User talk:Mathglot/Archive 15

Angelo Dibona - Youtube
Hi there! I would be interested in whether you can or should use a video as a footnote on Angelo Dibona. Or like a picture in the article. I thought of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xwI1k8uVC8 Many thanks for the help! --Schi11 (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

And is it possible to use a picture of Dibona from the Italian Wiki in the English Wiki? I've tried but it doesn't work. thanks --Schi11 (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Zola Revisions
Hi Mathglot,

Thank you for your feedback on my revisions to the Émile Zola and Naturalism (Theatre) page. I am indeed a new official user and am still learning the etiquette and logistics of editing articles. Usually I refer to the French versions of pages like these, but happened to skim the English ones today and noticed a number of inaccuracies and pet theories. I have completed an M.A. thesis on Zola and am currently writing a doctoral dissertation on him and one of his contemporaries (I'm happy to provide these credentials, if you like). While I wouldn't say that makes me an "expert", it does make me pretty good at spotting inaccuracies, bad research, confusing language, irrelevancies, and invalid citations. I would like to revert your reversions and add citations to my revisions, if that's okay. All of the "cited" information I deleted did not come from credible sources. What are my next steps? Thanks, j 135.180.118.179 (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Moved. Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent Deletion
Hello! I am a very new editor to Wikipedia and uploaded my first edit under an entry for "Ark Encounter" the creationist, amusement park/museum. I noticed it was soon taken down by you on grounds of "not a guide." Can you provide more information on why you took it down, please? I'm still new to this is all. And I guess I'm supposed to sign off like thisSebastianmac01 (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I responded to your edit on my page whenever you want to give it a look!Sebastianmac01 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

To USD
Thank you for reverting the To USD documentation. Do you think we should use a third positional parameter instead of  for alternative currencies? Trigenibinion (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Good question, and this is something that would benefit by more than just my opinion; can we shift this question to the Template Talk page, where it will get more eyeballs? Mathglot (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already started the discussion under the Pre-Euro topic, thanks. Trigenibinion (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Stubs
Can you help me find a suitable stub to expand on in nuclear science? Thanks, AbsoluteHeat025 (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Responded at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability&#32; on a "Wikipedia style and naming" 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 14:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse
Hi Mathglot. I was that user from the teahouse. The one I was talking about with my edits being reveresed and the skimmed references was on several articles related to Canis lupus subspecies, especially those of wolves found in the NW coast of North America. I hope that helps. Wacape (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not do that! There was a reason why I did not log in when I was at the Teahouse! Sometimes people feel too unsafe, and I still feel unsafe. Please do not reply there. All you have to do is reply to that IP address like you did when you sent me a welcome page. I have deleted it to protect myself. The article you link is only one of the ones I meant. Do a little research and you should be able to figure out which subspecies of wolves live in the NW, as described. All you have to do is read the article that you linked.Wacape (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ,oh sorry, had no idea it was an issue for you. If you feel the need to protect yourself further, you can request my post be WP:REVDELed, linking back here to verify that I have no objection to that post being revdeled if you feel you need to do so (but in that case, my name should be removed from it as well so it doesn't appear in history). If there are ongoing issues, there is also a group at Wikipedia called Trust and Safety; that page has instructions on how to contact them. Hope all is well. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links. I'm okay with it being history for now, I'm sure that's a huge block of history that it'd be hard to find me. It's not like those people are chasing after me like wolves.Wacape (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Baháʼí Administration (book)&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 13:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

To EUR
Congratulations on being the first To EUR user! Time to stick to ? Trigenibinion (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism&#32; on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Partial. Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Taron Egerton&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 04:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

