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 In the case where old competition websites have expired (like here) you can search out an archived version of that website via Archive.org's "Wayback machine".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

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

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

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

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your continuous work in maintaining countless sports-related articles, and record lists in particular, I hereby award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. GregorB (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your continuous work in maintaining countless sports-related articles, and record lists in particular, I hereby award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Trackinfo (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go further than just sending a backatcha. I am constantly going through the nit-picky details of wikipedia postings of athletic records. Without fail, Montell74 has already been on the page, fixed the page and will be watching to correct any edits I make. This is the kind of cooperation that makes wikipedia great. I don't know who he is, but he shares the same passion for correctness that I do--a passion thousands, perhaps millions of other fanatics might share. But they are only the readers, the beneficiaries of the information posted here. Editing takes work, those readers don't appreciate. We don't always agree, but out of the edit note discussions, I think everyone wins. Of course, there are several of us who have to watch these highly visible articles, because they seem to attract the loonies of the world. Several times a day, someone thinks they can insert their name into a claim for a prestigious world record. Who is there correcting and protecting the truth? Most of the time, it is Montell 74. His diligence is certainly respected by me and I would say vicariously by the people who care about the information posted and about wikipedia's reputation for accuracy in general. Thank you for your efforts. Trackinfo (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Trackinfo. With all my respect and approval of your great work. Greetings from Berlin.Montell 74 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you :) Elham burger (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank Germanium960 (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i add total medal and mohsen friend delete it! so i am a vandal but mohsen is a good user! very funny! see it: 2008 asian junior delete medal table by GAB! why? because mohsen is good user! can not help to justice?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1989_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1985_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1991_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2003_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history - 2003 medal table was wrong! i correct it! so i am vandalist? so funny - deleted by GAB
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1998_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1995_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1987_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1975_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1973_Asian_Athletics_Championships&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Karate_Championships&action=history

Hello Montell 74. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Junior_Alpine_Skiing_Championships&action=history (revert correct version)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Short_Track_Speed_Skating_Championships&action=history (delete medal table)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Figure_Skating_Championships&action=history (delete medal table)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Armwrestling_Championship&action=history (revert to incomplete)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISSF_European_Shooting_Championships&oldid=821176617
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Junior_Alpine_Skiing_Championships&oldid=823784223

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Pedro Lima (actor) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 00:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Regarding winds in decathlon, rules have changed in 2010...

See for exemple the "IAAF Statistics Book – IAAF World Championships London 2017", page 580: "A combined event performance is regarded as wind-assisted if the average assisting wind velocity for the three affected events exceeds two metres per second."

In the case of Lindon Victor in the List of Grenadian records in athletics, the sum of the three winds is 7.5 so the average exceeds 2.0. So, Lindon Victor's 8539 pts are indeed wind-assisted. Alas, this rule os often ignored.

Miruts (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Montell 74, du bist ja bekannt als Wikipedia Statistiker für Leichtathletik und Schwimmen. Der Nutzer Canada Jack hat die absolute Top 25, welche auch Hallenleistungen beinhaltet, durch eine Outdoor Bestenliste ersetzt. Er begründet dies damit, dass Indoor Leistungen nicht von World Athletics gleichwertig behandelt würden. Nach meinem Wissensstand ist das jedoch falsch.

Sein Argument, dass die nationalen Rekorde von Carlo Thränhardt und Hollis Conway nicht als absolute Rekorde ratifiziert sind, ist schlicht unwahr.

Etwas Expertise würde der Diskussion gut tun, vielleicht findest du etwas Zeit und schaltest dich mit ein.

Besten Dank Montell2A0A:A546:657B:0:3D1F:9E25:AABC:96A7 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meine Einschätzung war offensichtlich falsch, die Nationalverbände scheinen nach Gutdünken zu entscheiden, ob In- bzw. Outdoor Leistung als absoluter Rekord gilt. Die Logik würde doch sagen es ist immer die bessere Leistung.2A0A:A546:A32:0:3554:2:8F8A:F8DC (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

?? Youssefshoeb (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the names. The reference was disfunctioned.Montell 74 (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of British records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Thompson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Athletics_U20_Championships&oldid=1040226426

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Athletics_U20_Championships#All-time_medal_table

this section is not correct. This table is incorrect and needs to be corrected. 729 gold and 741 silver. I put all the tables together. Check and modify it. There are many mistakes in counting the medals of countries. Also, 2021 medals should be added to it.

