User talk:Mathglot/Archive 12

Your violent reverts of real edits are more harmful and less meaningful than my by-the-way over-wikifying
It has been hurting and disgusting.

I just fix. No interest in interacting with some hungury hunters for their funny power in reverting massively and recklessly.

That is why we must stop. You stop too please. Stop revert my recent edits. And I will write edit summary every time about exact fixes.

Thanks.

Hopelesswiki (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know exactly who you are, and I will stop when you are indefinitely blocked for the sockpuppet that you are. Until somebody blocks you indefinitely, just keep in mind that any edit of yours that is in violation of Wikipedia policy, is subject to removal, just like edits  by any other editor. And since about 95% of your edits are in violation of policy, almost all of your work will be for naught, as it will all be removed. Thanks for the authorlink fix. Happy editing (until you are blocked again). Mathglot (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop damaging like Ruhollah Khomeini and it is finished. So please stop vandalising Wikipedia in the name of hunting me. I fix citations and notes not only for formatting, but you damage just for hunting my formatting. Your reckless behaviour is not justified by even executing me for my crimes if any. Hopelesswiki (talk)

Sorry, I did not have time or interest to respond alone to the group of eager hunters. But you all recklessly simplified what I did. Distinguishing notes from citations, fitting Refs with responsive version of Reflist, adding refbegin/refend, correcting section titles to fit their nature (eg Expl. Notes should not be called/put under References regardless of any layout preferences; Citations, cited sources, general refs are part of references; there should not be duplicated sections titled Footnotes/Endnotes AND (Notes footnotes OR Citation footnotes) at a same time; a list of more than books should not be called bibiography while the section title "Bibilography" itself is always confused with Refs, Further reading, and List of works/selected publications, and should be avoided as a common sense especially with non-books listed; Further Reading should not be part of References; ...), correcting parameters are not just simply changing "citation styles". Sometimes what I impose is just the article's exsiting or unclear style(s) (eg in one template or one page, param names were used/named in alreadly inconsistent ways, and I by the way fixed them into the most accurate forms to fit the values), or simply the natural meanings not just "my preferences". I did not change harv/APA/Vancouver citation styles, I fixed "cite" templates but also "sfn" template. However, refs should use ref tags and notes should use note tags.

For spacing, how confusing and disgusting is url=http://xxx.com/page?url=yyyy ? it should be url = http://xxx.com/page?url=yyyy etc etc etc... Proper coding style should be human-friendly and machine-friendly and encouraged, by the way of editing a page for other reasons.

So for the quality of Wikipedia please stop massively reverting old edits. Thanks.

I always wanted to quit Wikipedia forever for ten plus years but so manu disgusting confusions here randomly made me edit again just for the reader-friendly logical order and quality, not for hunting, not for a glorious user name, not fun at all. I do want to stop now and for ever but please do not revert again all my meaningful edits, though pointless in your eyes but not as harmful as your violently massive reverts.

Hopelesswiki (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , do you have diffs that show that this user used prior accounts (as mentioned above and at User_talk:129.94.8.198)? If so, would you please bring it to WP:SPI? czar  22:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I traced some of this discussion and opened Farm-Fresh eye.png Sockpuppet investigations/Hopelesswiki (not watching, please )  czar  23:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed responding in a more timely manner (RL issues) but it seems to have been resolved without me. Thanks for your assistance on this; the encyclopedia is the better for it. Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabethan Religious Settlement/GA1
Mathglot, you opened this review on November 29, and as best I can determine, have not returned since. It looks like you opened it to oppose (GA reviews don't have Oppose/Support "voting") due to edits by a just-blocked editor, who was not the nominator (but had made a number of edits to the article in early November that the nominator had cleaned up), instead of reviewing based on the GA criteria, in what appears to be your first GA review.

