User talk:Mathglot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

My editing tips.

Contents

Please comment on Talk:George Galloway[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Galloway. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Not done Already closed. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ref: Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal[edit]

Greetings! I see that you are a highly skilled WP professional highly conversant with its program; As you can remember, this complex Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal had been deleted and removed from public participation/improvement on the pretended reason of lack of references that were slowly provided (I did not know the specific WP reference provision, so added them in another way; No assisting details were given, leaving me to have to provide references to every word -- there was no point in continuing on this nonsensical basis). As you did not contact me during this deletion process that culminated in my neutrally unnecessary total blockage, I assumed your silent agreement contrary to your previous high-quality contribution. A consequent dispute-resolution contact to WP's only governing body remained arrogantly unanswered (a common feature with internet-based organisations), and I am confident that you know about it. It still leaves the justified impression that WP is policed by anti-democratic governments, and propaganda-like prefers to prevent the presentation of such fundamental democracy knowledge while also disallowing the correction of other partially false articles (always against democracy) dealing with democracy-related issues. Of course, this draft proposal was directly distributed worldwide together with the Universal Democracy Constitution (also available on Scribd as "Constitutional Democracy, Universal"), as the correction/provision of this topic is too important for us all -- and it is starting to have silent effects! I thought I find out your position/opinion, although I should have done so earlier. Strangely, our entries on Talk:Constitutional democracy remained unchanged. Please give me a constructive message in any case on my user talk page (However, I am not naively expecting much change).

Here is just one more example of WP's other prevention of necessary corrective improvements:

Improvement/Correction Proposal of WP Article "Types of democracy"[edit]

The introducing sentence/section of the WP article "Types of democracy: Types of democracy refers to kinds of governments or social structures which allow people to participate equally, either directly or indirectly" should be changed as follows in order not to mislead:

Types of democracy lists governmental or social structures using democracy variations/derivates/pretences. This article relies on the broader use rather than the proper definition of the word democracy in order to achieve a complete presentation. 10/5/2018

Maybe you could activate such improvements... Greetings, Fritz Fehling (currently indefinitely blocked for no justifiable reason...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.190.71 (talkcontribs) 01:10, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to this at User talk:Fritz Fehling#August 2018. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic material by vandal Asep Ramadhani (talk · contribs) collapsed per WP:TPO

Human rights are "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled" Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to work, and the right to education.Sometimes life is unfair and balanced where the response will be for a position but limited ability is limited even though there is no guilt and should be helped immediately and still have to face exceptions, namely the suitability of material, RaibowOfMountbattenOfWallaceRaibowOfMountbatten Asep Ramadhani (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:TPO by Mathglot (talk) at 09:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Archiving important documentation[edit]

You've blindly archived threads, some of which contained unanswered questions. They clearly do not meet the "stale" criteria for archiving. For discussions of a 1996 event, being 45 days old is absolutely no reason to archive discussions.

This is very disrespectful to the editors who contributed to those discussions, and it makes it harder for current editors to avoid mistakes previously made. Please stop doing this.

This incessant archiving (combined with the big project boxes that no one looks at but which hide the TOC and the discussions) is probably the reason why use of Talk pages is declining. This harms the fabric of the community too. Great floors (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Great floors: Your comment is apparently in reference to this revert of your edit at Talk:German orthography reform of 1996 where you moved 38,000 bytes of archived, ten year-old discussions back to the main Talk page. As is clear by the diffs, I didn't "blindly archive threads" as you claim; I merely restored the status quo ante which you disturbed. Find a Wikipedia policy that says it is "disrespectful to editors" to keep old threads archived, and I will revert myself.
Yes, old discussions may have unanswered questions. That is the nature of Wikipedia Talk pages, and if no one responds after some time, the old discussions are archived. If you have an issue with how Archiving is done in general, try opening a discussion about it at WT:ARCHIVE. In the meantime, you can always add a new discussion to the current Talk page, along with links pointing to any archived discussion you feel is relevant.
As for the current archive-age setting of 45 days, I believe that's quite a generous number; but it can be set to any agreed-upon value. I think your setting of eight years for the archive-age param is wildly outside the mainstream, but if you wish to seek consensus for that value on the Talk page, then by all means go for it. Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
For an additional note on this situation, please see this comment[permalink] at your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The page about talk pages or archiving only says that threads can be archived if they are "stale". Some or most of those threads are certainly not stale. They are relevant documents for why the article is how it is. An archive bot "blindly" archived everything. I undid the bot's mistake. What's to be gained by stuffing all those threads, that editors put work into, away in an archive? Great floors (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Great floors: A user talk page is not the place to argue for (or against) changes to existing policy. There is nothing further to be gained by continuing this fruitless discussion about established policy here. My suggestion to you, is to raise a new topic at WT:TALK referencing WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE, and try to gain consensus for your point of view. If you do, please {{ping}} me to that discussion. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

An update maybe[edit]

reports that two anti-#LGBT bills, including a marriage ban bill, which passed the Senate last year, have still not advanced in the lower house


https://www.voanews.com/amp/in-haiti-slight-progress-for-lgbt-rights-is-seen-as-victory/4528161.html

http://www.whig.com/article/20180814/AP/308149903

http://agenciaaids.com.br/noticia/54575/

AdamPrideTN (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@AdamPrideTN: Do you have a question? What is your objective of your comment above? Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think u edited the page of LGBT rights in Haiti About a marriage ban And this i think is an update right AdamPrideTN (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@AdamPrideTN:I have made no edits to this article. But even if I had, the proper place for comments about the article, would be the article talk page. Try asking your question or providing your suggestion at Talk:LGBT rights in Haiti. Also, please use indentation on Talk pages to keep the discussion orderly; you can read about this at Help:Talk pages#Indentation. See also WP:TALK for more tips about using Talk pages. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right[edit]

Sorry it was not really relevant to compare this situation to someone thinking they are a dog because as you've pointed out Wikipedia has already decided to honor gender identity. I tried to bring it back to the relevant issues below that and struck the comment. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The message above is apparently in reference to my comment at the Rfc at Trans woman[permalink]. I have responded in more detail at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Egypt[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Egypt. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

MGTOW Levels edit[edit]

The Vice article is a standard hit piece. The image at the top and the overall implications which the author tries to convey make that clear while feigning impartiality; thus making it unreliable source.

Something i couldn't finish during the last edit, due to character limit. MGTOW is individualistic in nature as there are no rules or beliefs to adhere to but your own, thus any central authority to make the rules and "levels" system is absent. Because of this, the beliefs are made clear on various outlets, of which the /r/mgtow or mgtow.com are part. The beliefs of the members, by and large, is The force that is shaping the MGTOW; to allow one biased individual at Vice such power is incorrect. As the beliefs of the community are made known across these outlets, these are the places where they can be found. There are no known outlets which have endorsed this "level" belief. Being an isolationist is a person's personal choice, not a rule one must adhere to in order to belong. MGTOW members by and large do not make such choices, nor do they advocate for them, therefore, including it into the MGTOW description will only mislead people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.133.100 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your comments above apparently in connection with this section blanking, and this revert at Men Going Their Own Way. Further info about this here. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: Demographic Tables[edit]

Renathras, Got your message about your edits to state demographic tables. It seemed more appropriate to move this discussion to your Talk page, so I have done so, and responded there.

Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greece[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greece. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Stone (artist)[edit]

Excuseme. Really do you think was better before my humble contribution? Jeffrey Prothero (Cynbe ru Taren) died at November 16, 2016, said his wife Sandy Stone in the discussion page of Cynbe ru Taren in Wikipedia.--Climent Sostres (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Environment and sexual orientation article[edit]

I could use your help watching this article. I suspect that the IP is Justthefacts9. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have quiesced. I tweaked the lead sentence for unrelated reasons. Mathglot (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

reply[edit]

While the reference is to a book, the link is to the galley proof of a single chapter from the book. On the assumption that the chapter was the relevant portion of the book, I attempted to verify the original sentence in the article and could not. I modified the article text so that it now accords with the linked chapter. After reading your comment, I also added a page number (roman numerals within the galley proof), but it is possible that I didn't put it in the right place, since I'm not a qualified Wikipedia editor. Being unfamiliar with the Wikipedia format is also the reason I didn't modify the citation so that it cites a book chapter rather than the whole book. If you know how to do that, I think it would be a good idea. Another option would be to remove the link (if in fact the chapter isn't the relevant portion). However, in that last case, it might be best to verify the original text again, this time against the entire book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.159.1 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The comment above apparently in reference to this edit to Capitalism, and followed up by this talk page comment. Replied at your talk page; let's keep the discussion all in one place there. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon invitation for September 26![edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
Wikimedia Community logo
WikiSalon attendees

Periodically, on the last Wednesday evening of the month, wiki enthusiasts gather at the Bay Area WikiSalon series to munch, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We allow time for announcements, informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Bring a friend! Kid/family friendly. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. This months' focus is Did you know ... ?

We will have beverages (including beer and wine) plus light snacks (maybe pizza too!).


Details and RSVP here (note: we are meeting at the new WMF HQ at 120 Kearny Street!)

See you soon! Avik (User:Quantumavik), Lodewijk (User:Effeietsanders), Ben Creasy (User:Ben Creasy), Stephen (User:Slaporte), and Wayne (User:Checkingfax)
(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Fadel Al-Aboud[edit]

Hi Mathglot. Back in May 2017, you userfied this as User:Free Syrian 200/Fadel Alaboud per User talk:Free Syrian 200#Fadel Alaboud moved to User draft. An article about the same subject has just been added to the mainspace by the same editor. Since you userfied this once before, maybe you could take a look at it again and see the concerns you previously had have been addressed. I'm not sure if a WP:HISTMERGE is needed since this appears to be a copy-paste move, but it does look like Free Syrian 200 is the only major contributor to the sandbox so maybe one is not needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks. At first glance, I agree about no Histmerge, but before comparing the two articles in more detail, I want to see if Free Syrian 200 (talk · contribs) is able to use English (or even MT) well enough to interact on Talk pages. See my response at User talk:Free Syrian 200#Fadel Al-Aboud. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Australia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Last call for RSVPs for Wednesday evening[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
Wikimedia Community logo
WikiSalon attendees

Hey, folks.​ Reminder:​ Wednesday evening ​at 6 ​is the Bay Area WikiSalon series​.​


Details and RSVP here (note: we are meeting at the new WMF HQ at 120 Kearny Street!)

See you soon! Avik (User:Quantumavik), Lodewijk (User:Effeietsanders), Ben Creasy (User:Ben Creasy), Stephen (User:Slaporte), and Wayne (User:Checkingfax)
(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 70,000 Character Petition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Fixed Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Mathglot! You created a thread called What's the best venue to seek an uninvolved editor to assist explaining policy to a new user? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


Chaz Bono[edit]

I had to fix this. He initially came out as a lesbian. That wording is going to be confusing for many readers, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Tweaked here and here. Maybe "still" should be changed to "then." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "then." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oscar López Rivera[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oscar López Rivera. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Avetik Chalabyan article up for deletion[edit]

Hi Mathglot! About 2 years ago I wrote a biography of a living person article [Chalabyan]. The article has been recently marked as up for deletion. Any advice on why this might be happening, how to address it or what to improve would really be appreciated. Obviously, your vote as an experienced editor on Wiki would really go a long way to make sure it's not deleted.

Thanks in advance for your attention to the matter.

Alice Ananian (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing other contributors' comments[edit]

Greetings, Mathglot. Before closing the RfC about gender pronouns in the Albert Cashier article, I tried formatting the discussion so that readers can navigate through it easily and that meaning of views is not lost. It's typical for discussions to get out of hand in Wikipedia in terms of proper formatting, because we are often more interested in stating our point of view rather than how the statement fits on the page. You reverted the format-edit as being a violation of the WP:TPO guideline. I do not intend to change your revert but, as you should perhaps know, exceptions to the general rule about not touching other people's comments is allowed quite explicitly and specifically: Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, etc. Which is precisely what I did and all that I did. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: I went back there after getting your message, to re-examine it to see whether a self-revert was in order, but by that time you had already closed it. It’s moot, so no point examining the situation now, but you may have been right and allowing a little more time between leaving me the message and the Rfc closure would have perhaps permitted a better outcome. Oh well, better luck next time. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

SSM[edit]

What are you talking about? I haven't been "challenged on this per WP:V", there's been no comment at all. Just silent, idiotic edits. Do I really need to prove that England is a country, when that's already been established on the talk page? You could start with this.

(So ... what? The constituent countries of the UK are not countries, but the constituent countries of Denmark are countries? Do *you* have any source to back that up, since you're the one who wants to change the article to claim that?)

kwami (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xinjiang conflict[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xinjiang conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments at Talk:Sciences Po[edit]

Hi. I'm at work right now, and I won't be able to see to it. You may move what I wrote however you wish, just don't modify it. Be bold! :) Regards, Comte0 (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Comte0: Thanks, but there's no hurry, and unless you postively prefer me to do so, I'd rather wait till you have the time. For one thing, your comment sounded like a Support vote, but that would be changing things if I did it, so I'd rather you did anything of that nature. Still, if you prefer not to visit the page a second time, I'll move your comment unmodified if that is your wish. Just let me know your preference (and no need to respond to this again while at work; Face-wink.svg). Happy trails, Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Christianity and antisemitism‎[edit]

Hiya. Someone else already reverted your reversion at Christianity and antisemitism‎, but I just wanted to clarify that the "unsourced content" you mention was NOT added by me. I assume the two unsourced paragraphs which caught your eye were the ones that begin with

Throughout the 19th century and into the 20th, the Roman Catholic Church still incorporated strong antisemitic elements, despite increasing attempts to separate anti-Judaism (opposition to the Jewish religion on religious grounds) and racial antisemitism...

and

Pope Pius VII (1800–1823) had the walls of the Jewish ghetto in Rome rebuilt after the Jews were emancipated by Napoleon, and Jews were restricted to the ghetto through the end of the Papal States in 1870...