The All-time medal table may should be corrected but based not on collected Wikipedia lists but on official sources.Montell 74 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're perfectly right!.--Arorae (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate very much your edits especially on record pages. But I do not understand why you do not like the mention I have inserted about the mixed relay: FIDAL decided in 2019 that the first record will be only if the time was under 3:16. Of course, the first record accepted is now under this time. --Arorae (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were and are so many record "standards" by world and country federations for new categories (f.e. junior swimming, weight categories in olympic weighlifting), disciplines (mixed relays in athletics and swimming), special standars after rescinded records (f.e. because of doping) and others. Wikipedia don't keep none of these standards when the record was broken (and broken multiple times). Why should it be different in this case? What is that fact worth if no other faster time is known?Montell 74 (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Masters W85 weight throw world record progression has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article which lacks notability. The progression of this record (and most such Masters records) is not a subject that gets enough attention[1] to warrant an article, which also explains why it is so incomplete.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you are working on sports articles, adding or expanding "all time best 25 times" lists. However, there seems to be no source for these lists, and often you include incomplete lists (e.g. here, jumping from 3rd to 10th). There seems to be no evidence at all that what you add is correct (I don't dispute the individual times, but the actual ranking). Can you please either provide sources for the actual ranking, or else remove these lists and stop adding new ones? Otherwise they seem like WP:OR violations. Fram (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason that you simply continue instead of either replying or providing the source? Fram (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, previous resources of global swim rankings i've found are not freely available. Available sources refer to individual continents or individual results.Montell 74 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't source them, you shouldn't be adding them. Please remove all such unsourced rankings you have added or changed, or add sources by which we can with certainty create such lists (if you e.g. have one per continent, then combining the 6 continents into 1 list is possible: but we shouldn't create such a list based on individual results, as we then have no certainty about completeness at all. The same goes for your addition of records; a results list from a competition, without an indication of some time is a national record, is not a source to change national records lists with. E.g. your additions to the Macedonian records[2]: why don't you use this as a source (tab "personal bests"), this lists all his national records, let's you update quite a few other entries in the list (like the half marathon, 10K and 5K, and verify the 3K), and makes it impeccably sourced. Fram (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National records are ratified by national federation and not World Athletics, so these times are marked with colour until ratification procedure has come to an and, the mark itself is sourced by result source.Montell 74 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are very slow to ratify anything, it seems (nothing in 2020 or 2021). In any case, even if you include them as "unratified", the World Athletics source which actually marks them as a NR would be much better than a race result without any indication. While the race result may be better than the ratified record, there is no guarantee that inbetween someone else has already set a better record (as they are rather slow in ratification). If some Macedonian man was to run the 10K in 30.06, it would improve on the record as listed, but it wouldn't be a new record as Ivanovski has a 30.04. And that's why you need a WP:RS claiming that something is a national record (or, for the other issue, claiming that something is the Xth best time ever), for it to be included. WP:OR, even if in many cases it may be correct, simply isn't allowed for such things. Fram (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Athletics f.e. marks times as NRs which were rescinded in case by national federations. A WA source is no guarantee but a result source is a guarantee that a better time as the record was done. If it will not be ratified it will be marked so in the list. Montell 74 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. WA (or another reliable source) which marks a time as "NR" indicates that they believe it to be the new national record. Yes, it may be rescinded for a number of reasons, but at least it is considered a NR by a reliable source at the time we include it. A result source on the other hand is no guarantee that it is a new but unratified record, as explained above (it could e.g. be that someone already has a better unratified time or distance, or that the organisers know that their competition fails some ratification rules anyway). Fram (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fram (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Until end of discussion I will try to improve the lists.Montell 74 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have found a good source for the swimming Top 25, nice. However, you still seem to combine that list with your WP:OR, e.g. at World record progression 400 metres individual medley, you keep Carson Forster in 9th place with 4:08.46, even though that time isn't in the official list. Any reason that you haven't ditched all your previous entries and instead try to combine the official list with your own research? Fram (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I add Carson Forster with that time to the list? If it was so, it is clearly a typo. Given reference does not mention this time and date at all.Montell 74 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who added Foster: but the best is to abandon whatever was there previously, and to simply stick with the Fina list (and to do so carefully). I have e.g. corrected one such list here, adding a name and correcting another. Fram (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montell, I am not the first person to edit that progression list. Masters_women_high_jump_world_record_progression#Women_70 I would remove the 1.32 from Utrecht 2021 because no paperwork has been done. On the other hand LF added it to be complete. Our list is not necessarily containing only approved records. My other five ones are all approved as national records (1.30-1.34). When the national organisation has done their work properly they will have been sent to Europe and to WMA, but from those organisations you never hear whether they are approved or not. It could be that they only approved the highest one, but maybe all of them. As they give lists of approved records with rather big time intervals (months) it is simply unknown. Grüsse, WeiaR (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Athletics in Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingsley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to ping you for your expertise in a few threads at the bottom of Talk:List of world records in speed skating.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Honduran records in athletics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Middletown, New York and Jason Castro.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of North, Central American and Caribbean records in athletics