If you are not prepared to (or don't want to) do a full GA review, or don't have time for it at present, I will be happy to find another reviewer to take over the review. Please let me know. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC) thanks for the ping; I had entirely forgotten about this. You are right on all counts. Please find someone to take it over if you wish to and it merits it, or feel free to simply close it waiting for someone who feels it’s worth renominating. I’m fine with whatever you think the best course of action is. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs: Han Chinese
I notice that a few of your recent edits involve removing any mention of Han Chinese from articles about people from any country or group that are not residing in China:

in this edit at Malaysian Chinese, you said, Removed 'han chinese' because it refers to PRC citizens only, and have been edit-warring to preserve your preferred view. (See section above.) at this edit at Teochew people, you said, removed reference to 'han chinese' and 'native' since these terms do not apply to diasporic peoples. at this edit at Tang dynasty, you said, removed 'native Han' and 'foreign' because not sure what ethnicity or origin said populations were. Articles at Wikipedia must take a neutral point of view, and are based on verifiability by reliabie sources. It is well-documented that Han Chinese are one of the world's largest ethnicities, with 18% of the world population, residing in dozens of countries. Your editing and claims that "'han chinese' refers to PRC citizens only" is only your opinion. This seems like an attempt to Right Great Wrongs. Please revert your recent changes to these articles, or find some reliable sources that say that the term Han Chinese refers only to people residing in China. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 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. My edit is justifiable by Wiki policy. Learn how to use a library and engage in proper scholarly activity. You are a disgrace to your country and nationality.'''Nameless123456 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult to understand your message, because you appear to be adding quotations from talk page comments or edit summaries of mine, intermixed with comments of yours, and it's difficult to know what is what. I will try to disentangle it in the coming days, and respond. For starters, you mention the following articles:
 * I'll look again later and respond more in detail another time. In the meantime, see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look again later and respond more in detail another time. In the meantime, see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look again later and respond more in detail another time. In the meantime, see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look again later and respond more in detail another time. In the meantime, see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , Okay, I see now that your comment above is a cut/paste of the rendered part of my comment entitled "Righting great wrongs: Han Chinese" which I added to your Talk page in this edit on 15 September. You apparently did not like the comment, and removed it today, adding the notation "Removed comment by waste of space author", then brought your confused case here.
 * But this issue concerns your behavior at those three articles, and the proper venue for this discussion is at your User Talk page. I won't be making any further comments about this here on my Talk page, as it's the wrong venue for it. I can only remind you that deleting the post from your Talk page doesn't remove it entirely; it can still be seen by Admins (or anybody who looks at your talk page history), so I suggest you pay attention to the advice I gave you in that comment, and avoid adding your personal opinion into articles, lest you be at risk of losing your editing privileges.
 * On a separate note, I'll leave you a warning about personal attacks on your Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Traps is not a slur against transgender women
Cross dressers or “Trap”

Is a slang term towards mostly homosexual men who pass for women while still identifying themselves as men.

They have not nor have any interest in gender reassignment surgery and still most importantly identify as they’re birth gender.

Therefore they are not transgender and neither is the term. Kingtotoro (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Responded to you at the article talk page, which is the proper venue for discussing improvements to an article. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Humble request
Hello! With only the very best intentions in mind, I make a request to you to kindly comment at Talk:Jat people. The reason(s) for the removal of a news article from a south Asian newspaper as reference for some content that in not in line with the views of scholars has been highlighted and justified (links to noticeboard/discussion are present at that section in talk page), which was added without any discussion and consensus is being maintained on an article that gets significant views, while excellent content has been posted to justify its replacement, is still on the page because of (in my opinion) lack of a comment from any other experienced editor at the talk page. Whatever you feel, whatever your opinion is, kindly share there once. Kindly comment, please. 188.170.192.206 (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

What's next?
@Mathglot and What should our next endeavor be? In the talk page of the Offshoot article, I suggested we translate the article about the 2014 Brazilian economic crisis, which I edited and promoted as Good Article in the Portuguese Wikipedia @ pt:Crise político-econômica no Brasil desde 2014. Now it is no longer only about the economic, but also the political crisis, which is related to Lava Jato and, consequently, the Offshoots article.

I'll be really glad to help translate this one.