what matters
Thank you for you memory to Flyer22. What are grammar issues when it comes to life and death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So true; makes one think. Mathglot (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Just seems that no one wants to help me - I really need the BBC.co.uk article to be referenced in EM2 page
This is really important and on the cutting edge of findings. Some of my Ancestors- the McDonalds refuse to release their DNA signatures. I suppose they dont want to be identified as Africans/ Scots. The EM2 haplo is controversial but the BBC has done at least 1 article noting the finding of EM2 dna haplos amongst Scottish men. This is really important and to exclude from the article is censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcdonald19751975 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Convenience links: WP:TEA, Haplogroup E-M2, Talk:Haplogroup E-M2/Archive 1. Mathglot (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese vocabulary contributions
Hello Mathglot, as a linguist and with roots in Northern Portugal I know better than most, that Galician and Portuguese share the same and ONE etymology in most of their lexicon. So with due respect, please don’t remove my contributions because “it refers to Galician and not Portuguese” as you clearly don’t know either of the two variants of the SAME language as I do as a native speaker. Portuguese and Galician have diverged mostly because of the relentless “Castillianisation” of Galician, not because they are two separate languages- which they aren’t, even after almost 900 years of administrative separation. Point taken and apologies if I am not using the best sources here. However, reverts which question linguistic facts and my cultural knowledge are not welcome. Best wishes Melroross (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the similarities and distinctions. I don't challenge your chops as native speaker, but I'm afraid that's not sufficient to add information to an article, it must be sourced. So, using your wording, the revert doesn't question "linguistic facts", and it doesn't question "[your] cultural knowledge"; the revert declares that your cultural knowledge is irrelevant at Wikipedia, and that all facts, including linguistic facts, must be Verifiable, by addition of a citation to a reliable source.
 * "Not welcome" or not, if you insert further contributions based on your native competence in Portuguese and Galician without providing a valid source, anyone will be free to revert them based on Wikipedia's verifiability policy, so please don't do that. Also, please be sure that you understand WP:SYNTH; this would be something like, adding two sources to support a claim of Portuguese etymology by using, 1) a dictionary of Galician to provide the origins of the word in Galician, and 2) adding a second source which asserts, say, that Portuguese words and Galician words have the same origin. That would be SYNTH and is prohibited; it would require a better source, or removal. Hope this helps, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * : thanks for the information- SYNTH for instance, is something I haven’t heard of before. Best wishes Melroross (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Hytale&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 03:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Possessed - only for the grown-ups amongst us!
Re this, the other possibility of course is that French authorities were lascivious males, who finally "had their wicked way" with Pétain. Or have I been reading too many bodice rippers lately? Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Glossary
Mathglot, I was going to do this revert myself using the exact same rationale you did, but then I noticed there are lots of other entries that do the exact same thing having the term with a SEE:LINK format and no description. I agree with you the glossary should contain descriptions, as that is what the definition of a glossary is! The glossary as a whole needs a lot of work once you look at it, which is why I chose not to revert the single user since I plan on doing some extensive cleanup to it anyway, but I'm working on getting my rollback rights atm... Huggums537 (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comment. No doubt it does need work, but with respect to the other enteries that have SEE:LINK format and no description, I believe (or, 'hope'?) that most of those are internal links to other entries within the glossary itself; that is, they are just synonyms that are described inside the glossary. At least, that's what I saw when I spot-checked before reverting; needless to say, I didn't check the whole thing. It could be that we need to highlight those links better, so that it's clear (maybe using, or something); or maybe if all the SEE LINKs are internal, then we won't need to.  Did you get a sense of how many of the SEE LINKs actually point outside the glossary?  Thanks for your comment, and for looking into this. Mathglot (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you want to revert, feel free. My edit was actually a dummy edit, and didn't remove the DENY item. I was going to wait for it to be defined, and only remove it after a bit if it wasn't. Mathglot (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , your partial revert resulted in a definition being made! Anyway, I did not realize it was a partial revert, or that the other SEE LINKs were "internal". I'm of the opinion that even the internal SEE LINKs should either have descriptions, or maybe be merged with their internal counterparts. It's something to think about or discuss on the talk page. Thanks for bringing it up! Huggums537 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, the question about internal links should be raised at Talk. One other thing, though: are you familiar with WP:DUMMY edits? My edit was not a partial revert: here's a diff; you can see that nothing was removed. Its only purpose was to solicit a definition, which as you noted, worked, so it served its purpose. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , That's right, your dummy edit is what I meant to say, called it the wrong thing. Pardon me for that. Huggums537 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing to apologize for; have a great day! Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

