User talk:Mathchecker

Welcome!

Hello, Mathchecker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

To keep up to date with interesting news and developments, you may also wish to subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 20:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.91.223 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.91.223 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathchecker. If someone removes a PROD notice, you can't edit war with them and put it back. A PROD removed is a PROD removed. The next step is WP:AFD. No comment on the article's notability. talk to !dave 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I see that there is some sort of feud going on with User:91.140.91.223. Do you know what that is about?

Anyway, I can see that you are trying to do good work by removing junk text like "His research has been groundbreaking and deeply influential" (That was just embarrassingly awful, so thanks for getting rid of that!), but I think you might be being a bit too gung-ho in some other respects. For example, you propose deletion of Michael Rassias saying that he is "only a post-doc" but a post-doc who co-edited a book with Nash is probably not "only" a post-doc. The article does not sound particularly promotional to me and not obviously in need of deletion. I think slapping a tag on it to question notability might be legit but proposing deletion is a bit much. I'll take the Proposed Deletion off and replacing it with a notability tag.

The trouble with putting Proposed Deletion on an article about an academic which maybe only a few people have on their watchlist is that it could get deleted almost without anybody noticing and we could lose legitimate minor articles that way. Proposed Deletion is only really appropriate for pretty uncontroversial cases of articles that definitely do not meet the inclusion criteria. For others, it is better to go to WP:AfD. That way, you get to write a more detailed explanation of what the problems are (which is particularly helpful when they are not obvious) and then it gets listed for discussion and at least a few knowledgeable people will have a look at it and see whether they agree before it gets deleted. This prevents articles on valid subjects from getting deleted and also establishes a precedent against them being recreated spuriously later.

I also saw you removing some references. If those really were invalid references to pure vanity publications then that is fine but references to legitimate publications, even if they are not the top ones in their field, should be kept if they are relevant to the content they are meant to be supporting. I'm not qualified to judge which those were, so maybe this is all OK. I just want to suggest a little caution. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]