We can also translate the article about the phases of Lava Jato. I will answer your questions about how to properly translate something, but I'm not super excited to translate that. It's difficult and it's not my favorite topic. --Bageense(disc.) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be slowly translating the article in the next weeks and maybe months. If you want to take a look and/or supervise it... User:Bageense/sandbox/2014 Brazilian economic crisis. Simultaneously, I'll be translating the Lava Jato phases draft as well. Cheers. --Bageense(disc.) 15:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on Milky Way
I have started a discussion on the article Talk page, and invite you to participate. 07:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusdafax (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , our messages crossed. Thanks for raising the article Talk page discussion, and I will respond to content disagreements there. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon on 02.02.2020
Join us for the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon this Sunday, 02.02.2020!




 * I am delighted to invite you to the SPIE Photonics West 2020 edit-a-thon, at Park Central Hotel (Franciscan I, 3rd Level / 50 Third Street / San Francisco, California), on Sunday, February 2, 2020, at 5:00-7:00pm.


 * Newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome to participate alongside SPIE conference attendees. Admission is free. Training will be provided.


 * Details and sign-in here

See you soon! All the best, --Rosiestep (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Lap dance as erotic sexual denial
Regarding the picture on erotic sexual denial, the caption was not my own opinion. It's a direct translation from Norwegian on the Norwegian Wikipedia article no:erotisk sexnekt. I don't know who originally wrote it there, but the Norwegian Wikipedia seems to have accepted it. J I P &#124; Talk 19:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, JIP, thanks, I appreciate that you didn't write it, and that it is a translation from Norwegian. But as a long-time editor here, you are well familiar with our standards of verifiability, and the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, therefore nothing written on no-wiki (or any other Wikipedia) can be used as justification for anything on English Wikipedia. The caption therefore requires sourcing, if you wish to include it. (On a side note: when you do copy or translate material from any Wikpedia article in any language, Wkipedia's licensing requirements require us to add some boilerplate to the edit summary indicating its provenance; you can find sample statements of translation attribution at WP:TFOLWP; please copy that, and use it next time you translate a caption or article text into English Wikipedia. As this is not policy or guideline, but a legal requirement, it has higher priority than Wikipedia policy, and may not be omitted. If you forget to include attribution with your translation or copied material, you can go back and add it later; see WP:RIA.) Thanks for your attempts to improve this article. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Your revert at History of India
Hello, I see you reverted my edit here. Undavalli Caves is one of the most prominent structures of that period, the stupa on the other hand, does not fully exist today, and we only have little information regarding it. As such, the stupa does not even have it own article. Can you please revert your revision? Undavalli Caves is well referenced and belongs to a significant dynasty, the Vishnukundina. Let me know your concerns if you have them, if not, kindly put my revision back. (2600:1001:B013:96F3:E876:A68A:BD30:288A (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC))
 * IP, I'm unable to ping you at an IP address; please consider signing up for an account. My revert was based partly on what I was able to find at the Ghantasala article, and partly on your "fix error" Edit summary. I had not seen your other summary, "replace with more notable image of the period (Tag:references removed)" because unfortunately the Review pending changes process does not show all of the edit summaries, only the last, I believe.
 * , do you concur with IP's sentiment here? Should I self-revert? Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ghantasala article is about village, this stupa is not notable compared to Undavalli Caves. The cave still exists and was built by a significant dynasty of the period, the Vishnukundina dynasty. I also provided source for it as well on the edit summary. Kindly revert back to my version, it was well researched. All evidence I provided point to my edit being valid and it was accepted by other reviewers. Thank you for understanding. (2600:1001:B013:96F3:E876:A68A:BD30:288A (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC))
 * IP, please be patient. I'm seeking additional feedback. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okey...Let me know if you need anything further. (2600:1001:B013:96F3:E876:A68A:BD30:288A (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC))
 * No need to self-revert Mathglot. What you did is right. This is a high-level article and major changes need to pass through WP:CONSENSUS. We cannot have something just because one person decides so. Let them get their changes approved in the article talk page first. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IP 2600, have you seen this? Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing one small image requires wp:CONSENSUS? If that is the case, why allow people to edit it the first place? If every little thing should be through talk page. Also, what is the dispute? My change was accepted by other reviewers, and Mathglot yourself claimed it was somewhat of an accident. (2600:1001:B013:96F3:E876:A68A:BD30:288A (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC))