If you take a look at the previous versions, you'll see that both of those paragraphs were already included in the article. I rearranged their order so that the article flows more smoothly, but otherwise I left them unchanged.

All the other paragraphs which DO contain new content added by me are heavily sourced. Hope that clears up any confusion. Cheers. AbsoluteEgoist (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does AbsoluteEgoist, thanks and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Lodi Gyari[edit]

Hi Mathglot, Here is I think Lodi Gyari :

Le dalaï-lama arrivant à Zurich en 1973. Lodi Gyari est en arrière plan, à gauche.
Lodi Gyari arriving at Zurich airport in 1973.

--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks![edit]

Many thanks for the additions to the article "Crisis of the Late Middle Ages" and participation in the discussion of its translation into Russian. DarDar (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Transgender[edit]

Thanks for your message. So what's the process to have the phrasing amended from "the opposite of transgender is cisgender" to "the opposite of transgender is normal"?

And I don't mean it mockingly. I'm interested in the entire process, how do these changes get vetoed, what sources are considered reliable, what's the quorum, etc?

Many thanks, Fendergenderbender (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Photolab[edit]

Recursive camera icon-(02-3 4-2))-.png
Hello, Mathglot. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

PawełMM (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC).


You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Mathglot. 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)

PC review accept comment[edit]

Heh, I was going to leave you a friendly reminder that your accept-comment advice regarding Angola wasn't visible anywhere except the Advanced review log, but I see now that you made the necessary enhancements to the citation yourself. Now that's dedication! All good, since I was already editing here I figured I'll take the opportunity to applaud the above-and-beyond review efforts. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

FeRDNYC Thanks. I'm not crazy about the current system of accept notices; imho, they all ought to go into the article itself, as a dummy edit with a full edit summary. Sometimes, there's some thing to say even in an accept that needs to be exposed at article level; and the current system, as you pointed out, doesn't do that. Anyway, your kind words are appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: they all ought to go into the article itself, as a dummy edit with a full edit summary *nod* Or even just tacked on to the accepted edit. I mean, if the history can show "[accepted by FeRDNYC]", surely it can show "[accepted by FeRDNYC with message Accept message]" or whatever. ...But, there are a lot of things I would change about how PC protection operates, and I suspect that's true for most reviewers. Hopefully it'll evolve and improve over time. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

OR at Roman diocese and editor adding it[edit]

Hi - you are impressively thoughtful and patient, I would just press the button and put that ridiculous article Roman diocese back to the way it was in June 2017 without asking around like you are, but I won't do it while you are in the middle of your investigation. And I think it is urgent that DuckeggAlex is blocked, I am checking some of the articles you put on his work status list, they are full of OR and gross errors. Since he never responds to messages on his talk page, being blocked might get his attention. I am sure he can contribute productively but he has to learn how to follow WP policy.Smeat75 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Smeat75:, Thanks for your comments here and at Talk:Roman diocese. The whole situation is kind of depressing, because I can see the guy is smart, and probably does know a lot about the topic since he seems capable of writing details and dates off the cuff without consulting sources, but he's really damaged a lot of articles. I was hoping to keep him from getting blocked because I was afraid he'd get blocked permanently, and like you, I think he is capable of contributing productively. But an indefinite block is not the only possibility, right, and maybe a short one would wake him up as you say. I keep getting to the point where I'm about ready to go to ANI and request a block, and then he backs off a little bit, like today; and since blocks are supposed to be "preventative, not punitive" if he's not up to his old tricks, there's no reason to block him, so I step back again and wait and see. I just wish he'd respond on his Talk page, and on article talk pages. I was looking around to see if there was any policy support for that, and I found Wikipedia:Communication is required. Looks like it's a case of WP:RADAR, possibly mixed with borderline WP:CIR. Anyway, I'll try to see the current situation at Roman diocese through to some kind of conclusion, and then I really need a change of pace. If a couple more people add comments and feel the same way as you and T8612 do, I'll go ahead and flip the switch. Oh, and if you can help with any of the other articles in the list, that would be great. Most of them are only a handful of edits or a few dozen at most, nothing like this one. Anyway, thanks for the kind words and encouragement! Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not thinking of an indefinite block, a short one to get his attention and make him realise he has to listen to others, this is a collaboration, and yes communication is definitely required. Apart from the OR and CIR issues, he goes on wild editing sprees, bloating articles to ridiculous length with no sources, for instance Anglican eucharistic theology, he has turned that article into the length of a pamphlet. It is unreadable. I and others, I am sure, will support you if you want to take him to ANI and ask for a short block, I would be inclined to do it myself, but since you have been dealing with this for some time, I will let you decide.Smeat75 (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not particular about who takes him to ANI or when, I just want to be mindful of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE and since he hasn't done anything like that today, in theory this could be day one of his abandoning that behaviory, in which case there would no reason to take him there. If he starts up again of course, then it's a different story. Thanks for all the support and encouragement. And, I see you have been helping at the list of articles worksheet, thanks very much for that. Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Smeat75 Well, now I don't know where we are with this. Since your message, he's been on a tear at Roman diocese, but this time in a good way, just adding <ref> tags, and doing it right. In theory, that's all to the good, but it could make it harder to remove the bloat, so it might end up being a huge, inscrutable, referenced bloat. Also, not entirely sure if he's just throwing in references he knows, or whether they really support the content, and I don't have the energy to try and track them all down one by one. So I'm really not sure where to go from here, now. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that he is doing that, he seems to have absorbed your patient tutelage in that regard, but that does not really change the fact that he has expanded that article to be an unreadable bloat and that he refuses to communicate on talk pages including his own. There are also possible issues with copyvio and he definitely needs to slow down so I still think this should be raised at ANI.Smeat75 (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Smeat75 Have you done that before, ANI, I mean? If he hadn't gone on this latest jag of adding refs, I wouldn't have had any qualms about taking him to ANI, even though it would be my first. Now that he's adding refs, I'm feeling less certain, since he's doing what we asked. Still, I totally agree with the rest of what you say (poss copyvio, slow down, communicate) but is that enough to raise at ANI? Is this bad timing because he's in the middle of sourcing? We don't want to block him adding ref tags, right, or is that a completely separate issue? If you're still comfortable with raising it at ANI, either now, or after he stops, you don't need to defer to me; I don't need "credit" or anything like that, I just want what's best for the encyclopedia. Naturally, if you do raise it there, I'll jump right in as well. I'm just not sure what to say at this point. Plus, I know that diffs have to be prepared for them, and not sure what the best set of diffs would be. Most of DuckeggAlex's edits at Roman diocese have already been rolled back; the run of 864 edits still in the article are by Alexander Domanda (talk · contribs), and there's no proof they're the same, and since Domanda hasn't edited for months, there would be nobody to block on that score. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC) He seems to have stopped. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have started a few threads at ANI, not many, I don't really like doing it, but sometimes it is necessary. This is quite a complicated case, I do feel however that refusal to communicate is a very important issue and also that he is just creating terrible articles. I will put some thoughts together.Smeat75 (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Smeat75, I don't know if there's any such thing as bringing a case together, but I'm willing to do that, if it is. My main thoughts would be to do it by the book, so, there would have to be some current behavior we wanted to stop, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, and then we'd need some diffs. Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The main current behavior we need to stop,imo, is refusal to communicate. I have seen short blocks issued to get the editor's attention. I have never seen a "joint" ANI filed, I wouldn't know how to do that, one of us has to start it I think and then the other can add their comments.I am about to start trying to put some stuff together.Smeat75 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Smeat75 Sounds good. One other thing I thought of, is that merely "creating terrible articles" might be seen as a content dispute and not in their jurisdiction, but if we could link it to repeated violation of some policy, then it would be actionable by whatever policy, or by WP:DISRUPT. I'll go quiet for a bit while you're thinking about it, but will respond when you do. If you want help finding specific diffs, let me know. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I started a report at ANI requesting a short block to get his attention, I don't know if it really summarizes the issues but I did the best I could.Smeat75 (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Smeat75 Yep, saw it; am just trying to add some links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathglot (talkcontribs) 07:45, December 2, 2018 (UTC)
@Smeat75:, Well, if the point was to get him to use Talk pages, it worked. Sort of. See below. Mathglot (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Smeat75:, Wow, not only is he using User talk pages, he make a remarkable response to this: Talk:Roman diocese#Wikipedia article, or MA Honors Thesis, although he wrote his reply on the wrong page (here, on my user TP, below): #Roman Diocese 3). I copied his response to the Roman TP, so to see his response in context just go to Talk:Roman diocese#Wikipedia article, or MA Honors Thesis. I think this takes ANI action off the table, at least for now; do you agree? If so, you can withdraw it at ANI. I think he still merits watching, in case he goes on some other binge somewhere, but there doesn't appear to be any reason to block him right now that I can see. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Thank you for all your effort with this. I will leave a note at ANI.Smeat75 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Roman Diocese[edit]

Text from Civil Dioceses not needed.DuckeggAlex (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@DuckeggAlex: First of all, congratulations on posting your first Talk page message. However, as far as what you wrote: I have no idea what you mean. Can you elaborate? Mathglot (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Roman Diocese[edit]

Just an observation that the sections of the text that run from Civil Dioceses to Ecclesiastical Dioceses repeats in extenso the text that precedes from footnotes 1-35. Too much material? DuckeggAlex (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DuckeggAlex: I've responded in two places:
  1. at your User talk page, User talk:DuckeggAlex#User talk pages and Article talk pages, and at
  2. at the article talk page, Talk:Roman diocese#Body text duplicates footnote content Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Smeat75: moved your response to discussion below. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Roman Diocese[edit]

Not taken from my thesis 50 years ago...never referred to it once in Wiki Article nor even looked at it. Cut it back as you wish, no problem at all --- as I suggested even 90%...thru footnotes 35 + section on ecclesiastical dioceses will cut it 75%...can be trimmed more as you wish down and down to get the essential what the admin unit was about, how it fit in and what it declined. Sorry for making so much trouble. Really got into systems analysis. Someone from Wiki keeps sending notification of an incoherent and rambling sentence I wrote July 18. I promptly removed it that very day, but this person thinks it is still in the text. DuckeggAlex (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

DuckeggAlex: I've moved your comment to the appropriate discussion; please see link below.

Roman Diocese[edit]

Thank you for your more than generous comments after I caused you and others so much headache. I am not a little tech challenged. The article was based on more recent scholarship with Jones as a base...as for distilling the 'essence' of the diocese the consensus seems to have shifted to a date of creation from 297 to 313/14 due to the Zuckermann article of 2002. An important point is that the appearance of the regional unit marks a major shift from emphasis on provincial to regional governance. The vicar was given additional fiscal responsibilities 325-329 that makes the post clearly in the driver's seat from 330 or so. The post and unit go decline as the imperial administration shifts back to a two-tier model of administration from the 440s. My contribution is based on the relationship of the vicar to the Treasury and Crown Estates as an extension of Delmaire, and further development of the vicar's fiscal role as found in my Review of 2016. The rest of the work rests on the shoulders of others to whom I have given the credit in citations. Anyway this is the story in short of vicars and I do mean short. I am sure there is a way to say this in a paragraph or two. DuckeggAlex (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
For showing awesome patience, kindness and helpfulness to an editor struggling with WP policies and guidelines Smeat75 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Editing Shroud of Turin[edit]

Hello,

Regarding "but you didn't provide a reliable source." and "InternetArchiveBot: Sorry, this sounds like your own opinion; I don't see where that wording is supported by a source." Not everything is solved with a source. In particular, the original scope of the paragraph I edited was unbounded, all that I did was to bound its scope of applicability. There is no source I should have to cite for using logic and common sense.

Regarding "this sounds like your own opinion; ", and the implied false claim that I am adding an opinion. Did you actually read what I wrote? The new paragraph, and my reason for changing it? The meaning of the original text is the same. All that I did was to bound its scope using logic and honesty.

Furthermore, the paragraph was in the wrong section. This moving around is, indeed, my opinion. But I do think that it is correct. The paragraph discussed the hypothesis of painting, so it should under the painting hypothesis section.

If you think you can bound the scope of applicability of that paragraph better than I did, please do so. But be honest, and do recognize that, as is, that paragraph seems to imply that the origin of the image is that it was painted. When in fact, the wiki page it self has other sections with many other hypothesis.