added a link pointing to Heather MacLean

List of North American records in athletics

added a link pointing to Heather MacLean

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2022 World Athletics Continental Tour

added a link pointing to Montreuil

List of Kazakhstani records in athletics

added a link pointing to Montreuil

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 World Athletics Continental Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montreuil.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Themanwithnowifi I am mainly active on the Dutch wiki and I am currently working on Thomas James Hallock. He is a American-Swiss swimmer that hasn't have a article on the enwiki. I have tried to find out why and when he started to compete for Switzerland but I can't find anything. Are you able to help me? Kind regards Themanwithnowifi (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Sammarinese records in athletics

added links pointing to Westerville and Santarcangelo

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Japanese records in athletics

added a link pointing to Fukagawa

List of South Sudanese records in athletics

added a link pointing to Warrensburg

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Montell 74,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Kuwaiti records in athletics

added links pointing to Hillsdale and Southridge

National records in the 1500 metres

added a link pointing to Hillsdale

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Kuwaiti records in athletics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hillsdale and Southridge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Saint Lucian records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oskaloosa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Norwegian records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bernau.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Oceanian youth bests in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Box Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Oceanian under-20 records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Box Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The Polish Wikipedia mentions that European Athletics Festival Bydgoszcz was replaced by Irena Szewińska Memorial in 2019. From the English pages we can see many meeting records match too. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Marshallese records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United States junior records in athletics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fairfax and Alan Webb.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Turks and Caicos Islands records in athletics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Prairie View and Starkville.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Who says non-english sources should not be used on English wikipedia? show me a guideline, rule or anything else to confirm that "claim". specially in case of national records of each individual country local sources are far more reliable. (specially the federation website, what other source can be more reliable than this?) Sports2021 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If the English version is available on the Federation website, as is also the case with the Iranian Federation, it should be used here. Since the date of the Iranian version was not updated in the article, I included the more recent English version.Montell 74 (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's simple, they don't update their English version (which nobody reads) regularly. probably once in a year or maybe even less. even their Persian version is not the most updated website in the world. they mostly use their telegram channel for quick updates. see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance. in this case the English version is out of date and don't have the same quality.

And what does that mean "outdated ref". I'm bringing back that ref too. that's an official news website, reporting the new NR few days ago. how that can be outdated? use the google translate or whatever else but don't remove refs simply because you can't read them. once again there is nothing in wikipedia guidelines against using non-English sources. Sports2021 (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with using non-english resources if they are more up-to-date and accurate.

The problem with Persian records PDF (and persian news websites) is that numbers and dates are not immediately apparent and are also mistranslated.

In the case of your resource for the javelin throw record, you state an old date of the article (May 26, 2012). Furthermore, the website was not (automatically) translated with the new record. The translation only worked when I copied out individual passages. Montell 74 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a copy/paste mistake by myself, obviously an article from 2012 can't report a result from April 2023! Sports2021 (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Barbadian records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Marcos.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montell,

Just clarifying a recent edit you made on the List of junior world records in swimming page. For context, there are 3 types of performances that receive entries in the list:

1. the record ratified by World Aquatics (no notation given).

2. if the ratified record is not the fastest performance by a junior, then the fastest all time performance is noted. this is irrespective of date (pre/post April 1, 2014) or ratification status (noted as: not ratified, fastest all-time junior).

3. if the ratified record is not the fastest performance by a junior, then any faster times are noted. the key criteria here is that they must be from April 1, 2014 or later. (noted as: not ratified).