 * IP 2600, this is a content dispute, not a behavioral one; meaning, my Talk page is the wrong place for this discussion. I realize you're unhappy with the result thus far, so if you want to continue discussing this, I can move this to the article Talk page if you wish, and we can carry on discussing there. Let me know your wishes. I won't discuss any further on this page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Translation from Çubuk, Ankara
I started translating an article on the Çubuk District in Ankara, Turkey. I have completed most of the translation work but I'm having trouble making everything sound right since. I translated the article word by word from Turkish but it doesn't sound quite right. If you aren't busy, could you look into it and rephrase it a bit? Thank you for your time. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , sure, but as this is about improving the article, this discussion belongs squarely on the article talk page. I'll respond to you there. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Your view.
Dear Mathglot,

I have seen your contribution to my "remark" (!) about the Britannica Encyclopedia.

It makes me sad and nothing "on the reverse side".

Be happy, but not in my room.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Confidence
I feel confident enough now to translate myself the 2014 Brazilian economic crisis article. I've written a lot in the past two days. If you want to copy edit it... that'd be great. Is there a place where I can request copy-editing?

I've temporarily stopped translating the Car Wash phases article to do that. I'll wait for you to resume editing, then we continue. --Bageense(disc.) 16:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m watching and making small edits though not translations just now because that’s too complicated while I’m mobile. Assuming my flight isn’t canceled due to the virus I should be able to resume in a couple weeks or so. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Latinx "alternatives"
I believe the D in WP:BRD stands for Discuss. You didn't address any of my actual concerns on the talk page. There was no consensus about the section heading before any of my edits. Cheers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what it stands for, and you have 5 million editors you can discuss with, and maybe they will all agree with you, or enough will, and then consensus will be with you and you can make that change. But you don’t have consensus, and I’m not sure you even understand Wikipedia’s concept of consensus. From watching your behavior it seems to be, Make a change, get reverted, open a Talk page section, get no support or response at all, make your reverted change again.  Is that how you think Wikipedia works?  You seem to be here shoehorning your own opinions whether policy based or not into articles. Consensus doesn’t really matter, does it? Mathglot (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One would be enough. "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." If you won't engage in good-faith discussion, you can't claim "consensus". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

RfD for Latine
Please see Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 5. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Quarantine
Apparently you've returned. Just letting you know that I'll also be unavailable in the next weeks as I spend some time away from the city to protect myself from the virus, in a place where there the internet connection is quite weak. Anyway, there currently are some translations of mine to be reviewed in the Car Wash Phases draft. My 2014 Brazilian economic crisis translation has been partially reviewed by other editors, but some copy-editing may still be required. When (or if) you think the article is good enough, please remove the maintenance template at the top. Thanks. --Bageense(disc.) 12:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got back recently and am slowly ramping back up, and will get back to translations from Portuguese soon. I'll have a look at your new additions as well. Enjoy your break. Mathglot (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you have any questions, ping me so I'll be notified and hopefully I'll answer shortly. In the morning, depending on the speed and direction of the wind, my internet connection improves enough so I can reply. --Bageense(disc.) 13:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Cisgender/Cissexual
You reverted and edit I made on the grounds that what was being referenced was the woman in question's sexuality, but that seems incorrect. The paragraph stated that she, who is transexual/transgender receives more overtly sexual comments in spaces where that is a non-fact, versus where it is not. The comments are sexual in nature, but there because of her gender/people's expectations about it, not her own sexuality.