I am new to wiki, not sure how this "talk" stuff works. I hope you get this message. PS: I do not have a talk page. Not sure how you will reply to me. Any how....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.96.130 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@207.115.96.130: I've added something at your talk page (which you do have: it is here) regarding how to use Talk pages, and about your other questions. Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

About the edit on the "LGBT" Rights in Sri Lanka[edit]

Dear @mathglot,

Why are you so resistant to the edits/new additions to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpwrites91 (talkcontribs) 05:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tpwrites91: Why are you asking me a question that has already been answered in detail in the edit summary? Read it. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

About the edit on List of constituencies of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly[edit]

You are writing that these all edits done by me are unsourced. These all edits are not unsourced dear, I am doing this because I live here and for your confirmation , I give you the sources from where I am doing changes-
http://www.myneta.info/uttarpradesh2017/
http://www.elections.in/uttar-pradesh/parliamentary-constituencies/
http://www.elections.in/uttar-pradesh/
http://www.elections.in/uttar-pradesh/assembly-constituencies/

These all sources are valid.
So please do not delete my edits. I am writing all the names, districts and Lok Sabha constituencies name correctly.
And I have also mentioned these URL in last edit.
So please undo your edits because after your edit some names of assemblies are not valid and not linked and I have linked all constituencies to the right links.
Sid54126 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sid54126: Your heart is in the right place, and we need people to fix up the names for all the recent name changes in the legislative assembly, as long as the changes are sourced. I'm not sure what verifiability policy would have to say about claiming sourcing at the top of an article, for an entire table that follows it. In my view, this is not okay, because then if someone else came in behind you who happened to be a troll, and made content changes that appeared similar to yours on the surface, but that in actual fact were pure invention, then the claimed sources at the top would by implication be covering the troll's work, equally to yours. So, this system cannot work, imho. Instead, you should use named references to cover individual changes. If you disagree, we can start an Rfc either at that article, or perhaps at the India topics Noticeboard, about how to source massive changes that are sprinkled throughout a table. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Sid54126, these sources fail WP:RS. Source the changes to Election Commission of India publications. Also see this thread. WBGconverse 06:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Genderism Change[edit]

Hello Mathlot,

I am lyoung11, the person who did the Genderism discussion. I see you have taken down all my information. I would like to touch base with you on what happened. First off you had pointed out that I had removed sources. I did not remove anything from the Genderism page but instead added to it. The material I had collected was an extensive three month research into the term and usage. Many of these articles are scientific as can be found with the scientific sources. It was for a higher undergraduate course at a University. Both my PhD professor as well as a full time Wikipedian had helped me with this project. Also, you had mentioned the discussion was lacking as this is was meant for others to contribute further on topics and put in there own facts. Please look into the articles and let me know what you think. Thank you and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyoung11 (talkcontribs) 05:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lyoung11: I've restored your edit, and will look at the individual points and respond at the Talk page. In the meantime, please remember to sign your edits (see WP:FOURTILDES). If you haven't read it yet, also have a look at WP:THREAD for Talk page discussion thread protocol. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria[edit]

About reverted changes. Hormone therapy commonly causes gynecomastia in transgender females, which itself is irreversible as even if one wishes to stop taking hormones, breast tissue won't magically go away. Some other things like hair growth and skin changes are reversible, as they'll change back to a male pattern. Please consider this. Laitr Keiows (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to Stanford University to celebrate Wikipedia's birthday[edit]

Join us in celebrating Wikipedia's 18th birthday at Stanford University!
Wikimedia Community logo
I am delighted to invite you to the 2019 Wikipedia Day party at Stanford, which will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 5:00-8:30pm.

There will be pizza, cake, and refreshments; both newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome! We will have a beginner track with tutorials, and an advanced track with presentations, lightning talks, and tips and tricks. Admission is free, and you do NOT have to be a Stanford University student to attend.

Details and RSVP here • register here

See you soon! All the best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c)
(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Justthefacts9: I'll have to think about whether I want to comment there, or just lurk. Anyway, you've done your duty by notifying me, so thanks for the heads-up. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about Talk[edit]

Hi, I'm the one whose edits to Heteronormativity were reverted earlier today. Sorry about my carelessness, I'll try to keep what you said in mind in the future.

I am curious though: I went to the talk page as you recommended, and found some others who had similar concerns about the current wording. There seems to be no objection to changing the beginning of the article to state that heteronormativity is a more of a complicated social system than a mere belief, but the discussion has been apparently stagnant for about 2 months now. I'm wondering what one such as myself could do to help advance this. You mentioned in your post on my user talk page that edits to the body are often necessary in order to make edits to the lead; is this the only task holding things back, or is there more to be done first in addition to supporting evidence in the body and agreement on the Talk page?

By the way, thanks for your help. ParalyticStates (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A belated thank you[edit]

My apologies: I never thanked you for this. I wasn't sure if I was being too harsh!
I gather that you have been tapped to act as a middleman, and I assume that I am the user who is doing the cluttering, so please drop me a line if anything comes of it. Thanks again, Swanny18 (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

For reverting the photo edit, and being polite about it. I should have used "copy" instead of "cut" and got everything right before I deleted it. I usually just text edit, and am still learning the boxes and thumbs. Also just tired tonight. I still thing that the very famous photograph should be the lead photo. It would tie in perfectly with the last line of the lead, and it perfectly expresses the main significance of the battle. The current photo is good, but would be better, imho, beside the sections on disease and casualties. Anyways, thanks again. Ben 184.69.174.194 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing categorization parameter from Infobox[edit]

Thanks for your recent edits to Italian Ethiopia. I can see the sense of removing the region parameter, but the continent parameter has resulted in this article no longer appearing in Category:Former countries in Africa. Was this intended? My Gussie (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@My Gussie: Thanks for the heads-up. Are you sure it was in that category before? I just checked revision 879406279 from before the changes, and it doesn’t seem to have been in that category then. Maybe you’re seeing something I’m not? It was, however, hidden-categorized into Category:Pages using infobox country with unknown parameters in the earlier version, but since the offending params were removed, it no longer is. I should’ve said in the edit summary that they are deprecated params and were throwing errors and generating diagnostic hidden cats in Preview. Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Looks like I made an invalid assumption based on what must be obsolete documentation, which still refers to the continent and region parameters that must have since been removed. Is the template documentation something any editor is encouraged to update or should it be updated by the same people who code the templates? As far the Italian Ethiopia article goes, I am going to add the category manually, to be consistent with the other articles that have it. My Gussie (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@My Gussie: Yes, adding the category manually is definitely the way to go. And the template doc is part of the Wiki, and updating it is definitely okay, and encouraged. Thanks for taking care of both of those, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ae[edit]

I have undone your reversion, since you said that it was unsourced and that wasn't true—Lindsay's novel is the source. Kindly do not re-revert. There is a discussion on the talk page of Third-person pronoun. -- Evertype· 20:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Rereverted. That's a primary source; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out[edit]

Your comments are appreciated thank you. I am reading various wiki essays and policies and taking them into consideration Not sure what to think about your choice of the word "pattern" haha Sorry to be problematic. (2607:F2C0:E006:34:9111:A2D3:10E1:26E8 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC))

One of the best things you could do right now, would be to register a username. This is free, has various benefits for you (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?) and would also help other editors keep in touch with you, since your ISP appears to vary your IP address among several in the same IPv6 CIDR block. Feel free to post here again anytime, if you have any questions or comments. Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Reason[edit]

What is the reason for this revert? Colonestarrice (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Colonestarrice: This is about your change to the first sentence at Feminism. The reason for the original revert is as stated in the edit summary. Also, as stated in Snowded's edit summary in his revert. I don't actually feel that strongly about your edit one way or the other; the definition was slightly better before your change imho, but not by that much, and your change wasn't that big a deal, it just wasn't necessary, and didn't seem to improve anything that I could see. I apply a stronger standard for changes to an article for editors coming into an article and zeroing in on the first paragraph, and especially on the first sentence, who have never edited at the article before, and except for one wikilink last November, you fall into that category. And when someone keeps redoing their edit after reverts, it makes me wonder what's going on. On the surface, it looks like an unwillingness to engage, but I can't mind-read you. So, my question to you, is: why so insistent about this seemingly meaningless rearrangement of three terms in a series in the very first sentence of the article when you've basically never edited there before? If it's that important to you, lay out your reasoning on the Talk page, and maybe you'll get buy-in from other editors. It's all about seeking consensus, right? If you reasoning makes sense, I'll support you. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

LGBT[edit]

LGBT, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources regarding Hitlers forgotten library[edit]

The orginal source was Aftonbladet: https://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/bokrecensioner/a/4dEE36/fuhrern-bokmalen In Swedish "Han läste med behållning bilfabrikören Henry Fords The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. " Translation "He read car idustralist Henry Ford's "The International Jew: The Worlds's Foremost Problem". This is a Swedish source so you cannot use the reference in Wikipedia EN edition but need to read the book by Timothy W. Ryback.

Some other sources: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/05/hitlers-forgotten-library/302727/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellarsson (talkcontribs) 09:26, January 26, 2019 (UTC)

This is apparently regarding this edit at International Jew. Actually, Daniellarsson, you can use Swedish sources, if they are reliable. Please use an equivalent English source, if available; but if it is not, then please use a reliable Swedish source. You may find it easier to do that, using the {{cite web}} template:

<ref>{{cite web |language=Swedish |title=Original title |trans-title=English title |last1= |first1= |url= |date= |website= |publisher= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= }}</ref>

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have ...[edit]

... emailed you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Cannabis descheduling[edit]

Thanks for the thorough edit summary on German cannabis control bill. I took your suggestion and edited it to the longer form, it'll be clearer to readers who aren't familiar with the colloquial term (and keep it from popping up on the list of typos.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I adjusted the predicate nominative; "removal" is what it does. Hope you're okay with it this way. Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Genderism/Binaryism Proposals[edit]

Thanks for the kind note on my talk page.

Please consider lending your thoughts on my dual proposal regarding these pages (and I hope I've set these into action correctly):

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genderism_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_29_January_2019

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_binary#Merger_proposal

A145GI15I95 (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, A145GI15I95, I'll have a look. In the meantime, to attract more eyeballs, you might consider leaving a brief, neutrally-worded request for feedback at WT:LGBT, with a link to your move request. A few examples to look at are here, here, here (as well as the section immediately after it), and here. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RE: Discussion: invalid data[edit]

Hey Mathglot,

Thank you for your posting in the Talk:Flogging a dead horse#Requested move 8 February 2019. I wanted to discuss your most recent additions. I really would have preferred you came forward to me first with this information. You importantly acknowledged, The poll results above in this move request may be tainted by invalid data being presented (in good faith) by the OP.

However, you also said phrases such as, The "Clarification" posted at 21:33, 8 Feb says: and The point is, we really just don't know why they searched for that term. (And, one hundred percent? Really?) Your criticisms, however justified, are put in such a way that are slightly embarrassing to me. I had no intention to mislead, as you had stated, but well... I felt you really beat me over a stick with how wrong I was.

There are other swifter options than a procedural close. If you had informed me of your thoughts beforehand on my talk page for example, then I could have simply included your comments in a withdrawal statement. I still want to withdraw, but I would prefer to do it in such a way that it doesn't shut down another conversation (which in this case is about the invalid data).

Is there anyway you would feel comfortable possibly striking the discussion section but leave your comment in? I want to do this by the books, and I can't close/withdraw a discussion that hasn't even started.

Thank you in advance. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 01:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Uh oh, that was not my intention, I heartily apologize. I can strike some of that or reword, let me think about how best to do that. I had thought about writing to you separately, but that seemed vaguely like "cheating" as an open discussion should have the benefit of transparency, so everyone can see what's going on. But I do acknowledge your feelings about this, so please accept my apology, and let me think of some better wording over there. Bbiab... Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@MattLongCT:, please have anther glance; how's it looking now? I don't want to leave it in a state you're not happy with, so please feel free to suggest more changes. How does it sound, now? The impression I'm trying to leave, is strictly commentary on the data (which is strong, I admit, but that's how I feel about the data), but no commentary at all about the person posting the data. I don't doubt your good faith for a moment, and if what I wrote still isn't clear about that, then I need to revise it some more.
The fact is, the whole issue of search, search results, the "hit counts" ("Google found 20 zillion results"), and how you interpret it all, is a highly fraught subject, that few non-specialists understand very well. I worked for three search engines, so I have a better than average, though still imperfect, understanding of it. I keep meaning to write an essay about how to interpret search results, one of these days, I'm really going to have to do it. Google Trends data is a special sub-topic of this, and *can* be used, when what users are searching for, is the data one wants. But, as usually we are worrying about verifiability of something or other, that would exclude user searches, but lots of people, probably most, are really pretty hazy about how to interpret search results.
Anyway, once more, please accept my regret and apology of how I originally phrased it, and I hope that it's looking better now. If not, I will fix it some more. Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot, please don't feel bad!! I'm fine, really! It's all good. That's a statement I am very comfortable with! Thank you so much for being apologetic, but I probably should apologize to you for making you worry! I think you have mapped out the best solution forward now, and I will await the procedural close as you intended. Thank you again! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@MattLongCT: Sounds good, thanks.
Btw, just because someone requests a procedural close, doesn't mean that others will necessarily agree with that and stop posting; they may not even read my comment, or care; so the polling might just carry on as before; it's even possible someone may try to tally !votes and close it one way or another without regard to that discussion. That would be a shame, imho, but it may not go that route, so as you say, we can just wait and see what happens. Now I feel bad that you felt bad for making me feel bad Face-wink.svg, but all's well that ends well! Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't blame me for anon edits.[edit]

This edit was made by "122.56.100.98", not me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_feminism&diff=next&oldid=882914041 Thanks, A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@A145GI15I95:. The edit summary wasn't clear enough, it seems. Nobody is blaming you for that IP edit that got reverted. The state of the article was reverted back to your last revision. I left off the word last before "revision" and included the revision number, which in retrospect, may have confused you; I'll be clearer next time. Sorry for any inconvenience. Mathglot (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see now how you could've intended it differently than how I read it. To my first view, the number referred to one version, and the name referred to the other. To include name and number for one seemed redundant, and the invocation of a name inferred unnecessary credit or blame, rather than focus on content. Merely instead this seems a difference in phrasing style. I apologize for taking offense. Thanks for clarifying. A145GI15I95 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@A145GI15I95: It was my fault for being unclear, but you're kind to say so. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

About changing on page List of sitting judges of High Courts of India[edit]

All the sources are given in the page. What is your problem, you always undo my edits whether all the sources are given in page. If you can't find the source, it's your fault. See all the sources and check whether it is correct or not. I am giving you the links one more time-
Here you can see changes in judiciary monthly-
http://doj.gov.in/appointment-of-judges/list-high-court-judges
See recent changes in this page-
http://doj.gov.in/appointment-of-judges/latest-orders-appointment-transfer-etc

If you can not see the names in these goverment sources, then it's not my fault, It's your fault. Next time, Check my pages twice or thrice and then undo my pages.

and all the links of respected high courts is given also. Sid54126 (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, but what I see, is that in this edit (13:01, Feb. 12) you added 60kb of text in section List of Judges by seniority (in cumulative), and I don't see as single reference in the very long table of judges in that section. The link you gave above seems fine, please use it in the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
My dear friend, the reference in the table also (see in the heading) Sid54126 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sid54126: Oh, I see, you embedded it in the Section header. Please don't do that, that's an improper use of citations, per MOS:SECTIONS. For one thing, no one will ever be able to figure out what is covered by that reference in the header, and what is not. If ten more editors edit the article after you move on to other projects, and they each add ten more rows to the table which happen to contain false information, does your reference up in the section header still declare that everything in the table is verified by your reference? I think you can see the problem, here.
I have added a new section to the Talk page of the article to explain how to properly use section headers, and how to footnote the content you added properly, by adding brief, named references after the data you add to each row, and not before. Please see the discussion at that talk page Talk:List of sitting judges of High Courts of India#Proper use of citations, and respond there, rather than here so that other editors interested in this discussion may take part. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What?[edit]

Fragmented discussion reunited at original location on User's talk page

“Your racist rant at Talk:Trans woman was removed”.