You recently restored entries for the women's 200/400 IM and 200 butterfly. Using the 400 IM as an example, the ratified record as of January 1, 2023 was 4:28.61 by Summer McIntosh. This was not the fastest time by a junior, so the 4:28.43 by Ye Shiwen was given an entry, noted as "not ratified, fastest all-time junior". McIntosh later broke the world record in this event, while still a junior. If this record is ratified, then it replaces both the 4:28.61 and 4:28.43 on this list. As it stands, it is unratified. Thus the convention is to list the ratified record (4:28.61) and "not ratified, the fastest all-time junior" performance (4:25.87).

Ye Shiwen's performance was only entered because it is faster than the ratified record. However, it is no longer the fastest time, so it no longer needs to be on the list. Sure, McIntosh's newest record isn't ratified, but ratification status has no bearing on this notation's criteria. You kept Ye Shiwen's time and marked it as "not ratified", but since the time is from 2012, it does not fall within the qualifying period, and thus the notation is incorrect. Ditto for the women's 200 IM.

The women's 200 butterfly is a similar scenario, but the record changed for different reasons. Going into 2023, the "not ratified, fastest all-time junior" time was 2:04.72 by Jiao Liuyang in 2008. She turned 17 that year. This year, World Aquatics changed the definition of female junior to include 18 year olds. Jiao Liuyang went faster in 2009, thus her time from that year can now be noted as "not ratified, fastest all-time junior". Her time from 2008 should no longer be on the list.

Apologies for the exhaustive post, but the complexities of world junior records make this level of detail a necessity. Maelstrom2 (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Montell,

You reverted my edit on List of world records in track cycling, without giving a justification. I had justified my edit as follows: Flying 1k women: wrong and in any case unverifiable. Faster times were set, e.g., at the latest WC, and I stand by this reasoning.

1. The article provides no justification that the record is noteworthy. Who maintains it and according to which rules? In the absence of such statements, the data is simply unverifiable.
2. The provided reference (results of the 2020 World Championships) is insufficient. It merely states that Dygert set a world record over 3,000 meters, and that a section of her ride covered 1,000 meters in the stated time. It does not establish that such time was a world best over 1,000 meters.
3. The data is wrong. In the individual pursuit, riders tend to be fastest between the 250- and 1250-meter mark. To take the example cited in my edit, both finalists in the 2022 World Championships set a time below 1:03 min in that section [3]. Indeed, Dygert herself set a time of 1:01.593 min in the same section [4], nearly two seconds below the stated "world best". In the absence of any stated rules, it is not readily apparent why one should count the time between the 1,000- and the 2,000-meter mark, a stage when athletes already feel their fatigue.

Could you please explain why you reverted my edit? If there do exist trustworthy sources establishing the correctness and noteworthiness of the record, I would of course be more than happy to see them added. -- Best regards, Rz98 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you undid the edit in the meantime, thank you. -- Rz98 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Montell 74. Thank you for your edits. Your edit summary is "repaired horrible edits". I believe this language constitutes a personal attack as on Wikipedia one should assume good faith. Also, having the same symbol "+" depicting wind speed and en route to 200 m performance can be confusing. Ear-phone (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please do not revert the deleted information as this information is not agreed upon and not certified by the Kuwait Athletics Association. @Montell 74 Roy Shrejmänn (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete information. None of these marks shown in the list is "officially certified by KAA" because no federation source is accessable. Marks of uncommon disciplines, f.e. mile run and 10km race walk, are typically special coloured bests, only tracked by statisticians and not officially sanctioned by the governing body.Montell 74 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you a thousand times for editing the lists since a lot of time. Recently another user asked me not to edit any of these lists (he wrote me on my page: “Dear, Please do not touch world, area and national records lists, ok? Your edits are extremely low quality, useless in fact. You deleted current, ratified record, left wrong venue and did not give reference. Do not delete old records until new records have been ratified. Track1News (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2023”. It looks like a topic ban, decided only by him. Of course he was not completely wrong (I had updated a new WR without being accurate and perfect), but of course nobody is perfect and I do not pretend to. By the way, because I edit record lists since 2004, nearly 20 years ago, what do you think about the events that are in these lists? When I remark events like 55m, 150m, 300m, 2000m, 2hours and so, I don’t think they should be on an “official” record list. Only the events which are officially recognized as WR by IAAF/WA (including the Mile) should be on the main list, all other events should be separated from the “official” events as most federations consider them as “best times” not records. But it is a huge work to “clean” the lists from those awkward events. Have you an opinion on that? Thank you for replying here, I will check, Arorae (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aroae, Thank you for your questions and by the way for your good work.