If you disagree, could possibly follow up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FamAD123 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to. But since this is a content issue, per WP:TALK, please raise a section at the Talk page of the article in question. Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Linguistic Discrimination
I was reverting the the users unexplained deletion of content. If you look at their history they have been removing content from multiple pages. You have just engaged in deletion of content as well. Please look at the edit before accusing me of edit warring. When someone initiates an edit, they should explain that edit. Especially when deleting content. They have received multiple warnings for being blocked. Which made me even more suspect of the user. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Gender topics
Hi, thank you for reaching out to me regarding my editing about gender related articles. I understand that this is a sensitive topic and Wikipedia must review any edits with strict scrutiny. My first edit on JVN was that he “claimed” he is non-binary. I understand that this was an expression of doubt, and therefore violated wikipedia’s policies and I am glad that it was altered. My second edit, however was that JVN “had stated that he is” non-binary. Which was later edited to reflect that “he is” nonbinary. The acceptance of non-binary gender is not universally recognized, so I believe that this is both misleading and biased and violates Wikipedia’s neutrality rule. The fact that he “stated” he in non-binary is not biased or an expression of doubt, because it still leaves in the word “is” implying that it is a fact. Those who support the idea of non-binary gender can only assume that he is non-binary from his own statements, they do not know this as a fact, as is implied by the word is. My edit that he “stated that he is nonbinary” is factual and therefore the most unbiased way of establishing JVN’s gender. I will not edit this now, as I am a new user and will establish my credibility on Wikipedia before editing any further gender related topics, however I hope you will read this and understand my position on the issue. I believe in neutrality, and I think this topic should be considered with a neutral point of view as that is wikipedia’s policy and gives it a semblance of credibility. Furthermore, I do not intend this to be hurtful in any way to those who identify as non-binary, for example I think that using a nonbinary person’s preferred pronouns is the fairest and most neutral way to establish that person’s article because there is no way of being neutral, and using pronouns they don’t identify with is the more harmful route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegosames1789 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi! Just dropping by to say thank you for your edits at Gender star - I haven't really done anything in linguistics before so thanks for cleaning up my mistakes! Gazamp (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hispanic
You may be right. You may be wrong. I don't know. And I'm not going to join your edit war. But you cannot simply ignore the sources the article uses. If you have better sources, please use them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your message. I don't know either, but that's what the article Talk page is for, so we can take it up there, if you want. One other point: an "edit war" does not apply to someone who has edited the article a total of once in the last five months. As for "you cannot simply ignore the sources the article uses," I heartily agree; it was the reason for my edit.
 * I don't want to mind-read you, but I'm guessing that you were thinking more about the definition of Hispanic, and whether that includes Brazilians or doesn't, and likewise for Latino. That is a worthy, but separate issue than the assertion subject to the "edit war", which had to do with cultural commonalities rather than definitions. In fact, the distinction between the definitions of Hispanic and Latino is a subtle one, and there isn't complete agreement even among separate U.S. agencies about it. It used to be about the Brazilians (formerly included in Latino, but not in Hispanic) but now the situation is muddier, with most agencies (notably the Census) equating the two. It's tricky enough, that an entire section of an article is devoted to this question. Please see Hispanic and Latino Americans for details. Probably the Hispanic article could be improved with a brief summary, or a link to this section; maybe I'll try and do that. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we'd have that much in common. I'm from a country that doesn't officially try to classify people according to race at all these days. (Certainly did in the past.) I constantly try to understand the American approach to racial classification, sometimes based on skin colour (even though we don't mention the colour now?), sometimes based on language, and I wonder what else. If the text of an article in this area doesn't match the sources, it's just all the more confusing to me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether editors have opinions in common is irrelevant. The text in the article must match the sources. If it doesn't, you should remove it, or at a minimum, place a failed verification tag on it if you believe other sources could be found to match it. If you believe no source could be found, a dubious tag.  If it matches, but there are sources that directly contradict it, then tag it with disputed. In most of those cases, a discussion should be raised on the Talk page, and the tag's talk param linked to it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're really following the sequence of events here. And I find you're not really discussing my concerns. We seem to be on different wavelengths. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am following. I'm just refusing to discuss a content dispute at the wrong venue (here). My understanding is that you object to removal of some article content because you believe it is supported by the two sources. If so, that's a content dispute, because others disagree, and it belongs at the article talk page, so anyone can view and address it if desired. Mathglot (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a rational discussion. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way; seems rational to me, although I can see why it would feel unsatisfying to you. But that isn't the same thing as rational, is it?  Would you like to call a friend, or is that your final answer? Sometimes a pair of fresh eyes can help. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Template welcome
We had a huge change by vote of those not familiar with how to retain editors. Was thinking that after 4 months or so we can show how bad retention is and hopefully logic will prevail next time. 67 page tutorial that takes an hour will loss us some editors but I think it will be a lesson learned that we can point to in the future. This is the 4th module style page new editors want to try.. despite the knowledge of them failing in the past. This time we will have better data to show the next time people want layout to trump function.-- Moxy 🍁 20:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's hope. Whatever works. I perked up when you mentioned, "better data", because that could be a game-changer. Do you have links or tips about where this is/might be coming from? Thanks for reaching out. Mathglot (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a script to be written to keep track. But for now we have this that can be added to.-- Moxy 🍁 21:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You may want to jump in at Requests for comment/2020 left sidebar update .. despite concerns raised the prolification of the link continues.-- Moxy 🍁 21:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note to self: VPP proposal that culminated in the changes is here. Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