What are you talking about? I pointed out the painfully obvious fact that so-called POCs are more prone to transphobia than whites and that this is a far more reasonable explanation for transgender POCs to experience discrimination than any nonsense about “the intersection of racism and transphobia”... and you pull out the typical mindless vacuous pseudo-argument of... “that’s racist”? Why are people like you in charge of that page? Why does your delusional putrid bs take precedence over others’?

Besides, considering the high probability that you’re an “intersectional feminist” who believes in the laughable idea that racism requires PAWAH STRACKCHOORZ, may I inform you that I’m technically a POC myself so maybe my “racist” rant wasn’t racist after all given that I lack the “institutional pawah”. Or maybe having a different opinion means that, by definition, I’m a right-wing white transphobic neo-Nazi?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.241.61.247 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Achziv[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Achziv. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Littman for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Littman 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/Lisa Littman 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. Safrolic (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Atherton[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Atherton. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Commented on the Afd instead. yellow tickY Partly done Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thank U, Next[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thank U, Next. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't care. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Declined per Angels on a pinhead. Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Olivia Jade[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Olivia Jade. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of film spoofs in Mad[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of film spoofs in Mad. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done

Please comment on Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done

Please comment on Talk:PCCW[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PCCW. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gavin McInnes[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gavin McInnes. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The World Factbook list of developed countries[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The World Factbook list of developed countries. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Radical egalitarianism basic principles[edit]

Dear Mathglot,

I am very happy meeting now one of the other editors of the article on radical feminism! I had already searched the long, long list of users to find the persons that contributed most to that article, which I find excellent. In the mean time I have edited my user page, where I describe my purpose to contribute to this issue. I felt encouraged by this:

"The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject."

1. As I added aspects that are worldwide relevant for radical feminism but happen to be reported from West Berlin – you ask me to put it on a German page – it looks as if only US sources are accepted?

2. I know, that you prefer not to have links as sources – but as most English speaking readers don’t read German, I thought it would help to ad the translation in English – or else you would not be able to check the validity of the source. The problem is, that there exist very few English books on feminist movements of German speaking Europe – that may be also a reason why on English Wikipedia the women’s movement seems to have happened only in the English speaking world. I had hoped to widen that view.

3. The text I added was meant to be part of the “movement” and had the headline “Basic principles” – it was not meant to be a text on the West Berlin women’s center as you put it now – but a text that shows special political character of the radical feminist movement in Europe.

4. Why do you refuse my contribution, saying this is “unduly long for a general discussion”?

I hope to get some guidance from you and benefit from a friendly discussion!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucida Grandissima (talkcontribs) 08:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)~~

Hi, Lucida. Thanks for your edits to Radical feminism, about which your comments above pertain. I'll respond point-by-point later, and may end up moving this whole conversation to the article talk page at Talk:Radical feminism where it actually belongs, but I can't respond in detail right now, so please wait for my reply. Just briefly regarding point 2: according to WP's Verifiability policy, English sources are preferred but sources in any language which verifies the content you wish to add is fine, including German sources, if they are the best available. You can start, by simply compiling a list of sources in German (or any language) that cover the topic of Radical feminism in Germany; you can add your list directly to the Talk page if you wish, or just hold onto it, while we figure out how to incorporate it. I'll have more to say tomorrow. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Followup at Talk:Radical feminism. Mathglot (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Stile Liberty[edit]

Hi, thanks for your warning about copyright but site itself says it is free for use as long as its attributed, which it is. https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2016/16/matecconf_spbwosce2016_02004.pdf - This is an open access article, permits unrestricted use etc. First page.Sourcerery (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think issue is solved, if there are still some problems delete entire architecture section, thank you.Sourcerery (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sourcerery: As I said in reverting the removal of the {{copypaste}} template, it's not for us to decide. Let's let the copyvio gnomes have a look at it first, and they'll make the call. In the meantime, it doesn't hurt to have the tag there. I've already noted your concerns at the Talk page section about it; you're of course welcome to comment there. Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Rfc[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Rfc. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Not done only a test Mathglot (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:WikiLeaks[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:WikiLeaks. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

About my translating[edit]

Hi, Mathglot! I saw your message on my talk page and I think there's misunderstanding. I didn't put English to replace the Chinese on the info box of Lil Kim's page, the info box automatically translating into Chinese during the process of translating because it was machine translating, But many words are not translated correctly, because machines usually translate directly without considering the different grammars and contexts between languages. And there are many words that cannot be translated, such as names. Some names have official translations and some don't, so I have to be put in English, otherwise it's not accurate.Qiuhanzhang827 (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Qiuhanzhang827, When you're using the translation tool and it invokes machine translation, then you are the one doing it. When the car you are driving hits someone, you can't blame the car. I understand what you are saying; but if the tool is wrong, then don't accept what the tool is doing, and do it your own way. See also your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:And Then There Were None[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:And Then There Were None. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For all of the help you've given to students! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 18:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For all of the awesome things you do! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vietnam War[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vietnam War. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 No comment Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taxation in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public corporation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Pending Mathglot (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Allopathic/osteopathic[edit]

. . .

Yes, feel free to move the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Postmodern art[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Postmodern art. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Not needed; will snow close. Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Genderqueer move proposal[edit]

Wondering if you had any thoughts about this: Talk:Genderqueer#The issue is scope not COMMONNAME. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Responded at the appropriate venue. Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Italian supercentenarians[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Italian supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kamrupi dialect[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kamrupi dialect. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Commented in nearby articles. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of African-American music styles[edit]

Hello, Mathglot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of African-American music styles".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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! 03:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk page communication[edit]

Reminder. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/Phase 2
  • Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase

Please comment on Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Leslie Feinberg/pronouns[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Leslie Feinberg/pronouns. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – English personal pronouns. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at English personal pronouns. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — Smjg (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Smjg, Has nothing to do with English personal pronouns at all. Also, WP:Don't template the regulars. Mathglot (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Replied to your comment on Talk:Leslie Feinberg/pronouns. As for your concern about templating the regulars, you'll need to talk to the maintainers of Twinkle. — Smjg (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
For the record: this was moved to User talk:Mathglot/Leslie Feinberg/pronouns. Mathglot (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Check Wikipedia[edit]

The WikiProject Check Wikipedia has defined errors which should be cleaned, e.g. ID 104 Unbalanced quotes in ref name or illegal character. If you don't agree with that definition talk with the responsible people of WP:CHECKWIKI about a change of that definition before reverting edits according to that error lists. --GünniX (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@GünniX: Thanks for raising this here, but the proper venue is the article talk page. I really don’t care what your project has decided; that is not binding on articles over Wikipedia’s policies. When you get reverted, discuss, don’t re-revert. And please use edit summaries to describe the intent of your edits. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the fix made by GünniX at Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy added a missing opening quotation mark to the reference named "GDA-2018", per the technical explanation of how reference names work given at WP:REFNAME. I'm not sure what policies Mathglot is referring to; the fix was a technical one, not a policy-based or guideline-based fix, as far as I can tell.
It appears that since GünniX was using AWB, some of that tool's "general fixes" were applied at the same time, which can make the actual purpose of the edit more difficult to discern. I recommend a significantly improved edit summary, such as "Fixing WikiProject Check Wikipedia error 104, Unbalanced quotes or illegal character in ref name". – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with the fix to the unbalanced quote fix, and responded on the article talk page to the rest. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Confusing wording on Equality Act page?[edit]

Hi - I was a bit confused by the wording of this sentence, sending a DM since it's under edit-lock currently

"The Equality Act would lead to nationwide anti-LGBT discrimination laws." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States)#cite_note-hrc-1

For me since "anti-" and "discrimination" are both negation modifiers, it reads a bit like "this would lead to laws discriminating against LGBT people" (I don't think that's the intent)

A more concise description is present later in the article:

"The Equality Act seeks to incorporate protections against LGBT discrimination into federal Civil Rights law."

Maybe removing the first sentence I pointed out would make it clearer? (IMO it currently doesn't add much to the intro besides confusion) 71.198.252.58 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Already done Mathglot (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Dalida actress[edit]

Hello, I decided to contact you due one of your edits on Dalida where I noticed that you undid some user's work because he just changed some "invisible" thing g in article that left it completely same. As explination you wrote "good faith edit (..) if aint broke, don't fix it). Well, last week one editor just changed Dalida's lead from actress to actor, later explaining me that the genderless noums are more preferable and that actress is oldfashioned etc. I reverted it immediately because the editor didn't discuss it on talk page before the edit, and the actress ic completely fine (why to fix if it aint broke?). Even on my talk page where he started the discussion, the third party view invited by him used example of other actresses and agreed with me. Following that, some other completely editor made the change back to actor, providing simmilar explainations on wiki talk page of Dalida. I got a little bit pissed off but I didn't insult anyone. I am scared that I will again have the same revert problem as on wiki fr. I just don't understand how can even someone report me for reverts, or act like I should first stop reverting, while I just want to keep the article in original shape until the discussion is over. Dalida Editor please ping or message me' 05:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

DalidaEditor, Responded at Talk:Dalida#Actor/actress. You were right to revert immediately. I'll respond more at your Talk page, when I get some time.
Yes, I'm not a fan of white space and underscore edits that change nothing for the viewer, and don't make the wikicode cleaner for the editor. Since it doesn't really do any damage, either, one might argue that there's as little point to removing an edit like that, as there is in making it in the first place. But I don't agree, because if it's on my Watchlist, I might spend time checking out the edit, only to find after looking at it that I'm wasting my time. If it seems like a one-off, I'll probably just ignore it; but if it's run through a bot or semi-automated editing assistance program like Twinkle or AWB, then I'm more likely to challenge it, because they can tie up a lot more editors' time, than just mine, when they make useless programmatic edits. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Well my watchlist is constantly filling so I haven't even thought about that, you have a point. Your "method" might help me in future to sort what is important and what not. Thank you alot, cordially Dalida Editor please ping or message me' 12:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous languages of South America[edit]

Hi Mathglot, thank you for carrying out the move request on the above article, it's much appreciated. One question though: can the move notification tag now be removed from the top of this article, or will it happen automatically at some point? I don't want to remove a tag that may still be active. Richard3120 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Pallava Dynasty[edit]

Sir, please, I hadn't removed any sourced content. I'd just "rearranged it in the right order." Now again the whole article is messed up!!! Please take a look. Also, I made the edit with apt citations. A user is determined to remove it. He seems to think that the page can only contain info that he approves of. Request your urgent attention. Destroyer27 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Destroyer27:, Your comment appears to be in response to my revert of this edit of yours, where you removed 2274b of material. At least some of your edit seems to be an appropriate removal of a couple of phrases that are duplicated, such as "The Proceedings of the First Annual Conference of South Indian History Congress also notes: The word Tondai means a creeper", and another brief section. By removing the duplication, and rearranging at the same time, it made it hard for the diff utility to show what had changed. I'd recommend you try your edit again, but in (at least) two separate edits, to separate the removal of duplicate content, which is less likely to have opposition, from the rearrangement edit. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you please help? I already am exhausted. Also please visit my talk page. Despite offering him several explanations behind my recent edits, he's determined to remove them.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroyer27 (talkcontribs) 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Now, he's removed them entirely! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroyer27 (talkcontribs) 18:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy, deserved or otherwise[edit]

