User talk:GregWelch8

Welcome!

Hi GregWelch8! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Malcolm!

I read through the editing information and plan on making additions to many topics in elementary math.

My first two edits were reverted/erased yesterday with little explanation - so I wrote to the editors (via their personal Talk pages) to learn more. Perhaps I should have posted on the Talk page for the topics in question. That will be my next step.

I am hoping that my edits would be shared/refined/improved on Wikipedia. Not dismissed with almost no feedback or false claims. Not sure if the editors in question teach/tutor elementary students or focus on higher level math. This will be an interesting and educational process to go through and I will hold off making edits on new topics until these first two topics are addressed.

Greg GregWelch8 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiples of 9 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Multiples of 9, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia).

Wikipedia is not a guidebook. See WP:NOTHOWTO. This needs to be fundamentally rewritten to follow Wikipedia standards. Also see WP:NUMBER to see what is needed to establish that the topic is suitable for inclusion.

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. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rsaaffe, Thank you for listing the specific objections. Hope that you have read the Talk section, tried the Make10 method so that you can see the value of sharing this information with the millions of elementary students and educators that need it each year.

Verifiability/Citations

“Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors...”

Routine calculations involve at least one of the four arithmetic operations. They provide a usable, repeatable method.

Make10 expressed as an equation: 4 + ____ = 10.

Count back 1 (minus 1) is simple subtraction.

Is the info factual? In dispute? If so, please specify.

Notability - “the relevant criteria are whether….whether amateur mathematicians are interested by it.”

There are millions of elementary students and their teachers - per year - that have interest in this subject. This info on this page will literally save millions of hours per year otherwise spent memorizing 9-multiples. This is not the case with many of the entries presently on the Wiki 9s page (for instance) and that’s why I avoided posting there.

Not a GuideBook/Textbook - that is why the actual instructions are so short. It is intended to describe/provide an overview of the method; make readers aware of it. There are notes about teaching in the Talk section that I would have liked on the page but pulled due to this issue. What else would you remove? GregWelch8 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of information is not suitable for Wikipedia. We are not a textbook. Ovinus (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe and @Ovinus

I assume you are referring the Article and not the Talk page. Please advise if otherwise.

What needs to be removed to address this issue?

---

Look at all the instructional/how-to/textbook like info here:

Chemical equation#Balancing chemical equations

(the section, "Balancing chemical equations")

and here:

Root-finding algorithms

(full of how-to info; describes several methods)

---

Wikipedia is full of how-to info. I kept the how-to part brief and can shorten it further if needed. Just advise. We do need to share the info. It will help millions of student per year. Have you tried the Make10 method for 9-multiples? Shared it with a young student? It's so simple and it causes so many smiles, even laughter (in relief, perhaps). Try it and maybe we can start looking for reasons to share this tool that will help millions per year rather than keep it hidden. GregWelch8 (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is amusing, but it's not really on topic. Your comparisons aren't super accurate, imv: Root-finding algorithms is a somewhat advanced algorithmic perspective and describes how roots are actually found in computer calculations, which of course has immense practical use; the chemical equations one is much, much more widely taught than this multiples of 9 thing. Most people are able to multiply a one-digit number by 9 without employing mnemonics. Perhaps for good reason, there aren't many fourth graders reading Wikipedia. Ovinus (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus,

Think we have a couple issues here. We have established that how-to info, in concise form (an overview) is provided routinely on Wikipedia. Especially in math.

In response, you bring up the usefulness and who might come across this info. The subject is “Multiples of 9.” That is an elementary school subject.

About 5 million elementary students per year (just in the U.S.) either need to take the time to memorize the 9s or take a minute to learn this method. The one or two hours spent memorizing the 9s or looking for a answer on a multiplication table is no longer required. The entry was a small paragraph with a big impact.

If a student or teacher Googles “9-mulitples” I would like this Wikipedia page to come up in the results…with the link to a page that has the solution to their problem.

What do you think? GregWelch8 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has educational merit but is not of an appropriate level for Wikipedia. I don't like the idea that we should cater to the needs of elementary schoolers—they shouldn't be learning from Wikipedia. Arguably it has pedagogical value, so it could warrant very brief mention in 9 for teachers. In any case, you need to find an actual source which calls this the "Make10" method and describes it; otherwise, it's original research. I know you are citing WP:CALC, but that is intended for routine calculations, not methods. I can come up with any fanciful, but elementary, method of calculation and claim WP:CALC.