could you help me with my draft?
hi, I can see you can read some Italian, could you help me with this draft here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carlo_Masi working on this draft is how I came across those bios I reported in my post. It had a " not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" message based on the fact the it's supposedly poorly sourced. As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Carlo_Masi I feel that the sources I am using are quite strong and what gets me puzzled is that the person who rejected my draft doesn't even speak Italian. Never the less, since I got rejected I did some major changing to make my sources more reliable but the person who rejected doesn't seem interested neither into going through my draft again nor into giving me some example of the sources that he feels I should change. You would make me very happy if you could give it a look and give me your opinion. I also posted a message in the tea house but when I read your well explained answer and saw you speak some Italian I thought that may be it could be a good idea to ask you for help. If sending you this message was unappropriated please forgive me but I am pretty new here and I still don't fully understand how things work. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , your question is perfectly appropriate. I'll be happy to look at it, but it might not be today. I'll get back to you. Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you, I appreciate it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not being nicer to you
During the back and forth discussion about adding a photo of mine in Talk:Gay_pride I don't think I was being nice to you. Even though it was a while back and I don't see the comments now wanted to let you know I'm sorry about that. Mr. Satterly (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mr. Satterly, it was a very nice surprise getting your kind message, and I want to say at the outset that I appreciate it. I had to go back to that thread to remember what it was about, and afaicr, you were not unkind then, and I don't see anything to apologize about. You defended your PoV, sure, but as long as it's based on reason and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which it was, that is just fine. I don't see that you did or said anything wrong, most especially, because you were a new user, and there's a thicket of guidelines around here that take some time to become familiar with. The very fact that you came here now, and were worried about your possible behavior or my reaction to it, speaks very well of your attitude, because it means that you're concerned about civility among editors, which whether you are familiar with the Wikipedia policy or not, is right in line with WP:CIVIL, which is number four in the fundamental principles of Wikpedia known as the Five Pillars. That is one of the marks of a good editor. So, thanks again for dropping in with your comment, we're good, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Proxying?
Hi, Mathglot, how are you? I happened to notice that you've been dealing with some stuff listed for attention by Rich Farmbrough. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's a great idea – he is blocked at the moment, and shouldn't be using his talk-page for anything other than to make an unblock request (if he so wishes, of course). Our policy on this is here, and also here. I repeat, I'm not 100% sure of the ground here, but that's how I read those pages, and my feeling is that it's probably better to err on the side of caution if there's any doubt. You will of course do as you think best. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Justlettersandnumbers, and thanks for this heads-up. Indeed, I was not familiar with this policy. As it is, I made only edits that I would have made myself, had I edited those articles and noticed the issue. However, your point is well taken, and I'm going to stop doing this for now at least, and ask for clarification on the policy page.  Again, thanks! Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion at WT:BLOCK here. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio detection assistance requested
Hi, Diannaa, can you help me out with some tips, or point me to a FAQ regarding copyvio detection procedures? In a case where Earwig suggests possible copying, I'm wondering how to determine whether Wikipedia copied from the website, or the website copied from us. Is there some tool which will compare the Internet archive for the website history versus and our page history and try to resolve that question?