On the description you provided within this edit, please read Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thanks for your comment. We’re in general agreement about the goals of the (non-binding) essay you linked to about vandals. If you read my comments at the article and at ANI, you will see that I made the same point myself about not feeding the trolls.
The part of the essay that deals with well-meaning newbies and people not aware of the rules, however, is not applicable here. If you looked at my contribs you would notice plenty of Wikipedia Welcome messages left by me to people who have inadvertently vandalized an article, welcoming them and offering them tips. This is not that case.
This editor is a liar and an intimidating bully, who knows precisely what they are doing in issuing legal threats against a new editor trying to improve an article. There is no reason to be nice to an editor like that. Letting them know that you see them for what they are, namely, a lying, bullying troll is not a personal attack because it is true, and is a helpful comment to leave because it benefits the encyclopedia in numerous ways including editor retention of the good editors who we would like to keep around, so they don’t get intimidated and scared off by these malefactors, because it makes other good editors realize that there are people who will have their backs if they do the right thing and try to improve an article in the face of bullying opposition, as well as making the bully realize the jig is up and that they will face opposition if they try that sort of thing again.
In brief: yes, by all means be kind to inadvertent vandals, and welcome them if they are new or don’t know the rules. If you meet up with a bully or a troll or someone issuing legal threats, stop them cold in their tracks, and let them know you see them for exactly what they are. ANI has achieved this by blocking them for three months, which will hopefully make them realize the jig is up. If they try this again, they’ll either get blocked for a year, or more likely indefinitely. Thanks again for helping out at the article. Mathglot (talk)|
Well, OK, maybe. Except that it's not a matter of courtesy (I now notice that I grievously mistitled this thread) but of refusing to take the bait. (Also, blocking is unlikely to work.) ¶ As you may have noticed, I actually found evidence for claims that two people went through this place (decades ago). As for the other listed names I've looked at, they're mostly rather obscure 19th-century worthies whose hazily sourced (or unsourced) articles often fail even to mention the place. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hoary: I agree with you in refusing to take the bait, and when it involves only myself, I don’t. But this case was different, and involved someone else, who was afraid, as a direct result of the troll’s comments. My response was not about “taking the bait” in this case, but of defending the editor under attack and shoring up their resolve, as well as reassuring them that a) they had nothing to worry about, and b) I would come to their aid if they needed it. Yes, you’re right in a sense that the troll might take some pleasure in seeing the brouhaha they stirred up, but I judged it more important to assist this new editor and make them feel welcome, than to worry about any satisfaction the puerile little jerk lying, bullying troll might enjoy from my attempts to assist the new editor. A judgment call, certainly, but I believe I made the right call. If you disagree, I’d like to hear your perspective on it. Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I do like your new description ("lying, bullying troll"); it seems accurate. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
But as for courtesy, or biteyness, or whatever, can I invite you to Talk:Foreign policy of the administration of Shinzō Abe? It's clear that I've rubbed up a contributor the wrong way. I regret that, but from my PoV some things are important and have to be said. Your suggestions as an uninvolved third party would be welcome (as would your criticism of me). One thing I can't do is commit myself to checking the veracity of the contents: RL just doesn't leave me enough time. I might assist in a group effort, however. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hoary: I'll have a look, and help if I'm able. Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Good work! I've moved "Foreign policy of the administration of Shinzō Abe" to Draft:Foreign policy of the administration of Shinzō Abe. Normally when one moves a page one leaves a redirect, but doing this is of course inappropriate for moves from article space to draft space. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing it up at Discusión:Política_externa_del_gobierno_de_Shinzō_Abe, and for pinging me. I understand what you both say pretty well, or perhaps I just delude myself that I do. However, I can't contribute in Spanish, and I don't want to do so in English. I don't know either the policies, guidelines, etc of es:WP or its non-codified customs and etiquette, but it might be good to make a clear proposal. Depending on such factors as how much time and energy you can spend on this, it might be something like "I am about to go through this article, assertion by assertion, [x] every assertion that isn't explicitly backed up by its reference. I invite others to help me with this." (Where x could be "removing the bogus reference from, and marking as 'Cita requerida'", or simply "deleting", or something else again.) Or a proposal to move to draftspace. I'd also ping Usuario:Taichi, as somebody who's already edited the article, who knows the languages involved, and who's an admin. These are all the mildest of suggestions; feel very free to ignore the lot. ¶ Incidentally, the article puzzles me in another way, too. Why is an article for es:WP that's about a rather general matter so dependent on (dodgy) appeals to English-language sources? -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of French marquisates[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of French marquisates. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Shinzo Abe[edit]

I just wanted to tell you that if I sounded rude it wasn't meant to you. I was simply frustrated at idiots who add words which are not supported by sources and really don't feel the need to further edit on that draft which I profusely regret of creating. Kindest regards. --LLcentury (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@LLcentury: thank you for your comment. Don't worry, it's all good; I didn't think you were rude, just frustrated. It's all about improving the encyclopedia, and keeping the articles verifiable and accurate, which is what you were trying to do, so I appreciate your work. I also do translations, you know, from Spanish, and even from Catalan sometimes. The Spanish Abe article on es-wiki needs some attention, too, because of the problematic editing by Jeddah (talk · contribs); I may start a discussion on the Talk page there, and I could use your help in the comments, if you feel like replying there. Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Ahnentafel[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Ahnentafel. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:POV check[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:POV check. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you note the word 'restore'?[edit]

I was reverting (manually) a change by a now blocked user. I really really wish people were not so quick and would investigate a bit more. WP:ENGVAR is rather a hot button for me, and I checked that Canadian English was marked, and that 'travelled' is and was correct. Please revert yourself. Shenme (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shenme: This really should have been raised at Talk:Feminism, but since you raised it here, I’ll respond here.
I see no evidence that the article actually is in Canadian English, and I see no particular reason it should be, as MOS:TIES does not apply. Given that, MOS:RETAIN applies.
I’m aware that a single editor placed a language variety template in 2016 without discussion, but this carries no particular weight on what editors after him decided to do. There are articles all over Wikipedia with "Use <variety-A> English" templates that are in conflict with the actual variety used in the article, and afaic, it’s the template that should be changed in those cases, not the entire article. I see no reason to follow the mandate of an English variety template that everyone editing the article currently ignores, especially when the rationale for using "Canadian English" for "Feminism" is so weak, and it was never discussed.
If interested, I suggest you open a discussion in the Talk page arguing in favor of the use of Canadian English, and see if you can get consensus for it.
If the main issue here for you is that you reverted an edit of a blocked sock per WP:DENY which I undid appearing to support a sock, then I get that; in that case please use that in your edit summary instead of the engvar guideline and I wouldn’t have reverted; if the change still needed to be made I would do it manually, without reference to anything the blocked user did. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have gone way back to before the 'me' epoch (2004) and verified that there were a perfect mishmash of editors contributing to the article, and with no particular English variant. (That was perhaps b/c US-centric to begin with? 2001!)
That said, it seems strange to point out to me that the language variety template was placed wrongly in 2016, without having yourself called this out to others, and previously. Even more strange, is that what drew your attention to the edit was my invocation of the WP:ENGVAR religion. It seems at cross-purposes to good editing.
One of the things I do is spend time trying to prevent wasted editing, e.g. Playing with your food? If we can head off future problems on a page, we should. Don't you agree? Shenme (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. And, not strange: I never noticed it was marked "Canadian" until you pointed it out above. I doubt many other editors noticed it, either, but whether they did or didn't doesn’t really change anything. And it isn’t strange your edit drew me there, the article is on my watchlist. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Reappropriation[edit]

I did a major c/e of that article. On talk, I've noticed you where one of the most active reviewers of it. I'd like to invite you to take a look at this; I wonder if it would have a chance at WP:GAN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Goop (company)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goop (company). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Left a canvassing reminder, since there seemed to be some misconception about that; but didn't comment on the issue itself. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey math ! I understand the rfc problem and I won't add content until it's done. But as I said to PluniaZ, the ordinary reader who is not a contributor cannot know there is a serious and hard and bloody and dreadful and critical and whatever-to-death debate about this section. So there should be a flag (in French : un bandeau) showing this part of the article is controversial.😊

Le Vernaculaire (talk)

Please comment on Talk:Silente[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Silente. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Waskom, Texas[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Waskom, Texas. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Archived already. Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Stott[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stott. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Apostles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apostles. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Cancelled Indeffed sock. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)  No comment Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

south west australia[edit]

I have no idea of your local knowledge about western australia - but if you cannot glean from the article that in fact the periphery of the south west region - there is no overlap when it comes to IBRA regions, thanks. JarrahTree 01:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Wasn't claiming overlap of IBRA regions, but of the articles. After all, the ecoregion does contain the savannah, which is (lazily) an 'overlap' but a better word would've been 'contains'. Probably just adding the See also link without comment would've been even better. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I dont think you get it - regions in western australia are one thing - IBRA regions are quite different. JarrahTree 01:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I do get it; they are orthogonal, as one is more political, and the other is more in the purview of ecologists and it would be weird to legislate its boundaries, although there is an overlap in the topic they both seek to address. Is there a problem with the article you'd like to discuss, or are we just quizzing me about IBRAs for fun and giggles? Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
my misunderstanding - I thought you were another editor, no need for a conversation... JarrahTree 10:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Merging Alexander the Great in the Quran[edit]

Hello. I'm involved in an unpleasant edit war with User:AhmadF.Cheema on the talk page of Alexander the Great in the Quran. In May you were involved in a discussion on the future of thast article and said you saw the consensus as being to merge with Dhul-Qarnayn, presumably taking whatever was worthwhile in the Alexander article and deleting the remainder. (The same should presumably be done with Cyrus the Great in the Quran - both look like pov forks from the Dhul article, of very old standing).

Anyway, to help extricate myself from this situation with Cheema, I've asked User:Doug Weller]] if he would action that recommendation to merge and redirect. I've also suggested that he and you get in contact over it. Cheema will no doubt object, but I think his objections can be overcome - he can pursue his editing on Dhul-Qarnayn if the topic fascinated him so much.

And can I please retire now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've seen your message and will help if I can, but I seem to be stretched pretty thin right now. Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks also for the invitation to open an account, but I'm trying to quit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Why does this edit end with a signature by Mathglot? —PaleoNeonate – 06:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate:, Failure to quote me properly? I see one, un-paired double quote; I believe IP tried to quote me (IP: use {{talk quote}} next time please), and quoted me including my original sig, didn't end with a double-quote, and failed to add their own sig. Can't look into this further right now, but that's my best guess at first glance. Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I'll add an {{unsigned}} to clarify authorship at least. Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, fortunately sinebot did sign it in the next edit; it was slightly confusing of course. It seems that the address now has enough edits for sinebot to stop autosigning posts (I had to use {{xsign}} for another, I just issued {{uw-sign}} at their page). —PaleoNeonate – 07:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: Please see latest there; I added {{talk quote}} in a TPO vio that hopefully is justified in this case. I hadn't seen xsign before; I'll have to look into that. Thanks for your assistance. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
That edit really improved the situation, thanks.Face-smile.svg For xsign, it's basically a variant of unsigned which accepts a line from the history as-is such as {{xsign|07:12, 23 July 2019‎ Mathglot}} so copy-pasting from the history is easy. —PaleoNeonate – 07:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Niiiice... that goes right into my list of tools... Mathglot (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mariah Carey[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hessy Levinsons Taft[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hessy Levinsons Taft. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic TERF. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

TERF discussion is here. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Guess I missed the TERF DRN, while on vacation or something. Seems to be in Archive 179, now, where it fizzled. Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mick Mulvaney[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mick Mulvaney. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done Reviewing... Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello : )[edit]

Thank you so much! Will do!

Rion9009 (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Rion9009

@Rion9009:, Hello, back! By the way, that red link with the at-sign and your name at the beginning of this sentence, that's what caused you to get the alert notifying you that you had a message waiting for you somewhere. It's part of Wikipedia's notification system. It's how you let someone know that you have left them a message. You can activate it using the {{reply}} or {{ping}} templates; for example, like this: {{reply|Mathglot}}.
You wouldn't need to do that here—this is my Talk page, so I automatically get notified for every change to it. But if, say, you responded to me on your Talk page (or some article Talk page somewhere), how would I ever know you did, so I could read it? I wouldn't, unless you triggered a notification alert. So, keep the {{reply}} and {{ping}} templates in mind. (Another way to trigger an alert, is by wikilinking someone's user name, like this: [[User:Example one]] that will also cause an alert.)
One other thing: see how I indented my reply to you? That's part of Wikipedia's guideline on Talk page communication; each reply gets indented one more level; we use one colon ( ':' ) for each level of indent. Please read about this at WP:THREAD, when you have the time.
Hope this helps, and once again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eid al-Adha[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eid al-Adha. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Missed it. Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hey Mathglot! Thanks for the flurry of edits you recently made on Catholic Church and Homosexuality to improve the references, among other things. I learned a couple tricks from seeing your edits and will implement them going forward! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explain your undoing of my mention to #Vazajato[edit]

Dear Mathglot,

could you please be as kind as to tell me why you have undone my remark bout the name #VazaJato that's currently used in Brazil for the leaks of Operation Carwash ?

I live in Brazil, I'm a native speaker of Portuguese (sorry for my poor English), I read the news, and that's really the name that's being used here to describe the operation.

It is a mild and harmless pun, and is in use by people in the left, and in the right of the political spectrum.