puberty blockers
Hi, Thank you, I will go to secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbrook (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ill
For what it's worth, I do not think that creating a wrapper for ill that doesn't allow transliterations of the name makes sense. For a simple name such as it certainly makes sense, but if you have an institution/university that we would never call by its French name then we shouldn't be using those templates, but if the whole point is to make it "easier" then by default those templates do not do their job. Just thought you should know why I reverted your edit on the template /doc. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it makes plenty of sense. Also, this probably should have been taken to the talk page rather than here, but we're here (for now) so I'll start by responding here. You said:
 * That is precisely correct; we should not be using those templates in those cases. The documentation at Ill fr/doc is very clear on this point, and says in sentence two: "It links conditionally to one page on French Wikipedia that has the same article name as on English Wikipedia."
 * If you like, we can change this to: "...that has precisely the same article name as on English Wikipedia", if you think that will help.
 * Later, in the #Usage section, it stresses this point, adding: "To link to a French article with a different title, or to multiple foreign articles, please use Interlanguage link instead."
 * If you think this needs to be beefed up further, please suggest some language to do so, and I'm happy to add it. You said,
 * By their definition and scope, they most certainly do their job. They have limited scope, that is the whole point; in exchange for that, the user gets a template that is simple, and works, rather than a now very scary Template:Interlanguage link which admittedly does everything well, but which I'm quite sure scares off any number of users who really only want something simple that they can understand. I see no reason not to give it to them; employment of Ill and its multifarious parameters is not injured or reduced in any way by providing simpler alternatives. Failing to link the simpler templates from the Ill page, amounts to "not giving it to them", as where else are they going to find them, and hurts the encyclopedia.
 * I will likely revert your revert in a couple of days, unless you take it to the talk page of the template and get consensus there for the revert, or alternatively if you persuade me here that your course of action is the better one for editors wishing to employ interlanguage links on the encyclopedia. Currently, I cannot imagine any way in which this improves the encyclopedia; on the contrary: it hurts it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, almost forgot: regarding your Edit summary (here), "Undid revision 1008160842 by Mathglot (talk) none of those work correctly" what are you talking about? They all work perfectly correctly, exactly as specified on their /doc pages. Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will say that I thought for a while about what final word to use (originally I was thinking "properly"), as they do work but not how I thought they "should" work (and I hate to admit, I hadn't read the separate /docs more than just a cursory glance). I guess I was expecting a simplified template to do more than the absolute bare minimum, but that being said they do what they say on the tin, so I suppose that's something. Apologies for the hassle. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Got an ec while attempting to add this postscript: "They are simple enough, that I don't feel that sandbox or testcases are required, but if you feel strongly about that, I'm happy to add them."
 * I know you're here to improve things, and I look up to you as senior as far as Templates, a field in which I'm still relatively new; so when you reverted and said they didn't work, I had to admit I was nervous I screwed something up (which could have been the case!). I appreciate your comments above very much.  Needless to say, I'm willing to modify the templates as needed, if people think that's required. I generally "introduce" such modifications or new templates at PNT where I know people are interested; see for example, this discussion.
 * Since you're watching ILL closely (which I think is important), I'd like to draw your attention to another situation that occurred recently regarding Cewbot conversion of Ill to plain wikilinks after an article has been created. There was an issue which is now fixed, so no action required, but you may be interested in having a look anyway, as it involves a subtlety about what happens when a link goes blue because it's a redirect; the subtlety involves the case of permitted circular links as described at MOS:CIRCULAR. You can see that discussion here. This is subtle enough, that I probably should have pinged you or someone then; but if you could take a look and confirm that we did the right thing (or refute, if we didn't) I'd appreciate it.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten that I mentioned this in a note at the Ill/doc (diff) as well. (Typos subsequently fixed.) Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was watching that discussion, and figured I would step in only if necessary (which it wasn't). Primefac (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten that I mentioned this in a note at the Ill/doc (diff) as well. (Typos subsequently fixed.) Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was watching that discussion, and figured I would step in only if necessary (which it wasn't). Primefac (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

wordify
Hello Mathglot. I thought you might be interested in this function I am adding to the Module:Formatnum sandbox. Cheers. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

loanword
Subjective pontifications such as “Better before” and “There is no ambiguity here” are quite unbecoming in my world. Don’t interpret that as my advising anyone how to talk or that I'm somehow offended. It's simply how I view ipse dixits as the fallacies that they are, wherever they occur. As for the relevant definition in the article – in retrospect, my initial edit can be maligned as too limiting (i.e. “has been”) tense-wise. It was also a bit wordy, granted. I’d have accepted the foregoing as rational arguments for reversion. Yet, I stand by the need to supplete the definition not for grammatical sufficiency but for mere readability - a subjective call, but I think it’s the right one. Otherwise, the meaning gets attenuated due to the seven words between “adopted” and “incorporated,” especially with the parenthetical “(the donor language)” intervening.

Concerning style, I’m not impressed with two parentheticals in the definition. I’d be content with, e.g. “A loanword (also loan word or loan-word) is a word adopted from one language (the donor language) a donor language and incorporated into another language without translation into another language.” If you’re somehow wedded to the reduced relative clause fetish in the original definition, I recommend substituting that more concise articulation instead of simply undoing the conjunctive “as” that I added in my most recent edit. Upon disregarding that suggestion, you might also consider editing the lead (and redundant) sentence in the Examples and related terms section, i.e. “A loanword is distinguished from a calque (or loan translation), which is a word or phrase whose meaning or idiom is adopted from another language by word-for-word translation into existing words or word-forming roots of the recipient language”.

Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've responded at the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I posted it here in case it tended to antagonize. Didn't want to make a public mountain of a relatively benign molehill, as edits go. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I posted it here in case it tended to antagonize. Didn't want to make a public mountain of a relatively benign molehill, as edits go. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , very kind of you; I appreciate the gesture. No need to worry, however, I have a thick skin. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

adjectival perfective participles
When contextually appropriate, I have nothing against an adjectival perfective participle (i.e. a proper name for one of the linguistic items that prefaces the linguistic cache catachrestically known as reduced relative clauses). For proof, see how I used "used" here: Plastic: Difference between revision. And BTW, yesterday I neglected to mention that "that" can act as a determiner, but there are still only 5 functions since a relative pronoun and a relativizer play the same semantic role despite how linguists argue the syntactic identity. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Kent, I enjoy your comments, because I thought I was a language nerd, and yet I still learn things, reading your comments. Didn't know if you'd heard of the 8-Buffalo thing before, but was almost certain it would tickle you, if you hadn't.
 * Btw, there's another topic that's long interested me, has a certain body of work about it, but not sure if it's completely mature yet or not. I wonder what you would make of it, namely: garden path sentences. Sneak preview: what's wrong with this sentence, if anything:
 * The horse raced past the barn fell.
 * I'm especially interested in foreign research in this area, which is much more limited than we find in English (no big surprise there). Anyway, if you feel like jumping in at the article, I'm sure it could use your language chops to tighten it up. Not begging or anything, it'll survive; I just thought it might be something you'd enjoy. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, contrary to appearances, my editing interest is limited to what I summarized here. And, yeah - I'm familiar with garden path sentences, which I'd just as soon call "bad writing." I've done a bit of freelance editing and sometimes it's work just to disambiguate the intended meaning of professionals whose bailiwick isn't clear sentence structure. I'd seen that "horse raced..." thing before. In fact, a while ago I had a brief spat with a linguistics professor about the dynamics involved. He was old school egocentric, so there was no convincing him that readers might prefer straightforward info acquisition without needing to decipher wordplay. Farcical comedy could be the exception. Oddly, the professor had no problem with the "horse raced..." (i.e. since "raced" is appositive) but excoriated this sentence: "There’s an arrogance in the scientific community that they know better than the average American." Why? He lambasted it in the alternative with (a) "in the scientific community" being a stranded prepositional phrase (< his term, not mine) interpolated between "arrogance" and "that," or (b) an attenuated meaning and mis-punctuation (incl. an ambiguous "they") if construed as, "There's an arrogance in the scientific community, which they know better than the average American." Anyway, communication is always a two-way street, and knowing the audience's expectations, as well as the relevant limitations and compositional/interpretive norms, has plenty of merit. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Dictatorial powers
I just realized it is you that keeps putting this back in. It is wrong because they didn't tell him here, here is absolute power, go be a dictator. He was supposed to set up constituent assembly and bla bla to put a new constitution in place. He did nothing of the kind but there was nobody left who could do anything about that. Granted that this is a bit long and technical for the lede, we should confine ourselves to incomplete but correct rather than wrong for -- for the sake of what exactly? It isn't even shorter. What's your objection to absolute? Elinruby (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , No objection to absolute. The term "dictatorial" wasn't my word; almost the whole article was originally copied from somewhere else, so this word must've come from one of the articles I copied material from. In this case, possibly the last sentence of the lead of Philippe Pétain, and it's also used a couple of times further down in the body of that article. Or maybe it came from paragraph two of the lead of Vichy France, where it says he was "granted essentially dictatorial powers", and is also used a couple more times in that article as well. If you prefer "absolute", be my guest, I have no preference. Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly prefer absolute for the reasons I mentioned. Elinruby (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