First of all I would like to say that imperfection should never be an argument for personal flaws. That sounds like a general excuse for all sorts of nonsense that you do in your life.

Anyway, basically it's important not to prematurely erase any records that are still valid until the ratification procedure of new record is done. I always find it good if someone just add (!) new information. Since I monitor many lists, I can correct erroneous new entries.

I have a different opinion about the unconventional records/bests. In the case of world records, it is clearly and adequately separated. In my opinion, a new list in national record articles makes things less clear. With the corresponding colors it is sufficiently explained that these are not official records kept by national federation.

In addition, national associations sometimes set records in disciplines that are not classified as record-breaking by the world association. For example have a look at the Estonian records.

To "clean" such a list would provide insufficient information. Montell 74 (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Dominican Republic records in athletics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Montclair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Macanese records in athletics

added a link pointing to Yichun

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Macanese records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yichun.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Turks and Caicos Islands records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woodbury.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Turks and Caicos Islands records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pittsburg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's crazy. Alexysun (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montell, you recently reverted some of my edits on "National records in the 100 metres" without giving any explanation. I saw this page was a mess, with many nations having multiple times on the list, as well as incosistent formatting, many links to incorrect pages, and the times not even being in any consistent order. My intention was to begin to clean this page up, to eventually reach a list with one correct national record per nation, consistent formatting between each record, proper references etc. Since there are a lot of records to contend with I thought I would start by fixing some of the easier ones. Could you explain why you reverted these initial edits, thanks AussieRam (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Argentine records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Park Forest.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "she broke the record by over two minutes!" in your edit summary when you reverted my edit to Marathon world record progression. How is that relevant to the removed note? The content of the note is implied in the list itself. Many of the results in the list warrant similar notes that would also be redundant. – Editør (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I have restored the note as it was referred to as a "barrier" in the reputable athletics source. At the same time the record was pulverized. But this would also apply to other records, e.g. Kosgei. On the male side it was found worth mentioning, although a "barrier" could probably be set at exactly two hours. As a result, it's ok for me if both comments are removed.Montell 74 (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other places, such as a personal bests table, such notes could be meaningful though. (And thank you for pointing out the U23 record rule that I wasn't aware of.) – Editør (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited List of United States Virgin Islands records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cedar Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited List of Belizean records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Maelstrom2 is vandalizing a bunch of pages, changing descriptions from the South American record to the national record giving the reason that "this record doesn't exist in FINA", like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swimming_at_the_2024_World_Aquatics_Championships_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_400_metre_freestyle&diff=prev&oldid=1206449572 . There have been users in the past who have been blocked here for this vandalism. Can you do something to help? 2804:214:817F:6343:6112:D26A:5938:22CF (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Montell74. I am just curious about the color key for the national high school T&F records. There are two records, Tara Davis's 100 hurdles and Addy Wiley's 1600m, that have a reddish-pink color. They are the only records that are listed this way. This color is not in the key and I am curious what the meaning of it is. Thanks. CooperRiverRunner (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CooperRiverRunner, thanks for the question. I changed the colors because the previous pink color code meant that these marks were not ratified. But that is basically the same meaning as the green color code.Montell 74 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United States junior records in athletics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middletown, New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	It looks like you haven't received a barnstar in seven years. You've been doing a fantastic job lately updating athletics records (including linking to the year-specific meet pages where available, which I really appreciate). Thanks for your hard work to make sure all of these pages don't go out of date, the encyclopedia is much better because of it. Habst (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, firstly i admire your work as a weightlifter fan, thank you for your well-organised and professional work, my question is gonna be about Daniyar İsmayilov he won the 2021 European Weightlifting Championships men 73kg with gold medal at snatch he lifted 160 kg breaking european record at the same time, however after few months he testesd positive for doping https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1109898/turkey-weightlifting-ismayilov but when i checked ewf world recor page his 160 kg lift is still valid and considered as european record, so he DSW or not? lift is valid or not? help please, thank you. Asigooo (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Asigooo, thank you very much for your assessment and question. I don't have an insider's view, but the major European federations (athletics, swimming, weightlifting) update their record lists at a snail's pace. Since it is an official document, Daniyar İsmayilov is still considered the European record holder.Montell 74 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]