what wikipedia is all about? Collaboration? In the present draft space it is only myself who is aware of it, and I don't think I can complete this table alone. You've killed any possibility of working with other editors. I would like to know how to plead my case to admin or a third party to prevent your constant removal of a work in progress. Otherwise I will give up entirely. Mattximus (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found out that wikipedia does have a dispute resolution board. I believe in the principles of wikipedia enough to fight this "delete first instead of collaboration" approach you have taken. Would you like to engage in dispute resolution to see what third parties think of this situation? Mattximus (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, as you might have seen from my ping I did enlist the opinion some other editors before taking a second action here. The two editors who weighed in are both quite experienced, especially with school related articles. I'm all for marginal improvements on articles - I've started more than one stub myself in hopes that others will build on what I create. However there is, in my opinion, a substantial difference between an incomplete list because it's dynamic or evolving and an incomplete list because there are hundreds of entries yet to be included. A list like this is always going to tread a fine line between being an almanac and being a directory and I would suggest it would need to be in a more complete state to be on the correct side of that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 Thanks for your response, however I still think it's better to have a partial list that someone could add to, than no list at all. If your argument is that it is not notable or a directory then that is a separate argument that can also be made, but probably should be discussed at least on the talk page first before deleting unilaterally. It is quite possible that it is not considered notable and I will accept that and stop building the page.

However, if your problem is that you won't accept a partial list, then I think we should enter a dispute resolution since this is fundamental to fostering good will on wikipedia instead of turning users off the whole site. Unilaterally deleting hours of work really made me want to quit this project entirely. I have seen many great editors be turned off by these moves, especially without discussing first. I think we should bring in third parties or administrators to settle the dispute if this is your reasoning. Would you say your reasons for deletion are the former or latter? Mattximus (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, in thinking it over further as you contest the draftify, I have self reverted and nominated it for deletion as AfD is an appropriate place for others to weigh in on the core content dispute here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Toronto District School Board elementary schools is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Toronto District School Board elementary schools until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus, I hope you will hang in there! You have done good, facing adversity that is perhaps undue, about the list of Toronto District School Board elementary schools, and about the new Corvette Junior Public School article. I have felt bad for you as this has gone on, even as I might have seemed to make it worse for you, because you are clearly a good and conscientious editor bent on improving Wikipedia.

In this diff you stated about education articles on wikipedia, that "there is just too much hassle and argument and arbitrariness", which is fair, in that the Wikipedia treatment of school notability certainly is arbitrary. About my bringing attention to the new article, I feel like I am the bearer of bad news, while I wish i could be directly supportive of exactly how you wished to proceed. I am a big believer in letting/encouraging people to be bold and create good stuff any way they want. But here there are irresistable forces. I hope to help you channel your good energy productively where it will be appreciated, e.g. perhaps in good development of list-rows about elementary schools in Toronto such as that one; I didn't want to see you invest more in creating new articles that would get shot down and deleted/redirected soon, because of how Wikipedia works in this arena.

Also, I think Barkeep49 was unduly harsh on you (and I don't mind if they see this and comment or not). In my view you were very right in your responses to Barkeep49 above, which I had not seen before just now, and in your quite reasonable appeal to stop blanking the page, back on 8 July, which I did see on the Talk page. IMO, they were wrong on the merits...of course it is okay/good to start with an incomplete list. For them to blank the page, and then further to open the AFD, was inappropriate and unfriendly in my view. Besides working on U.S. historic site articles, my second focus in Wikipedia is participating in AFDs, almost always on the side of saving articles and fighting against the seemingly-continual crushing of editors by attempts to delete all their work. Although some truly bad articles do need to be removed, I am an "inclusionist" generally, and I think I have helped (you could look up my record in wp:AFDSTATS). I dunno, maybe I am sounding like I am more part of the problem, in my being involved in confrontation, including perhaps with Barkeep49 now. But in fact in this episode there have been a good number of editors who have come in and are in fact appreciating you and your efforts and therefore voting "Keep" in the AFD or making an effort to explain stuff about which you seem relatively unaware, in as nice a way as they can. Me included, and I think Barkeep49 too, in that they reverted their action and did post in places that would bring in uninvolved others (at the education wikiproject, and even in the AFD which does bring attention about an issue to a broad group of AFD-following editors). And this did lead to support in the form of me trying, and Bradv doing a better job than me, to expand the list quickly. There has been collaboration going on.