So, I fail to understand your removal in any rational way that I can think of. Unfortunately, your possible reason to undo my brief remark uses terse Wikipedia jargon that I'm not familiar with.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
--Hgfernan (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hgfernan:, Thanks for your message. First of all, your English is just fine; wish my Portuguese was half as good. Your edit to Operation Car Wash was this one; my revert is here. As far as the jargon used, it's true; Wikipedia has a lot of it, such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE in my revert. You can read the explanation of what they mean by clicking the links I left for you in the edit summary, or the duplicate links here. Let me know if you have any trouble understanding them. In brief, Wikipedia does not record for posterity every hashtag that pops up and becomes popular for a time. Blogs and social media are good for discussing hashtags. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that records significant information of enduring importance. If #VazaJato ends up being something significant (I mean the tag, not the events it signifies) in the same way that, say, #MeToo is significant, then you could definitely add it to the article.
Additionally, your change had several problems of verifiability and neutral point of view:
  • it misquotes the article – Your change to the article said, "The social networks have minted the name VazaJato for this leak", but the article says, that "phenomenon that has been named #VazaJato". (By phenomenon, they mean, leaks filtered through The Intercept). They didn't say who did it.
  • you included original research – in two places:
    • You said, "...which is a pun with vazar, the Portuguese verb for "to leak" and Jato, part of the original name for Operation Carwash," but that is you saying that; the article did not say that. That is forbidden at Wikipedia. You cannot put what you think or believe (or know) into an article. Everything must come from reliable sources.
    • You said, "It is usually represented as #VazaJato, a Twitter hashtag" but once again, that's you saying that, not the article itself. (The article did use the hashtag, but didn't mention it; see use–mention distinction. (This is an important concept; if the English is tough going, try this version from es-wiki.)
So, that's about five reasons why I reverted your change. You could probably fix the problems in the bullet points by finding sources to support your claims. But it wouldn't be enough; you'd have to show somehow how it doesn't fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and also WP:RECENTISM which I failed to link in my edit summary. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and I'm only one editor. Perhaps you could persuade other editors that you are right, and your addition should be included. The right place to do that, is at the Talk page of the article.
P.S. Don't know if you care, but I don't think "social media" created the tag, I believe Greenwald did himself, in his 9 June tweet, issued the same day he released news about the archive. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wikipedia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abby Martin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abby Martin. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Latinx sox, etc[edit]

Thanks for your work on cleanup, on both those fronts. - CorbieV 18:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latinx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

your undoing of my recent changes to "‪Virtual reality‬"[edit]

Discussion moved to article Talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Mathglot:

Sure, I'd be happy to discuss your undoing of my changes to the "Virtual Reality" article.

It is unclear to me why you think my addition of documented missing historical information constitutes "advertising". The additions are historical events from 30 years ago, what specifically do you feel is being advertised?

That one of the world's leading CAD firms implemented a VR system on low cost PC hardware back in the late 1980s seems (at least to me) as worthy of inclusion in the historical record of the development of VR as many of the other vignettes which appear in the history sections. And Sense8 Corporation was the first to offer VR on a PC platform, as well as being the first commercially successful VR company (it was acquired in 1998).

It is my opinion that both Autodesk and Sense8 Corporation are important parts of the historical record of VR, especially so as these developments happened pre-internet-era so information about them is not abundant or well known. Thad Norberg (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Thad Norberg: If what you say is correct, your content should indeed be added back. However, not yet, please. As this is your first ever edit to Wikipedia (unless you edited under another account), people who are more frequent editors at that article should have a say in what's going on. Also, as you can see at the top of this page, and at the message I left you on your Talk page, I prefer to keep discussions all in one place, instead of fragmenting them. Maybe we can move this to the article Talk page, as I suggested, as other people may wish to weigh in. Please stand by, until I start a stub discussion there, and then I encourage you to jump in. Mathglot (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I pinged you there; have at it.
Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Millennials[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Millennials. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For taking the time to leave thoughtful and helpful advice, even when it goes unappreciated. – bradv🍁 21:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Jean-Jacques Rousseau[edit]

Discussion continues at original location.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry but at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Jacques_Rousseau&oldid=910286657&diff=cur&diffonly=0 I not only by the way changed the capitalization of template names but also correct some citations, and combined Notes, and combined External links, etc. Thank you :) ----101.187.83.6 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I like to keep discussions all in one place, so I responded at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings[edit]

Remy Martin 1738 ~Mitchell Hobbs~.jpg Nice to meet you ~
Thanks for being kind to other editors ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:One Piece[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:One Piece. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Signature Bank[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Signature Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Albert Cashier[edit]

Hello, Mathglot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Albert Cashier".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 12:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Undeleted/userfied. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:U.S. Route 131[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. Route 131. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rainbow Honor Walk[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rainbow Honor Walk. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently withdrawn. Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Michel Piccoli[edit]

Gud catch on Michel Piccoli! WP:PEACOCK annoys the bejasus out of me also, especially when it's full of WP:OR.

I do believe I'm going to steal your idea of putting links to WP activity in other languages on your User Page (I wish I'd thought of it). Up to now, all I've done is leave a link on my User or Talk Page in those languages to my English-language User Page. Narky Blert (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Confused mess  Declined Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Gitanos[edit]

I hope I've added enough information on the subject. --77.230.102.45 (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:77.230.102.45#Romani people and Talk:Romani_people#Exonyms vs endonyms. Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Central Europe[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Europe. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done; having created Draft:List of central European countries by development indexes along the way! Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Montenegrin language[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Montenegrin language. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Followup thanks[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for your patience and persistence on the extended cleanup on Latinx - on both the article and the incandescent sock. - CorbieV 20:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Panic! at the Disco[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Panic! at the Disco. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greater Germanic Reich[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greater Germanic Reich. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Gender-related articles - Ds-aware[edit]

It seems no one has ever left a {{Ds/Alert}} notice on my Talk page. I had long thought of warning myself with the alert, but I just found this handy template, which lets you know that I'm

. Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing politics[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing politics. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


About Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death[edit]

You wrote in your edit summare, you seem to want to insist on your viewpoint, by forcing it into the article with repeated edits. That is called edit-warring. Stop doing this, and discuss on the Talk page instead. If you continue, you may end up having your editing privileges curtailed.. You are being unfair. I have attempted to have users engage in a discussion, but the "guardianship" only comes forward when I do edit the page, when I rebuke what is said in the talk page involved users do not reply. Last time Kierzek missunderstood my whole point, and when I clarified things to him, things that he should have grasped had he read more carefully my comments, he did not continue the discussion.

Perhaps you think because users of some reputation are reverting me they are right, but seriously you should take your time and see what it all is about. I'm trying to engage in a constructive manner. Dentren | Talk 10:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dentren:, Then engage, and leave the article alone, until there is a consensus that matches your viewpoint. Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot, Wikipedia is no democracy, the guardianship of the article is being obstructive and unresponsive. Last time I waited one month, now I waited 10 days. How long should I wait for an answer before I should edit the article? There seem to be no serious commitment to improve the article, just a commitment to block anything that changes status quo. Dentren | Talk 11:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Dentren:, you have been reverted by three diferent editors at the article, and contrary to what you say about unresponsiveness, editors have responded to you. You apparently just don't like what they have to say. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot, you seem to be taking sides. If you read the discussion there have been comments dismissing the relevance of sources I have presented, when I have answered that El Tiempo (Colombia) is a reputable source.. I just simple got no reply on that issue just a "There is no bias against foreign media. That is a non-issue. It has to do with reliable sources no matter what language it’s in.", without explaining why El Tiempo can not be used to establish notability. Then UpdateNerd writes "The Guardian is the only explicitly reliable source".. is that not Anglo-Saxon bias?
Then I write "So far we have not seen here any reasonable explanation to exclude any mention of Basti and his work, and how "Grey Wolf" would be worthy of mention while Bastis work not." the answer is "The fringe theory that Hitler somehow made it to Argentina and lived there does not in any way originate with Basti.", which is nonsense, I have never claimed anything like that. Thats a rebuke by strawman.
I also got this answer "That does not make it reliable sourced fact or theory, when the mainline historians and evidence clearly points otherwise.".. I article is about conspiracy theories, in my edits Im just saying what relevant authors said what not wether it is true or false. Such answer seem to portray me as a promoter of conspiracy theories, writing about conspiracy theories is not the same as promoting them.
Finally Kierzek writes something that may make some sense he writes: "The Argentinian book is not a reliable source. Probably Grey Wolf isn't either, but we're pretty much stuck with it for extrinsic reasons. There's no reason to exacerbate that situation by adding yet another unreliable source to the mix.", yet this is an arbitrary descition, and given that Grey Wolf has strong roots in Basti's work (a claim Grey Wolf authors do not deny) I Basti is worth a mention. Same go as for the credit on pointing out Inalco as a supposed Hitler hideout, so far as I am concerned it was Basti who brought out that information/claim to the public. So of course it seem legitimate to source that claim to Basti. Dentren | Talk 11:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Arguments about the merits are better made at the article; nobody is going to see them, here. (Also, you don't need to ping someone on their own talk page.) Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

moot. 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Malaysian Chinese[edit]

May I ask why you reverted my edit on Malaysian Chinese? It is a fact that 'Han Chinese' is a definition used by the government of the People's Republic to refer to the majority ethnic group and that Malaysian Chinese have traditionally referred to themselves by a variety of other terms. Please do not enforce your ideas of ethnicity and race on others who do not identify the same way as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameless123456 (talkcontribs) 04:24, September 14, 2019 (UTC)

@Nameless123456:, I have reverted your edit at Malaysian Chinese for a second time. My talk page is not the place to talk about reliably sourced content in the article. The right place to discuss it, is at Talk:Malaysian Chinese. Please create a section there, if you want to discuss this.
Also: when you add a section to a talk page, please add it at the bottom of the page, not at the top, as you did here. In addition, please sign all of your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The articles cited by reputable South-East Asian scholars below do not refer to Malaysian Chinese as 'Han Chinese'. You are welcome to look through the sources yourself to verify this. Content that cannot be verified can be challenged or removed in accordance to Wiki policy. You may file a complaint against me if you like but what I am doing is in accordance to Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameless123456 (talkcontribs) 11:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Nameless123456, If you wish to discuss this content dispute, the proper venue is the article talk page. I won't be responding to you here about this. And please learn about proper signatures on talk pages: always sign your comments with WP:4TILDES. Mathglot (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Also: when you respond to a comment in an on-going discussion, please respond within that discussion, and do not raise another discussion about the same topic, as you did here. And always your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). See WP:THREAD. Are you even reading anything I'm saying here? Mathglot (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring, Flyer, Lmatt, etc.[edit]

Hey @Mathglot:. Basically reverting isn't a one-way road. Edit warring is a both-sided thing. Lmatt has already been warned about his edit warring and we've steered him into contributing more to the Talk/RfC/consensus processes, despite issues. Both users are likely violating current ArbCom sanctions regarding 1RR discretionary sanctions on gender-related controversies. Regardless, if Flyer believes Lmatt to be violating disruptive editing guidelines repeatedly, even though Lmatt has expressed some good faith, they should discuss it with an administrator and not doing all the reversions themselves, right? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gwen, and thanks for trying to keep things at Transgender on the up-and-up. These are controversial articles; everyone should heed policy, especially here due to applicable WP:AC/DS, as you pointed out. Thanks for your contributions to the article, and on the TP, trying to keep things on track. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Just a note: Gwenhope and Mathglot, the Transgender article is not under a 1RR restriction. An admin would need to place it under such. I perhaps should not have reverted Lmatt a third time and instead let someone else revert the editor, but I decided to revert because of the RfC, which was referring to the article's current original wording (although it was not the current original wording with Lmatt's change), and because there simply was no consensus for the change. I don't try to game the system with regard to edit warring, but editors will at times make a decision on whether or not to revert a second or third time. They will at times revert that third time, just shy of a 3RR violation. In this case, I weighed the options and felt that it was best that I revert that third time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: My apologies, you are correct 1RR isn't currently in effect. ArbCom has already placed general discretionary sanctions which supersede previous sexology-related sanctions, however:

i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions

Due to such, edit warring with Lmatt is not wise. Especially considering you and Lmatt both definitely exceeded 3RR.
Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Gwenhope, I'm aware of the Gamergate sanction. And I was central to the ArbCom sexology case. I did not exceed 3RR. I reverted three times, which is why I mentioned that I did. I have nothing else to state on this topic. No need to ping me again to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-binary move[edit]

BD2412 never commented on this, did they?

Talk:Non-binary_gender#Close_details_elaboration

In the spirit of fair play (and at the risk of disturbing a sleeping dog that's better left lying), I'd have no objections if you wanted to do a Wikipedia:Move review. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda:, you're kind to remember and to raise this at this point. I'm not sure there's anything to be gained from stirring what was a bit of hornet's nest of an Rfc at this point, and as I said in the argumentation in the Rfc, that although I didn't think we were at the nb-term tipping point yet, I was pretty sure we'd be there sooner or later. So, I'm not sure it's worth a review at this point, since I don't think we'd gain anything: we'd spend X amount of editor reviewer time, probably annoy some people wondering why we were relitigating this, and just end up at the same place a year or two down the road anyway. Thanks for remembering though, and for offering. Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't see this at the time. At this point, I am not going to revisit the close. There is never a fully satisfactory close to a discussion like this; that's why we have administrators to make them. bd2412 T 00:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greek language[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek language. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Korn[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Korn. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Koch[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Koch. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ST Microelectronics[edit]

Discussion moved to User talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

for the case of my editing, have a look at the official page of stmicro esim certified facilities as well as related news on the web. also you can have a look at a pdf on the stmicro related to marcianise , caserta facility italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarnaprabhat (talkcontribs) 06:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Swarnaprabhat#August 2019 (2). Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Helping New Users Barnstar Hires.png The Helping Hand Barnstar
For your above-and-beyond attempts to turn a problematic newish editor into a useful contributor. --valereee (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:U.S. state[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. state. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

You recently left me a note on my Talk page. It is people like you who still give me hope that WP has something positive to add. I have encountered much negativity and dishonesty around here, and the whole situation can be very frustrating. Your tone shows that you are clearly one of the good guys. Thank you for what you do. Vcuttolo (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Question, though: I just noticed something. Why does it say "(talk page stalker)" in your note on crossroads1's page?
Thank you.
Vcuttolo (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk page watcher[edit]

While wondering about a skirmish I noticed, I saw your recent comment about {{tps}} ("talk page stalker"). In case you are not aware, it is easiest to use {{tpw}} ("talk page watcher"). There was an attempt to get tpw deleted when it was created for softer wording, and the "watcher" option was added to tps in an attempt to make tpw redundant. However {{tpw}} was kept as easier. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, that's even better. I really appreciate your taking the time to come here and let me know; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Seeking help[edit]

I'm back. You seem like a wonderful resource, so I am asking for help here.