de Gaulle's leadership a polite fiction
I think we are glossing over too much of the diversity of the Resistance. The maquis and the Armée Secrète were only remotely connected to the FFI as far as I can tell, and see previous comments, the full messy truth may not fit in the lede, but let's not over-simplify to the point of falsehood. I am less certain how this should be fixed, as I am still feeling it out, but this is an important issue. I think a lot of his effort should be put under diplomacy not military leadership. The one time he put his foot down he got a whole maquis massacred (Vernors). Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both diplomacy, and administration; starting from the 18 June broadcast, lobbying Churchill, and then that whole series of administrative bodies CDG either led or created or helped create. I tried to describe that in the administrative section, which has those six or seven organs, CDG created all of them except the one the Allies tapped Darlan for originally, then Giraud, and he even ended up running that one, after outflanking Giraud. That whole area of administrative bodies was particularly interesting to research, because I was only vaguely aware of any of them except maybe barely the CFLN, and the GPRF beforehand. A few of them, I never even heard of before, like the EDC and the provisional consultative assembly. Clearly, without the two Allied invasions from the Channel and the Mediterranean, France would never have been liberated, or at least, not in that way, but I think part of the task before this article, is how to figure the proper weight to assign to all the different factors, including the invasions, the Resistance, and all the organizing and diplomacy going on, not to mention CDG's north African base, without which there would've been no Free France.  Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way: the lead had just one red-link/ill, namely for the Constitution of 1946, and it annoyed me we didn't have it, plus I didn't want to leave a red link in the lead, so I translated *just* the lead of the French article, to turn the link blue. It's just a stub, and there's plenty more in the French article to translate, so if you want to have a look, it's at French Constitution of 27 October 1946. CHeers, Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Right. De Gaulle was necessary because the British were supporting him, also reluctantly, but he was able to persuade people that Britain stood a chance... Also in the category of Hollywood oversimplification, that first speech. Elinruby (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , wow, great job expanding French Constitution of 27 October 1946; didn't notice until just now. Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't finished and I left a couple of redlinks red, because I like the syntax you're using better than what I have memorized. That constitution is an effect, but that article of course parses it in very fine detail. It was very precisely written though and I am pretty confident of it as a first draft. There was some very French conditional subjunctive that I translated with different verb tenses, etc. Needs a bit of cleanup, but I got to question one and question two of the two questions. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice that they set a time limit on the absolute power this time. And provided for some contingencies. Elinruby (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

One of your pages about WW2
...was talking about a sense of violation Parisians felt when they saw Nazi signage on French government buildings. Do you remember which one it was? Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , maybe Le Juif et la France? See the last sentence of the article.
 * Btw, thanks for the what on the SHAEF/supreme commander thing at LoF; I've found references for it at Pogue (1989), and am building the citations. Interestingly, the SHAEF article itself has no citation at all about the (true) assertion that Ike was supreme commander; I'll add the same source there, and maybe tweak the text a bit. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * that's the right feel but I thought it Elinruby (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cut off mid-sentence? Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. It seemed to me that it was something more like big swastikas on the Hôtel de Ville. I remember talking to myself about translating "un sentiment de viol" with "a feeling of rape" but I didn't have a better idea. Don't worry about it if doesn't ring a bell; I'll spend some quiet time with google. Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , here: French Resistance. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * thanksElinruby (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

LGBT Symbols
You are aware, I hope, that by your deleting the fave content of one or two editors you may have unleashed the hounds of Hell upon yourself. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 08:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the heads-up. I only go where the policies and guidelines lead me. If the hounds want to come baying, let them come. I'm singularly unafraid of hounds and wolves, and they can growl all they want; I'll merely yawn, and reapply the policies, again. If they are unruly and get completely out of hand, they may find themselves caged for a little while, until they learn to behave. Thanks again, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

More citations, more, actually just more templates
I see you have re-added a "more citations template" to a section of Christine Jorgensen that is very well referenced. Except for two places where there are already two citation needed. If this is seen as a precedent then 90% of every section of 6 million articles needs the same attention. Adding needless templates results in reducing the influence that should be given to the template (and the editors who add them). I can see no value in this template at all and I ask that you reconsider whether it has any benefit. Can you add the missing reference so we can see its purpose? Thanks Victuallers (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox for 1946 constitution
There is a discussion in the text of the article about how this constitution succeeded the 1875 constitution, since the constitutional laws of the Vichy regime were invalid and no draft constitution was ever produced. However the infobox says otherwise, and since you no doubt translated from French, the mistake, if it is a mistake, is there. But whether this exactly corresponds to the intended contents of this field in the infobox is.another question, and, well, take a look at this and tell me what you think. Also, some of the writing veers into legal analysis, and probably should be cited. I will work on that; experience suggests that big parts of this article are probably lifted from the equivalent of the Federalist Papers, written in 1803 or something Elinruby (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Lula
just saw a lot of his charges dismissed. Thought I would mention that while I was in here; seems like something you or I should check on Elinruby (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it; I noticed the same thing, and was going to write something to you as well. Mathglot (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot's relative time expression edit, not reverted
As you wrote to me, "Hello. Thanks for trying, with this edit of yours at Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. However, this was not an improvement, because you took an absolute time expression tied to a time point in the past with a fixed expiration date (i.e., 5/27/2016 + 3 years) and removed the "three". But that converts it into a relative time expression. because what if nobody touches the article anymore and a reader views it ten years hence? Is that statement still true then? We don't know. You basically want a sentence that remains true, no matter when it is read in the future. 'As of &lt;date>, the autopsies had not been released,' would work, but so did the original wording. WP:RELTIME explains this in more detail. Can you please revert that edit back to the old wording, or use new wording that is not a relative time expression? And going forward, please keep RELTIME in mind. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)"