Wikipedia math articles are often far too difficult for the layperson, and I appreciate your efforts to simplify; I often attempt it myself. Perhaps more than any other class of Wikipedia article, math articles greatly benefit from examples. But this is a bit too elementary, and, being unsourced, is inappropriate. Ovinus (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GregWelch8: I am concerned that you appear to have come to Wikipedia with a specific idea of what you want to do and, in the face of many other editors telling you that that is not how Wikipedia works, you've declined to listen. Looking at your many reverted edits and your discussions on the talk pages, you appear to be trying to ignore parts of policies that contradict your plans. If you persist in putting in unsuitable information in Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Again, read WP:NOTHOWTO. It doesn't matter if there is how-to in other articles. Using that as an excuse is like saying you can legally speed on the freeway because others are doing it to. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rsjaffe,

I have several ideas to submit to simplify math. All well researched. All very useful. I started with Order of Operations and 9-multiples because these two contributions have the greatest impact. Yes, there has been a ton of push back from what seem to be advanced math experts. They have zero’d in on every post within minutes in order to try to find something wrong/or allegedly wrong so they can delete; rather than evaluate the contribution - determine its usefulness for the target audience - and if useful, think ways to improve on the entry.

Regarding the how-to issue and speeding on the freeway, as Onvinus just wrote, “Perhaps more than any other class of Wikipedia article, math articles greatly benefit from examples.”

I am not going to start new edits/contributions. I am only monitoring the current Talk pages. When meaningful discussions is over, I will find a broader audience at Wikipedia to submit both the two contributions to date along with several examples of what I believe is biased behavior towards elementary mathematics…and me. GregWelch8 (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to consider the difference between examples and tutorials. If an article or article section is entirely about some method, like root-finding algorithm, then a well-chosen example is good, although it should not overly hold the reader's hand. In contrast, a tutorial or how-to usually has an instructional, "recommendation"-like tone. This is an example of the latter. And yes, it's potentially useful, but it's not suitable for Wikipedia for several reasons, enumerated above and below. Ovinus (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus, @Rsjaffe, et al,

Just want to clarify - the part of the "Multiples of 9" that is by far most impactful is the Make10 method (because it replaces the need to memorize.

I only included the Hands method is already shared on another Wiki page. It is really only appropriate for students with learning challenges. The hands method has many more instructions than the Make10 method. I have no problem removing that section.

That would leave these as the instructions/how to - just three lines:

Both steps are on the multiplier: Subtract 1 and Make10.

For example with 9 x 4

4 - 1 = 3; Make10 with the 4 = 6. Answer: 36

Could you please modify the above for illustration purposes the correct way to write? I realize you still have other objections. Just trying to address them one by one.

I tried to put all the 'hand holding type instructions' in the Talk page. Some of the Talk page was included for the advanced math editors on this board so that they could better understand its use and value in elementary ed.

Hoping someone tries the Make10 method/calc for 9-multiples on a 6 - 8 year old this weekend...then imagine that times 5 million times per year. GregWelch8 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that having instructions in the talk page is not allowed. See WP:TALK#TOPIC. Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe@Ovinus,

Rsjaffe & Onvious,

I realize that I can change the Draft and resubmit, but we were so close to isolating the objections on this Talk page. It would be like starting over and we have discussed these issues in detail. If you wish, I will move all of this discussion to the “Multiples of 9” Talk page. Then, remove the Hands section, resubmit the Draft, and ask the exact same question as below. It is not productive to start these convos over.

---

We’ve been discussing whether the info is too instructional. Ovinus wrote, “Perhaps more than any other class of Wikipedia article, math articles greatly benefit from examples.” “…it should not overly hold the reader's hand. In contrast, a tutorial or how-to usually has an instructional, "recommendation"-like tone. This is an example of the latter.”

This can be resolved with less than a minute of input here or wherever you prefer. Would removal of the Hands-method section address this objection? I will gladly remove it; it’s already on Wikipedia in a much more ‘verbose’ form.

That leaves three short lines of instruction (below). I have read the Wiki guide on this issue, and Ovinus’s explanation, and think the instructions below do not overly teach. (I put all the hand-holding info in the Talk page of the Article. ) I am truly confused. How should these words be edited?

Both steps are on the multiplier: Subtract 1 and Make10.

For example with 9 x 4

4 - 1 = 3; Make10 with the 4 = 6. Answer: 36

Should take less than 30 seconds to fix.