As I referenced earlier, there are two editors who seem to be tag-teaming me, removing any changes I make to the "Death of JonBenét Ramsey" page. In that they apparently worked together on at least one entirely unrelated page (something to do with human sexuality), I am wondering whether or not some meat puppetry is going on.

Either way, "Death of JonBenét Ramsey" is currently misleading, as it reflects the opinion of one of those two editors, Flyer22 Reborn, that the death was caused by JonBenét's mother, the late Patsy Ramsey. Suspicion early on did indeed fall upon the mother, as well as on other family members, but the mainstream investigation has focused on finding the outside intruder, going on nearly 20 years now.

That's not me saying that. That's an abundance of mainstream sources saying that.

On and off the past few weeks, I have attempted to have the article more properly reflect the facts on the ground as reported by the mainstream sources. And I have been endlessly reverted by the two editors referenced, Flyer22 Reborn and Crossroads1.

The reasons they give for reverting keeps changing, but the results do not. Every time I adjust my edits to reflect whhatever reason is given, a new reason is cooked up. When she has run out of reasons, Flyer22 Reborn either adds a bunch of offsetting edits to drown out what I wrote, including from questionable sources, or reverts me without explanation, telling me not to edit war.

I have been reverted for using an NRS when the reverter did not bother to check my source.

I have been reverted for not following WP's two-source rule, which doesn't exist.

That's just two examples.

In the Talk page on the article, Flyer22 Reborn made a number of claims about true crime in general and about this case specifically that are not only incorrect, they are so far off base that anyone with a minimal understanding would immediately recognize how way off they are. When I tried to address the situation, she told me I was "quibbling".

I have spent hours and hours trying to improve the page, only two find that one of those two editors has summarily dismissed my work in one fell swoop. Each time I try again to write it differently, trying to comply with whatever the latest reason given for reversion, only to find it reverted again. The situation is immensely frustrating.

What recourse do I have? Can someone (or someones) just hijack an article like that? As long as Flyer22 Reborn continues to push a false version (that the investigation believes it likely that a family member committed the crime), and continues to block out anyone who tries to introduce the facts taken from the most reliable sources, the article will be distorted. Is there something that can be done? And is there some way to find out if we have a meat puppet situation here?

Thank you. Vcuttolo (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A number of misrepresentations above. Anyone is free to read the actual discussion, which was eventually hatted by Acroterion. This is the same discussion where Vcuttolo showed up essentially calling the family member theory fringe and saying that we need to give more weight to the intruder theory. It's the same discussion where I told him, among other things, "Suspicion of the Ramseys is not some fringe view. What WP:Reliable sources do you have stating that 'most believe the Ramseys have been conclusively eliminated as suspects'? I'm just not seeing that. [...] We are dealing with two theories here. There are no reliable sources that state that the intruder theory is more accepted than the family member theory. There are no reliable sources that state that it's the consensus theory."
It's the same discussion where Vcuttolo claimed expertise on the topic and belittled me, and Acroterion told him, "Demanding that other editors stop editing because you assert that they're not up to your standard of expertise in 'true crime,' whatever that is (the Wikipedia definition is accounts, often sensationalized, of criminal events) - short of Truman Capote, you don't get to pick and choose who edits articles like this. Your demand isn't acceptable on Wikipedia."
It's the same discussion where Crossroads1 told him, "It isn't our job to figure out who did it and evaluate evidence. Since RS, together, do not know who did it, Wikipedia cannot rule on who did it, or argue for a particular POV. [...] In either case we are trusting groups of people to accurately report the viewpoints of various professionals. I strongly suggest you read carefully WP:NPOV in full, many of its related pages, and any other policies and guidelines you have been pointed to. I know from your talk page that you have been criticized for your approach by many editors and on a variety of topics. The problem is not 'everyone else'. Eventually WP:NOTGETTINGIT will apply. [...] Also, you keep referring to 'the facts', for example saying, 'We should seek to produce an article that correctly represents the factual situation.' Nope. We represent what reliable sources say - 'reliable source' having a specific meaning - not 'facts.' We are not here to argue over facts and their intepretation. The reliable sources do that, and we report what they say."
It's the same discussion where Vcuttolo claimed that "most of the experts believe that the DNA is exculpatory of the Ramseys.", which contrasts this 2016 Daily Camera "DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA's exoneration of Ramseys" source, which states, in part, "Forensic experts who examined the results of DNA tests obtained exclusively by the two news organizations disputed former District Attorney Mary Lacy's conclusion that a DNA profile found in one place on JonBenet's underpants and two locations on her long johns was necessarily the killer's — which Lacy had asserted in clearing JonBenet's family of suspicion. In fact, those experts said the evidence showed that the DNA samples recovered from the long johns came from at least two people in addition to JonBenet — something Lacy's office was told, according to documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS, but that she made no mention of in clearing the Ramseys."
Vcuttolo doesn't seem to understand what Wikipedia is about when it comes to matters such as these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, agreed Flyer; and I was aware of that discussion. I was trying to think about how much or little to say here about it; in particular, trying to separate out some brief, general advice for Vcuttolo which might be appropriate on my Talk page (or theirs) for a question like this, while avoiding becoming bogged down in the content dispute portion of it here, which more properly belongs on the article talk page. As you indicate, this is a rehash of that discussion, which neither belongs here, nor should be fragmented in two places.
Vcuttolo, I will get back to you in more detail later, but a couple of quick points to think about first:
  • When discussing an article's content, that should typically go on the article talk page, so any editor interested in the article may participate. Few of them are likely to see the discussion here, which is one reason most of it doesn't belong here. See WP:TALK. If someone disagrees with you about article content, there are methods for dispute resolution.
  • The flip side of that, is that discussions that are *not* about article content, but rather about user behavior, belongs on a User talk page. One important point, however: when talking about the motivation of other users, the principle of assumption of good faith is paramount. Please remember that everyone here is a volunteer, just like you. The default assumption is that their only motivation is to improve the encyclopedia. This is certainly true of Flyer22 Reborn, whose editing I'm very familiar with (and from whose editing, I continue to learn).
Your post above, is a little bit of both, which makes it difficult to reply all in one place. I'll reply in more detail later, but wanted to get this out to you, first. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I am just seeing Flyer22 Reborn's post here now for the first time.
It is true that the accepted view among investigators is that this was committed by an intruder.
Nearly every word written above by Flyer22 Reborn, though, is pulled so far out of context that it is more false than true.
Nowhere does she explain why one Channel 9News report must be the definitive source, as opposed to any source which contradicts it. Just one example.
I have neither the time nor the patience to respond to every word above. But let me say the following, in brief (sort of):
I never "demanded" anyone remove themselves from anything. I requested that editors stick to topics with which they have basic familiarity. I pointed out several comments Flyer22 Reborn made that show a lack of basic understanding of the topic at hand. She dismissed my points as "quibbling", and refused to have a meaningful discussion. I never demanded anything, obviously.
There is no question that assuming good faith on the part of other editors is of paramount importance. When Flyer22 Reborn reverted me, I made a point of paying attention to her reasoning, and to rewrite in a way which would meet with her approval. The problem is that her reverts, and those of her fellow editor Crossroads1, were based upon changing criteria. If someone rejects an idea for reason X, and I rewrite it to avoid problem X, and then said editor reverts for reason Y, and I rewrite to address that problem as well, and then said editor comes back a third time and reverts without explanation (aside from the accusation of edit warring), it seems that the prior reasons given were covers for the old WP:JUST DONTLIKEIT.
If the reliable sources were not with me, I wouldn't be here. I have not been given an opportunity to state the facts as they have been reported by the reliable sources. Instead I'm hit with the automatic revert.
Some of the reasons given have been startling, such as the two-source rule, which both Flyer22 Reborn and Crossroads1 went to, although no such rule exists on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn now says that my source is an outlier versus her many sources, but the exact opposite is true, which I would be happy to demonstrate, given the chance. She has not brought multiple sources to the table, but shaky ones. I have brought solid, mainstream, highly regarded sources, only to be reverted on the inaccurate theory that I am pushing a fringe opinion against her many sources, sources she is seemingly unable to cite.
So yes, it is hard to avoid a conclusion that her motivation in pushing me out of the article is tied in to her theory of the case, which is no longer the mainstream theory among investigators, and has not been for years. I quoted to her multiple, reliable sources that make precisely that point: The investigation is focused on finding the intruder. She has ignored me there as well.
I want no special favors: I want an opportunity to fix the article so it appropriately represents what reliable sources say are the facts of the case. Let's give everyone a chance to put the facts on the table, and bring in the most mainstream, reliable sources, so this article can be properly representative of the current investigation of the Death of JonBenét Ramsey as it stands now.
Yes, that's the short version. It would take me far longer to address all the distorted accusations above.
Lastly, this whole situation has actually begun to interfere with my real life, which is really not where I thought this would be going when I first tried to improve this article. I may be forced to disappear for swaths of time in the next week or two. If you don't hear from me for a while, that doesn't mean I am avoiding you.
Thank you,
Vcuttolo (talk) 06
26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vcuttolo:, I believe you might have been painting yourself into a corner, a bit, on the article Talk page. Things are happening faster here, and on the article Talk page, than I can really keep up with. You've also attracted the notice of at least two highly experienced admins, who are watching what you say and do. So, I think getting back to RL is an excellent idea, right now, as it may defuse the situation for you somewhat.
I still haven't written the more detailed message I alluded to earlier, but perhaps it's moot now (I hope so). The only concrete suggestion I have for you, is what I've said above: namely, to keep discussions about article content unified in one place, which in this case should be at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey. Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what "RL" means.
Thank you,
Vcuttolo (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vcuttolo:, Oh, sorry! Since you said just above, "...begun to interfere with my real life", I just assume you knew. Face-wink.svg In cases like this, either Wikipedia (click: RL) or Wiktionary can be helpful. Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I took a mental health break earlier this month for about four days, perhaps longer. I should have made it four decades, or four centuries.

Yes, I know I wrote a couple of things on the Talk page that can be used against me, either when I let my frustration show or when I expressed myself inelegantly. When I used the term "expert" for example, I allowed WP:EXPERT to be used against me. I later clarified that I am no investigator, and am including zero original research, but of course my words will be used against me by those who wish to discredit me. However, I continue to only use reliable sources.

In fact, let me list some of the reliable sources that anyone can use to see what is going on in this case:

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, by Lawrence Schiller. This NYT bestseller is widely considered the bible of the JonBenét case. Don't take my word for it; find out for yourself, literally anywhere. When I used this book as a source, I was reverted for not including a second source, because Flyer22 Reborn has a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT problem with what the book says. She has not quoted a single source that disagrees with my edit, but reverted me nonetheless. I digress.

We Have Your Daughter, an award-winning book by an award-winning longtime Colorado journalist, Paula Woodward, which is one of the sources which contradicts the 9News report cited above.

Popular Crime, a book by Bill James, which reports that the mainstream view of investigators involved in the case is that this was committed by an outside intruder.

CBS's 48 Hours, with longtime correspondent Erin Moriarty, which reported the exact same thing.

A&E's 2019 Documentary, the name of which I don't remember at the moment, hosted by the longtime ABC anchor whose name I also can't remember at the moment 😁, which also stated matter-of-factly that the Ramseys were not involved, and that the search continues through the outside intruder suspect list.

A&E's 2016 Documentary, (you know what comes next - I forgot the name), which contains in-person interviews with top experts in DNA and other matters, explaining that the Ramseys have been cleared, and that the DNA belongs to the outside intruder.

The book by John Douglas, former head FBI criminal profiler. I would happily check up all the names here if I had them in front of me, or if I could Google all that without losing this edit.

ABC, which had on former FBI criminal profiler Candace DeLong, and ABC's chief legal correspondent Dan Abrams, both of whom said that the physical evidence cleared the Ramseys.

There's more, but I don't remember them all.

Is there anything above you would consider NRS? Is there anything there that can't stand up to a single local news report on 9News? And that 9News item was the most reliable source used to oppose my edits. The others were far shakier.

As to the Talk page concensus: My experience in trying to reach a concensus on various Talk pages has been unsuccessful. I'll ask for others to chime in, nobody does, and the topic dies.

One example: A well-known sports figure was arrested in 1995 or 1996 after his wife accused him of longtime physical abuse, and police saw scratches on her face. He pleaded it out to something pretty minor after his wife recanted the next day. All domestic abuse experts say that the original accusation is almost certainly the accurate representation of the facts.

Alas, this well-known sports figure has a fan base that does not want the world to know of his alleged foibles. I actually read an article in a sports journal that noted the absence of the domestic violence issue in the WP article, so I added it. And was immediately reverted by a self-proclaimed fan of the team with which this sports figure was long associated. At last check, the item is buried in the wrong section of the article, where it is unlikely to be noticed. It is also written in such a way that plays it down to make it sound as if nothing happened. In this day and age, spousal abuse is recognized for its seriousness, and mention of the issue should not be buried.

I brought it to the Talk page. Six months or so later, no one has joined the conversation. And this sports figure continues to be idolized by a fan base which, in some cases, presumably knows nothing of his domestic issues.