 * And as I replied on my Talk page, "Thanks Mathglot for tidying things up! I haven't gone back and looked at this, but I do think you may have misread it, and even if you have, not need to revert to my original edit. I didn't write that three years 'have' passed, but I used the past participle 'had', indicating a lengthy time interval between releases. A reader a century from then would still know that for some reason, the sherrif's department held back the autopsies of the perpetrators for years longer than those of the victims. Perhaps there was a good reason for that, perhaps not. Regardless, the dates that remain for the bimodal releases tell the story, though more indirectly. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)" Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The History of the page records the sequence of events. Your memory fails you, and I haven't misread anything; I've explained the WP:RELTIME issue to you on your Talk page. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mathglot for taking the time to make that clear! Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot
You have been severally criticizing me about my use of the Talk in Wikipedia.

I think you are wrong. I really try to contribute to the contents of the articles. But my contributions seem in many cases for the writers a "nothing to do with me, or not my problem" that they are crucified as "personal opinions".

I think there is a communication problem.

Regards. 145.129.136.48 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've responded to you at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Future tense
Hi, I see that you've been deleting large parts of the Future tense page with the explanation "blanked unsourced section". Unless there is something else wrong with those sections (incorrect, too wordy, don't belong in this article, etc.), it seems to me that our WP:PRESERVE policy says that you should try to improve those sections (possibly by adding references) or perhaps flagging them as unsourced:
 * Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