Case in point: our article Interleukin-2, and this url which Earwig reports at 59.5%&mdash;but in which direction? I'm not so much interested in this particular example (though that, too), but rather in the general procedure: once I find a possible copyvio, what's the best way forward to investigate it, especially insofar as who copied from whom? Thanks in advance, Mathglot (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I found this essay Spotting possible copyright violations which gives some good tips. Here's what I would do for Interleukin 2: Determine who added the overlapping content and when. So here it is: content was added way back in 2006, but only part of it. So the paragraph evolved; this means it's unlikely to be copyvio. Second thing to check, see what's the oldest version of the purported source web page that was archived by the Wayback Machine. In this case there are no archived versions. So for this case there's no way to prove who copied who. It's typically impossible to prove anything for content added so long ago. — Diannaa (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

talk page use
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Liz Crokin are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. -- Netoholic @ 20:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

{Our messages crossed; I've already placed a message about this on your talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * add ping: Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't mind the Ds/alert, but adding Template:uw-chat1 to welcome me to Wikipedia after fourteen years, is a little amusing. At least, use welcome-belated instead, eh? Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

((copied) ''Can you please elaborate on this revert of my Talk page comment at Talk:Liz Crokin? No need to explain WP:NOTFORUM or WP:TALK to me, as I've placed explanations about those on user pages dozens of times and am well aware of their content. If I tie it to an explicit appeal to improving the article (i.e., the purpose of a Talk page) would that satisfy you? For example, I could say, "I think the article would be improved by an addition of a section about Crokin's espousal of conspiracy theories including QAnon, Pizzagate, Covid-19 trutherism, and JFK Jr."&mdash;would that be satisfactory to you? I'm not aware that Talk pages need citations to reliable sources, but it would be easy enough to provide them, if that would make the difference.  Fwiw, I'm an established editor of many years, I don't deal in unreliable sources, nor speculation on Talk pages, least of all when BLP is involved. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)''
 * It definitely read purely like a laundry list of unsourced aspersions and no mention of article improvement. I don't really think a "bandage" preface like "I think the article would be improved" would really put it past the line into acceptable. WP:BLPTALK is the most informative and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" is something that can be removed immediately, so yes, even a talk discussion would require some sourcing and a mind towards actual article improvement. My take when I created the page was that there was pretty insignificant coverage of her fringe ideas in mainstream reliable sources, and it would take some mindful work to introduce them. It definitely shouldn't overshadow the rest of her career and activism, which has far more material out there to source. Obviously, you can restart the discussion there if it takes BLPTALK more into mind. I used the "newbie" template only because I didn't want to jump to a more stern one when I didn't think you had posted with intent to break BLPTALK. -- Netoholic @ 21:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see how it would read like that to someone entirely unfamiliar with her, and/or the existing conspiracy theories, some of which already have their own articles at Wikipedia (all but JFK Jr., I think) but I assumed you were not in that category. Still, I probably should have made it clearer. It's a bit ironic, though, because I was thinking of just adding the section to the article myself (sourced, of course), but since it's BLP and conspiracy stuff, I thought the courteous thing to do was to raise it at Talk first. Never mind. I'll try again, and this time I'll post it in away that makes it very clear that it's to improve the article, and that sources are available.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Yapperbot (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeking clarification
Hello. I got a notification informing me that, disappointingly, the edit I had made to a very incorrect statement in the Stonewall riots page had been reversed. I even found and linked the supporting reference by the same author quoted a few lines before for other details. Can you explain what happened to my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.151.214 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Will respond at your Talk page, since you can't be pinged. Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Phases of Car Wash
I've been thinking, what about we publish Draft:Phases of Operation Car Wash now? It is better to have it published as an incomplete article than to have no article at all. What do you think? --Bageense</b><sup style="color:#AA0000;">(disc.) 01:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your comment; I've been thinking about this as well. I'm not certain about whether we can keep the empty section tags in there if we publish it now, and I prefer to keep them, because it makes it easier to see what's going on. Here's my thoughts about it: let's start by creating a Task list or "to-do list", and publish it on the Talk page while the article is still in Draft; the same way we did at Talk:Offshoots of Operation Car Wash while that one was still in Draft. Once we have the Task list done, I'm fine with moving the article into Main space (publishing it). That way, other editors who are seeing the article for the first time, know what else is left to do, besides just translating the empty sections. Naturally, translating the missing sections would be #1 on the list.  (And by the way, there are still things to do for the "Offshoots" article, as well.) How does this all sound to you? Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Number 1, translate the missing sections. 2. review the already existing translations. What else? Oh, remove the original texts from the article, but I'll do that right away. --<b style="color:#000000;font-family:Rockwell;">Bageense</b><sup style="color:#AA0000;">(disc.)  17:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, removing the original pt text, forgot about that. If it's helpful to keep it there for ongoing translations you are working on, just turn it into a hidden comment, like this: .  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