---

As mentioned previously, I am trying to reduce our points of contention one at a time so we have fewer issues to dispute. Make sense? GregWelch8 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect many editors will oppose this addition as trivial; I'm generally on the side of "simplify for the masses", but even this example seems too much original research and not enough insight. Find a source which proposes this method. That's how Wikipedia works. Then, I'd be good with two sentences at most: The first few multiples of 9 may be remembered as follows: For $1\leq n\leq 9$ , $9\cdot n$ comprises two digits; the second is $n-1$ , and the first is $10-n$ , so that they sum to 9. Ovinus (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus,

You never have to visit a page intended for elementary school students. As you know, the little league coach has more of an impact on trajectory than a major league coach. I want to help this group. Wikipedia has millions of topics appropriate for kids.

“9 for teachers” I could not find that page thru Wikipedia or Google search. Are you suggesting that for a page name? It does not describe the topic. Guessing very few would do a Google search for that title.

“Routine calculations involve at least one of the four arithmetic operations. They provide a usable, repeatable method.” People use the words interchangeably. The routine calculation (method) I submitted is easily verified: a simple subtraction followed by an addition and cross check against a table of 9 multiples (like the one included in my entry).

The “calculation” is correct. It’s factual, verifiable, and not in dispute GregWelch8 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant in the article 9. The correctness is not in dispute here. It's the sourcing and its general unsuitability as a how-to. Ovinus (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus,

Regarding your suggestion to put this text and diagram on the Wiki 9s page. I am trying to get a small entry approved for that page. It was rejected, so started a Talk page section to discuss, "Talk:9#9 is the only digit whose multiples change by a uniform amount in both places"

If it gets approved, I plan to link that entry to the "Multiples of 9" page, if it gets approved.

I submitted the “Multiples of 9” page as a new entry because it is a basic math topic and the 9s page is much more advanced. We need both. Millions of students and their educators could use the facts on the “Multiples of 9” page on a on a yearly basis.

As editors, we just need to make sure the equation/text is accurate/factual, of value and well explained. I stated that the equation in question is the simplest and the fastest to perform. It is the only method that involves ONE number (huge advantage since only one number stays in the brain’s register)….then two of the simplest operations in math: counting back 1 is like subtraction, but simpler. You just know the next number (after doing countdowns from 10). The other ‘operation’ is Make10. It's like addition, but faster because the mind ‘snaps’ forward to 10. (10 is ‘magnetic’ as you know.)

We are not going to find, or get, a study/time-trial comparing this equation to others. That is why I asked you/editors to try it yourself, and then with a young student that needs some help getting back on track. Then reply back if you dispute with the rationale.

This equation takes memorizing the 9s off the to-do list. 5 million students/year x 1 hour…otherwise wasted memorizing the 9s or looking up the answer = value to our readers.

This 9s equation takes the 9-multiples from being one of the most difficult digits to memorize to the easiest to calculate. The 9s are now easier to learn that the 2s.

---

One more thing on the inclusion of the Hands-method on the "Multiples of 9" page. It was included for those that need it and to discourage the use by those that don’t. Hence, the introductory note. As mentioned previously, I will delete if it is an issue. GregWelch8 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus,

Interesting to see how a mathematician expresses the Make10 method as an equation. However, it will not help elementary students nor others trying to learn basic math. Please read the Talk page Draft talk:Multiples of 9 and try the method yourself and share your results. Then, if possible, also with a student that knows Make10 - even if they are 6 years old.

I would like to work with you or any editor that is interested in sharing info helpful to elementary students and others that need help with basic math issues. As mentioned elsewhere, I’ve done a great deal of research, worked one on one with hundreds of elementary students, and have suggestions for almost every topic in elementary math. I have decades to work on this as it is my last career.

I set up the (new) “Multiples of 9” page after some push back from editors on previous edits on other pages. The intent was to make this primarily for elementary students…or at least, to start out with the basics. It obviously could be expanded for higher level 9-multiple computations/observations.

I have read the objections: original work; needs citations; usefulness. I have replied directly to each of these and think we’ve stated our points. The objection I was hoping to make progress on is the description. If you want to work on one written for the target audience of this method/calculation, that would be appreciated. If not, or if the problem is text/instructions tailored to basic math students, we are at a standstill on all issues - or so it appears. GregWelch8 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your real-life work. (By the way, I'm not really a mathematician. Maybe an amateur one....) I'm not seeing a reliable source for this "Make10" method. And a fundamental objection, I'm afraid, cannot be surmounted: Wikipedia is not meant for elementary school students. Ovinus (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Multiples of 9

Hello, GregWelch8. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Multiples of 9, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Multiples of 9

Hello, GregWelch8. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Multiples of 9".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]