I see that you are as an experienced editor as I am, so I assume you must have some rationale, otherwise I would have just restored those sections under WP:BRD. There is certainly a lot to improve in that article, but I don't think large deletions help. --Macrakis (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I left in unsourced sections that I knew personally to be accurate, but I'm not familiar with a lot of the languages in the article that were unsourced. There is no way to be sure that the material removed was accurate without sources, and I don't believe it's up to me to source or improve them; in particular, WP:BURDEN specifically says that it is not.  Some of them were flagged as unsourced, others were not; I started out, by determining how long they had been unsourced, to see if they merited the addition of a cn flag, but as most of them go back many years, I thought there was no point adding the tags now. It's pretty obvious that nobody is going to come in and source the Old Norse and Icelandic section after being unsourced for twelve years, unless it's removed.  That may spur the interested party to come back and source it, perhaps.
 * The fact is, the WP:Verfiability policy is there for a reason, and I take it seriously. Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the internet, and millions, maybe billions of people rely on it; I've personally removed hoax material that has lasted for years, and it always pains me to see something like that. There's nothing wrong with removing unsourced material; in fact, Wikipedia policy requires it.
 * As far as your quotation from PRESERVE, yes, encyclopedic facts should be retained in Wikipedia. Here's an example: the following was removed from section "Scottish Gaelic:" "Inserting cha before the root forms the negative. The initial consonant of the root is lenited where possible, except for d, t or s, which in certain cases is not lenited. Chan is substituted if the root begins with a vowel or an f followed by a vowel, which is also lenited."
 * Is that a "fact" that belongs in the encyclopedia? I don't know, because I don't know Scottish Gaelic. If you affirm to me that you know that that is a fact, I will restore it, along with a citation needed section, and leave it up for a month, until someone sources it.  Ditto for the other unsourced sections.  But if nobody knows if it is accurate, and just leaves it up there because they don't know and they're afraid to touch it, then it's just someone's musings about their own language, or some language they've perhaps studied, which might be accurate, and might not. That means it has to come out. Check the very first sentence of WP:PRESERVE.
 * That said, I've moved unsourced content before to a Talk page, when I thought there was a good chance that someone would likely work on it. In this case, I think it's extremely unlikely that anyone will work on these sections added by other people to source them, so I didn't move them.  However, I'll move them over as a personal favor to you, if you tell me which sections you think have a prayer of being sourced, if they can be easily found on the Talk page.
 * As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of the removed material is original research, and that's a good enough reason to remove it per policy. There's just no way we should leave completely random stuff about the future tense in Scottish Gaelic, or any other language, in the article if nobody has any idea if any of it is accurate or not. It's all subject to the same kind of pranking and hoaxing or even well-meaning college students with faulty memory that I've seen before, and we just can't endorse such unsourced material forever; and in internet time, a few months is a long time, and a year is forever.
 * Notwithstanding all this, if you want to roll back the whole set of changes, I won't object; instead, I'll re-tag the article or perhaps the sections individually, and add a formal WP:CHALLENGE, and give it a month. After that, I'll come back and drop anything that hasn't been sourced in the interim. If that spurs people to add citations to unsourced material, then great! That's what we want, and it will improve the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you've responded at the Talk page as well; that's probably a better venue anyway, so I responded (briefly) there, as well. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I recently came across the page on pole vaulting. Large parts of it, notably the whole of the sections on Modern vaulting and on Terminology, and 5 of 6 subsections on Technique have no sources at all. I know nothing about pole vaulting, and have no idea whether these sections are reasonable. But they sound plausible and seem to be written by someone who knows something. I would actually worry more about potential plagiarism and some passages that are written as advice ("The vaulter should land near the middle of the foam landing mats"). But I'm not touching it.
 * Since I know nothing about pole vaulting, I don't "know personally" that any of it is accurate. Should my ignorance be the reason for deleting what appears to be salvageable content? That seems like a step backwards in "building an encyclopedia". Instead, I have added "needs sources" tags. --Macrakis (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PS For another example of why I think WP:PRESERVE is important, take a look at my comment here. --Macrakis (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good job on Wolfspam. That point about moving in the right direction deserves to be mentioned in a guideline, if it isn't already somewhere, or at least an essay. Mathglot (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE seems like the relevant policy and is part of the official policy Editing policy -- do you think it needs to be expanded? --Macrakis (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. For example, section WP:IMPERFECT says that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." and "At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." Expanding on this, a little further down in section WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, it says: "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research." I guess it's this statement that embodies my belief about the Future tense article. I don't question the NPOV value of most of the unsourced material at the article, and I'm uncertain where I stand on the Verifiability; no doubt some of it is probably verifiable, but which parts? There's a legitimate question about who should be doing that, as there is often a tension between different policies at Wikipedia, and in this area you might say that WP:BURDEN says one thing, and WP:PRESERVE seems to say something different.  (Does it really?  I don't know; that's above my pay grade, and might be a good discussion to open on one of the policy Talk pages. If you start one, please ping me to it.) But it's the third of those three criteria, no original research which kind of cinches it for me. It's pretty clear that editors have been writing about the future tense either of their own language that they feel confident about through their own sense of linguistic competence because they are a native speaker, or about the future tense in some other language that they have perhaps studied in school and feel they are knowledgeable about. So I guess you could say, I based the removal on the "article content retention policies" (which I couldn't have named or quoted before looking more carefully at this section, but kind of intuited from experience, I guess). But I think there continues to be continuing tensions between different policies, and I'm all for making the guidelines and policies clearer, when things like this come up. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Flyer
I saw your recent posting on Flyer's talk page. I think many of us feel the same way. When I was too busy to edit, I would at least log into WP every now and then to see what Flyer was up to. It was always interesting. She was one of a kind. Mistercontributer (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, she was. Not sure when I'll ever get over it. Thank you so much for noticing, and for adding your thoughts here. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I just wanted you to know you were not alone. I can only imagine what her family and friends are going through. Mistercontributer (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Help
You might’ve been kidding but I would like to ask your help on whether I’m right or wrong on Makhnovia being a page that can go in the Communist states category cause me and KIEGER are going at it again. Bvcitizen (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers&#32; on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment, and &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment,  and &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment,  and &#32;at Talk:Proud Boys&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment,  and &#32;at Talk:Super Straight&#32; on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment,  and &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Page mover/delete-redirect&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" 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 04:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 17:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Transgender edits
Thanks to responding to my request for help to the Transgender article. If you have the time, do you mind leaving a friendly note for the student editor explaining why we reverted most of their edits? I know we both put info in the edit summaries, but a talk page message would probably be helpful to them as a new editor. Funcrunch (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Some time back, already; just catching up on my updates.) Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2021 Boulder shooting&#32; on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 17:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * , thanks for the coffee, and no worries. It's always difficult to frame another person's concerns, unless you're an adept telepath. Clearly you're trying to work with them to achieve consensus; that's all anyone can ask. I think it was kind of  you to offer to write the Rfc for them, since they were inexperienced, and were happy to invite you to do so. The only thing I might've done differently in proxying an Rfc question for someone else, would be to ask them in the earlier discussion, "Okay, how about this for an Rfc question: '&lt;Your first draft of an Rfc question per your understanding of their concern>' does that represent your issue?" And if they say "yes", you're good, and if not, maybe they will rephrase it, or make a comment that will let you refine the candidate question until they're in agreement. At that point, I'd launch the Rfc.  But that's just me, and you don't have to do it my way. Thanks again for the coffee! Mathglot (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * yes that makes perfect sense. For some reason I wanted to be efficient and avoid back and forth, thinking I had understood the issue. Clearly that lead to even more back and forth, so it was — I'll use a euphemism here — suboptimal in the end. Anyway, you're welcome!--JBchrch (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I totally understand, and efficiency is definitely something to be desired. I tend to do the opposite, trying to foresee every possible scenario, and write them all out in advance, with the result that my comments often end up four times longer than they might otherwise be, and that's something I try (not very successfully) to avoid.  I think that generally speaking, your approach is better; try something short, see if that works; if not, answer any objections or questions as they come up, with further brief comments; rinse, repeat. Neither of us has a crystal ball, so it's hard to know in advance which approach is better in a given situation.  But, I think we make a pretty good team!  Oops, I see I've been going on too long, here...   Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Patience
Hi thanks for trying to help. What are the next steps after this, to fix the cite errors? -Darouet (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Working on it, but getting too late for me; I'll self-revert and look again tomorrow. Basically, we need to pull in the LDRs as reflist into the "References" section using LST transclusion, but I'm running into problems that I'm too tired to see. Look at the "References" section in the other article and you might figure it out. Will check again tomorrow. Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I won't have tons of time in the next two days but after that I can try to fix it the way you'd like. Note that your revert is undoing other changes I've introduced. If you want to revert my addition of the references causing the cite errors, you can just delete the last sentence at the end of each of two paragraphs in this section: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. But perhaps it'd be best to wait to remove those until we've added them properly as you want us to at the bottom of the article. -Darouet (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. It's a self-revert with no intervening edits by anybody, so afaik, it's not possible for it to have undone other changes. If you believe it has, can you indicate the rev. number or timestamp of the edits in question? Note that I may not get your response here until tomorrow. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the confusion - I was referring to this reversion to an earlier version, which undid a series of edits unrelated to my "fix" of the cite errors. -Darouet (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