Just one example. Concensus works when folks of all backgrounds join the conversation. Hasn't happened in my experience. Nobody notices.


At this point I wish I had never developed an interest in true crime, and/or had never read the "Death of JonBenét Ramsey" WP article. I care too much about correcting the misinformation out there. I wish I didn't.

Thank you again, Vcuttolo (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vcuttolo: It's possible to generate a wider consensus, or at least, a wider discussion, by advertising a discussion appropriately. The word "appropriately" is key, here, in order to avoid the mistake of WP:CANVASSING. See WP:APPNOTE for how to do this.
But enjoy your break, try to keep the discussion on the article talk page and not here when you return, and mind Acroterion and Doug Weller's calls for sticking to the content issue, and avoiding aspersions about other editors when you come back; the latter may come back to bite you, if you're not careful. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Except for some misrepresentations, what Vcuttolo has stated/claimed above has already been thoroughly addressed on the article's talk pages. The fact remains that there are no reliable sources that state that the intruder theory is more mainstream or that the family member theory is fringe. Furthermore, District Attorney Mary Lacy having publicly exonerated the Ramseys has been criticized by more than one source. Not wanting to further engage Vcuttolo does not mean that I cannot provide more sources noting that clearing the Ramseys based on the DNA evidence has been criticized. He does not listen with regard to why experts have criticized clearing the Ramseys based on that evidence. That above source he is disregarding is from 2016, just a few years ago. I've made it clear to him that that there is a wealth of literature out there on this topic. He very well knows that some sources support the family member theory and that other sources support the intruder theory. But he prioritizes sources that favor the intruder theory because of District Attorney Mary Lacy having publicly exonerated the Ramseys back in 2008. DNA testing techniques have evolved since then and experts note why exonerating the Ramseys back in 2008 based on the DNA evidence was a faulty move. Even back then, it was a considered a faulty move. And as for signs of forced entry or the use of a stun gun? I reiterate that there was no sign of forced entry; the vast majority of reliable sources on this matter are clear about that. Any statement that there was forced entry is speculation. And the stun gun theory is just a theory, and a disputed one at that.
As for the supposed "two-source rule," this was addressed on his talk page and above. WP:Due weight and WP:REDFLAG are clear. There is no way whatsoever that the autopsy report should be challenged in the way that Vcuttolo tried to challenge it.
After that train wreck of a discussion with Vcuttolo on the article's talk page, I have no desire to discuss these matters with him any further. I am not going to put up with him going away and coming back to engage in the same WP:Tendentious editing, and neither will Crossroads1. So to repeat, the next step will very likely be ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Two items:
Item Number One: The most recent comment from Flyer22 Reborn contains more falsehoods. We Have Your Daughter, the award-winning book by Emmy-Award winning journalist Paula Woodward, is from 2016, and she gets into specific detail about why the DNA clears the Ramseys. Weak or mixed DNA doesn't make it into CODIS. Some of the DNA was from one source. Woodward followed up again on her internet page later. Flyer22 Reborn cannot explain why Woodward doesn't count, but the one report from local 9News does.
Numerous reliable sources state that the intruder theory is more mainstream. Period.
The clear majority of sources say there were signs of forced entry. Flyer22 Reborn needs to expand her horizons past a couple of resources which support her pet theory.
Her claim that I "challenged" the autopsy report is absolutely false, and obviously so. Prosecutors quoted their expert, Dr. Michael Graham, as saying that even if there was pineapple in JonBenét's stomach, it had little meaning. How does that challenge the autopsy? The coroner said there was something in her stomach that "may" have been pineapple. (As Woodward reported later, further resting showed it wasn't pineapple.) The question is when the food got there. Dr. John Meyer's autopsy never said it got there in two hours; police did, and prosecutors pointed out to police that they were jumping to conclusions. Flyer22 Reborn should be able to understand this; I've explained it before.
Here is one hell of a quote: "I am not going to put up with him going away and coming back....and neither will Crossroads1." Is it not clear by now why I ask about the relationship between Flyer22 Reborn and Crossroads1? How can one speak on the other's behalf so definitively? How come the two of them show up in tandem on pages of entirely unrelated topics?
Item Number Two: John Douglas's book mentioned above is The Cases That Haunt Us. The A&E Documentary from 2019 is Hunting JonBenét's Killer, hosted by Elizabeth Vargas.
I also omitted above the Federal Court ruling in Wolf vs. Ramsey, which ruled that "abundant evidence" shows that a stun gun was used, the ransom note was not written by any Ramsey, and the crime was committed by an outside intruder.
Okay. Using just the long list of mainstream, reliable sources above, and not the other sources that I can't remember right now, can someone please explain why Flyer22 Reborn's/Crossroads1's personal pet theories carries more weight than a long list of highly reliable sources? Will someone proclaim now that any content added from the above sources will automatically be reverted if Flyer22 Reborn/Crossroads1 "Just don't like it"?
Thank you,
Vcuttolo (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the above, so you have resorted to more misrepresentations and falsehoods, including the claim that "Numerous reliable sources state that the intruder theory is more mainstream. Period." while knowing that you cannot cite one source that states that, which is why you have not cited any source that states that. This is just one reason I will not engage you further. You've been advised and warned plenty. I've been clear what the next step will no doubt be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of AC/DS in the following areas[edit]

Besides gender/gamergate awareness (see #Gender-related articles - Ds-aware above), I'm also aware of Arbcom discretionary sanctions in the areas of post-1932 U.S. politics, alternative medicine, gun control, genetically modified organisms, and Scientology.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanskrit[edit]

Dear Matglot, I am confused. Is Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary not a reliables source? The source already given was a secondary source copied verbatim from M-W. I left it in only because people love their edits so much that they cannot bear to see them removed. I May not understand how to use the software. I do, however, know how to consult Sanskrit dictionaries and grammars. I hope that this is of some value. If what you are after is a footnoted source rather than one in the test, you might usefully add one yourself. Just google Cologne sanskrit for online access to all sanskrit dictionaries. Nakashchit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakashchit (talkcontribs) 07:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nakashchit, first of all, when writing to another editor, please add new sections to the bottom of the Talk page, not to the top. Above your new section, please add a section header. (I have added one for you, above. Feel free to change it to different section header if you don't like this one.) When you reply to previous messages, please add your comment at the end of the section where the messages appear, indenting one more tab to the right. Always use 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of every talk page message you write. See WP:TALK and WP:THREAD for more details about Talk pages. I'm a little surprised you don't know all this already, as you've been around Wikipedia for some time, now.
Regarding your question: I'm pretty sure you are referring to this edit of yours at Sanskrit, which I reverted The dictionary you mention is a reliable source. The problem was, you added the name of the dictionary inline (and only the name), without adding a citation. I actually explained in the edit summary of my revert, where I said: "Reverted 2 pending edits to revision 917836039 by Serols: Thanks for adding that dictionary, but you will still need to add a citation; see Help:Footnotes for more info".
You don't need to mention that dictionary inline, and since there's already a reference there backing up the assertion, you don't need to mention it at all, either inline, or in a citation. But if you wish to mention it, you may. In that case, please create a citation to it. I am not going to google anything for you, or add a citation for you; if you want the content or the reference to appear, then you should add it; the onus is on you. I hope this answers your questions. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

#AB-1605 guidance[edit]

hi! I just wanted to thank you for patience and thorough guidance related to my questions about #AB-1605...as I was writing this post this morning, it struck me that I hadn't reached out to directly acknowledge your help ^ _ ^ Stussll (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Stussll, much appreciated; always willing to help. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion - removal of Antisemitism Persecution of Jews category[edit]

user:Mathglot I did this based on Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages i.e. 'In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.'. The page is in the categories: Antisemitic canards, Antisemitic forgeries, Antisemitic publications, Conspiracy theories involving Jews, Antisemitism in the Russian Empire, Antisemitism in the United States and Persecution of Jews, all of which are subcategories or subsub categories of Persecution of Jews. Jontel (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance on edit summary clarity and apologies for taking up your your time. If it helps, in recent category edits, I was generally seeking to apply the above rule i.e. to avoid an article being categorized at multiple levels in the same chain. Jontel (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I made a mistake here in making the edit to the Protocols page. Sorry. Jontel (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jontel:, No need to apologize; we're all volunteers, here, and you're just trying to do right by the article and the policies, as am I. I appreciate your comments. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CESNUR[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CESNUR. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct you are[edit]

Grousing I am. I put it out there for public consumption in case someone tried to pigeonhole me. Check out my responses on Gwen's talkpage. BTW very good answer, I loved the humor.15:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In response to this response of mine to Oldperson, at Talk:TERF#Threaded Discussion. Mathglot (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Idles (band)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idles (band). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Old pings[edit]

Hi Mathglot. I am just getting back into editing after a bit of a break. I noticed a few pings from you to some gender related articles. Sorry for not responding. They are a couple of months old so I am guessing they are no longer relavent, but if you need my opinion on anything else I hope to be back to semi regularly editing from now on. I hope you are well. AIRcorn (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Welcome back! Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Red Meat page edit[edit]

Hello Mathglot,

First off, I am a new Wikipedia user, so please kindly let me know if I'm posting this question in the wrong spot. Thank you!

I would like to discuss the edit I made to the Red Meat page regarding the October 1, 2019 study detailing the fact that analysis has found unsubstantial evidence against the health "harms" of consuming red meat. I thought it was important to include the new and relevant study for people to consider. Can you explain your reasoning for thinking this information should not be included?

Kind regards, R310C (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)R310C

Moved discussion. Mathglot (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Already done Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Transphobe or androphobe[edit]

Apologies for going off article page but I don't need DIYEditor telling me once again not to WP:FORUM.

Here is the response I wanted to post.

}I have to study to internalize and thoroughly understand your cogent response. I will say this I know that there are androphobic TERF's and ordinary lesbians (whatever ordinary is). The problem it seems is in generalizing. We can only judge behavior, we know nothing of attitudes or beliefs until someone acts or opens their mouth, if an accusation is not launched against an individual, yet they cry foul and lash out, remember only stuck pigs squeal, meaning if someone is offended by a word,phrase or term that is not directed their way specifically, then they are admitting that it applies to them. I am probably engaging in WP:FORUM, if so I apologize. BTW I know nothing of this Raymond, link pleaseAnd while at it, clear my thinking if you disagree. I do hold you in esteem..Oldperson (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Oldperson, you can read up on Janice Raymond at the article about her. She's most well known for a screaming, transphobic screed dating from 1979 (when the term transsexual was more common than transgender) called The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male. Among many other things, in her book she attacked Sandy Stone, a trans woman who worked as a sound engineer at the feminist, all-woman Olivia records, and hounded her until she eventually left their employ. Sandy later wrote The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto in response to Raymond. It is now considered by many to be the founding document of Transgender studies. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I will have to hold my nose and check out this Raymond. I don't have much use for haters.
I can understand the concerns of people who wish a place where they can congregate safely without intrustion.
I think that there is a difference between a post op and pre op transgendered person. I imagine it is more difficult and expensive to add genitalia to a transman, than to remove same from a transwoman. But someone who goes through the ordeal,who makes the commitment to be a post operative transwoman, should be beyond reproach, suspicion or questioning. Not quite so with transvestites, some who may or may not pose as transgendered. But TERF's apparently heave everyone into the same trash can. On the other hand how does one prove they are the genuine article and made the commitment? If a person has gone to the trouble and expense they should have a drivers license and/or passport as evidence. That should be enough.
But in my opinion the real issue with TERF's is plain, unmitigated hatred and/or fear of the male. I believe the psychiatric profession would attribute such an attitude to abuse/molestation/rape even incestuous by a family member or close relative. This whole debate dances around the issue(s) TERF and Trans because of concers of Political Correctness, NPOV or even lawsuits. There is no end to it, and it gecomes a snake swallowing its tail. These constant calls to RS and NPOV or using WP:FORUM as a censorship tool are transparent, and not helpful, the argument is ad infinitum, non productive and at times infantile.
When I was taking Econ 101,my professor (a conservative, Friedmanite member of the Koch Brothers FEE) told us that there is no solution to racism. Racism is not a problem. Problems have solutions. Enact the solution and problem solved.Racism is a difficulty if you try to solve a difficulty you only exacerbate the situtation, what you do with a difficulty is mitigate it with corrective actions. His was actually the best argument for the Civil Rights act and non discrimination legislation. Affirmative action was morally correct, but it evoked a counter productive reaction when it disenfranchised some folk, who actually earned their spurs. My son, now a PhD and a college professor, once lost out to an affirmative action candidate. He was sorely pissed, a natural liberal who was pushed into the right wing.
I think that the TERF v Transwomen controversy is not a problem it can't be solved, it can only be mitigaged. My personal opinion is that I do not go where I am not welcomed or wanted. The situation is different if it affects your well being and personal life, like housing, a job. We don't force people who eschew us to date and marry us. Men who do something similar are stalkers and rapists, or just creeps.
So why would a transwoman even want to enter a TERF safe place? If the TERFs were trying to ostracise and exclude them from say lesbian society that would be a different thing. I have no idea of the current status quo.Oldperson (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dendrochytridium[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dendrochytridium. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emilia Clarke[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emilia Clarke. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Platform shoe, redux[edit]

The source was not reliable on platform shoes. I gave up on Wikipedia immediately. (Ethel D (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC))

Hello, User:Ethel D, nice to see you back. Sorry you didn't find your time at Wikipedia more to your liking. (Apparently in regard to Talk:Platform shoe, and a follow-up of this archived discussion.) Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Britain First[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Britain First. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)