fyi
PLS SEE Village pump (proposals).-- Moxy 🍁 11:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

About a zillion Yapperbot Rfc requests
See also: WP:ANI.

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Deny Yapperbot
DENY Yapperbot at: Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Some more Yapperbot Rfc requests
See also: WP:ANI.

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to have stopped
Yapperbot seems to have stopped, now; let's hope so. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Yapperbot, if you won't respect bots deny, then respect WP:OWNTALK: you are allowed on my Talk page twice per day, not more. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Explanatory footnotes
I notice that you created shortcut WP:EXPNOTE in 2019 about grouping of explanatory footnotes. The shortcut looks quite similar to WP:EXPLNOTE, a shortcut created in 2011 to a help page on explanatory footnotes. That one has many incoming links, while the 2019 one only has a couple. I'm wondering if the newer EXPNOTE should be retargeted to the help page and a new, more distinctively named shortcut should be created? Or do we just add hatnotes for those who get confused?—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that sounds fine to me. Can you think of a better name for a new one? Mathglot (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:EXPLNOTESECTION, as it's more about what section to place them in.—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, maybe; but the point of a shortcut is to be short. Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. WP:EXPLNOTESECT? At any rate, I'll leave it to your judgement what, if any, action is needed here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Famke Janssen on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 12:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC) ✅ on 22 June. Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Liancourt Rocks on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC) ✅ Mathglot (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing the page names
@User:Mathglot, I appreciate your effort in changing the Animated series with LGBTQ characters: 1990s, Animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2000s, and Animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2010s pages, and adding a "+." I only reversed what you did because I think it should be a broader approach for ALL LGBT-related pages, rather than changing just a few. Besides, I ended up trying to do the same as you did, to a bunch of pages, and it got reversed. So, I'd just leave the page names for now. But, I will let you know when I propose such a broad approach for changing page names. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I only noticed that after I started; but I noticed pretty quickly after those three. I think the list at WT:LGBT is the full list, but not all the boxes that should be checked are checked, so we just have to be careful not to undo something that was already fixed, as I unwittingly did, in the cases you pointed out. Your reversal is fine in this case, not to worry.  I checked ten boxes on your behalf, search for 'Africa' in the box, and see if those ten look right. It's a very confusing situation, so sorry if I got mixed up with those three.  If you want to help, and can remember which ones you arelady moved back to their original name, you could tick the box corresponding to them, in the section at WT:LGBT.
 * By the way: you don't need to use a bracketed User expression, reply, or ping on a User talk page to signal that user; they get notified automatically, anytime the page gets updated (unless you turn that off in Preferences). If you're on my talk page, and wanted to notify another user, then yes, you need to use one of those three methods. (Which is why I had to use "re" so you'd know I wrote this.) HTH, Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip on mentioning user names and I'll take a look at those discussions. Feel free, if you want to add any names to any of the character lists. My next project is to go through those lists and get better sources, which is probably going to take some time... Historyday01 (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! And for your next tip, have a look at WP:THREAD to see how to properly indent a threaded discussion, to make it easier to find who replied to what. (I double-indented this reply, in case you want ot adjust your previous one, but it's not necessary.) Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for this, I added it to my ongoing User:Historyday01/Projects page. Historyday01 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)