In summary, I think you have done good, and I hope you will see that and not be too discouraged. Thank you for listening here, and for what you've been doing in the content areas and, less happily, in these discussions. :) sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be busy with education articles and some other projects, but just in case you have time, you can some back to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of chief ministers of Chhattisgarh/archive1. No pressure though, you can take your time.

You don't seem to like the way paragraph two is framed, you can choose something below or recommend something else entirely. Also, if you insist I'll separate out the reflist and notelist sections instead of creating level two sections. You can reply at your convenience.

• Since Chhattisgarh's formation on 1 November 2000 as a result of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000,....
• Since Chhattisgarh's formation on 1 November 2000^[a],....
• Something else you might like...

Notebox:

TryKid (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I look at your contribution page time to time and honestly, you're amazing! TryKid (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous1234 has given you a puppy!

Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Sincerely, Humorous. (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Apororhynchus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus! Regarding your opinion that the Canceled/Distressed section should be removed from List of tallest buildings in Chicago, I believe there is some merit to removing projects that were never seriously considered or are simply not notable. However, I also believe that there is value in having a section that includes notable Chicago skyscraper projects that were never achieved (i.e. Chicago Spire, Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle, Post Office Redevelopment Twin Towers) for easy access for those interested in Chicago's architecture.

Maybe we could rework the section to only include serious building proposals that were approved by the city of Chicago, as well as establishing a taller minimum height (say ~800 feet) in order to keep the section both manageable and valuable. Please let me know any ideas you may have regarding a rework of the section as opposed to merely deleting it in its entirety.

-Chieditor14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chieditor14 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Apororhynchus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Apororhynchus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus. I note that nothing has happened on the source review for a week. If you have it in hand, then please ignore this. If you would like assistance with anything, don't hesitate to give me a ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog the Mild, this being my first FAN I'm not sure how the source review works. I've addressed as many points as possible, am I do to something else now? Thanks again for your help! Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of both the excellent work you have done in making Apororhynchus such a high quality article and for the open, receptive and collegiate way in which you have interacted during its FAC. More (of both) please. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Apororhynchus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 17, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 17, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

featured lists of municipalities

Thank you for quality articles such as Apororhynchus, you first featured article, for many featured lists about municipalities in the Americas, Canada first, such as List of municipalities in Nunavut, and Europe and Australia planned, for service from 2011, for quality reviewing, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2332 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Arhythmacanthidae has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. — Diannaa (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I have a question about this deletion. I posted some sentences from the original source knowing I will reword in several acanthocephalan articles, as I have done in my recent featured article Apororhynchus. I was unaware that the article itself can't be used as a work in progress. Am I allowed to work this way from my sandbox instead? I usually collect raw sources from citations (which I understand as infringing on copyright, but then rewrite them once they are collected into a cohesive whole, which is not copyrighted). I found this the best way to write cohesive prose. Alternatively, can I put them in quotation marks with the correct source until I rewrite it? Thanks for clarifying. Mattximus (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we are not allowed to host copyright content anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts. If you wish to save copies of copyright material, please do so in an external editor such as a Word document or Google Docs.

The bot found a second instance, which was copyright material you added to Gymnorhadinorhynchus on January 17 and subsequently moved over to Rhadinorhynchidae. So I have had to clean both of those articles as well. — Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, thanks for the quick reply, I can see a bot is deleting a lot of hard work that I was hoping to turn into more featured articles, and I can't seem to salvage it in the history to work with it in Word either. Is there a tool I can use to check to see if the bot will delete it? This is hours of work being deleted. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is checking all additions over a certain size and comparing the material with stuff already available online, including material behind paywalls. I don't know what the exact threshold is as to word count that it checks. I've seen it flag some very small revisions as potential copyright violations. The bot uses the Turnitin detection service, which generates what's called an iThenticate report. Here are the two bot reports it generated on your recent edits: here, here. Click on the iThenticate link in each report to view the overlap with the source documents

I don't know of any way for you to use an automated tool to determine whether or not a potential edit will trigger a bot report. If you wish to check an edit after you've added it, there's Earwig's tool. — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. I've feverishly rewrote one of the articles I was working on to prevent the loss of even more hours of research, and that tool you gave me showed that the rewriting worked. However, I wish I had known this would happen (or at least have a copy of the work I added). I wrote the last featured article this way with no problems, so assumed I could write another this way. Thanks for replying quickly, you may have helped save one of the articles. However, it is discouraging to lose so many hours of searching for references I think I may retire from wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gigantorhynchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Filiform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]