free france
uh hello I am a new editor and i noticed that in free france, the anthem dates to 1909. Is this a mistake or am i wrong? Thanks in advance. TTTTRZON (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * responded at Talk:Free France. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 18:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Free France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army of Africa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Genevieve Clara Hansen


A tag has been placed on Genevieve Clara Hansen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"Subject not mentioned in landing page"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WWGB (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Michael John Graydon Soroka&#32; on a "Wikipedia style and naming" 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 03:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Hamdi Ulukaya&#32; on a "History and geography" 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, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Pythagorean triple&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 03:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Outdated note on your move of my comment.
Hey, I can’t reply there because the discussion has been archived, but I saw your note regarding moving my comment on the naming of the sexual reassignment surgery under the then-recent vote on a request to rename it, so they would archive together. Just wanted to thank you for giving me the heads-up and let you know that I support your edit and appreciate you letting me know. -Dayv (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I assume this is about this at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery; I'd almost forgotten about that. Thanks for the thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

suicide and "committing"
In a recent RFC on language regarding suicide, it was found that "A minority of editors think 'commit suicide' is archaic, and if some other equal or better formulation exists and a change is made, we should not tendentiously revert it." Your recent string of reverts seems tendentious, and your announced plan to undo any such edits that EmilyOr should make regardless of the text seems inappropriate, and at best poorly put forth to where the supposed consensus was formed. Please do not bite the newcomers, and rethink your approach. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, I don't see it the way you do. Tendentious reversion, in my interpretation, would be someone running around the encyclopedia, reverting it everywhere it appears, i.e. someone who has an opinion in one direction, is righting great wrongs, no matter where it appears, based on that one opinion.  I have no such opinion; what I've done here, is to stop someone who is tendentiously imposing their own view on the encyclopedia.  I'm just as likely to take what might appear to be the opposite view: that is, if I saw one person running through the encyclopedia, changing "die by" to "commit" wherever it appears, I'm just as likely to revert that person as well.  My interest is in favor of the project, policies, and order, and not one opinion or the other.
 * Regarding user Emily0r's contributions, I count 36 edits total, 35 of which are changes to the wording "committed suicide"; 34 of those have no other change to the article *but* that wording change. If this isn't tendentious editing and RGW, then I don't know what is.
 * With respect to the Rfc and the decision, I don't agree with your interpretation. Just like reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR, so, I believe, is reverting tendentious editing, even by a newbie, if it's systematic and widespread.  The fact is, if one waits too long, "undo" no longer works when someone else has edited in between, which makes us more or less hostage both to uncomprehending newbies, as well as knowledgeable trolls with little interest in building an encyclopedia.  It's too early to be certain about this editor, but either way, it's much better imho to nip it in the bud: this will almost certainly stop a well-meaning newbie, and won't stop most trolls, which will allow you to distinguish early between the two: a fine result. Watching this user's response to the reverts and the message I left on their Talk page, will be very illuminating.
 * If they continue their campaign afterward, that will be a strong indicator why they are here. If they stop and apologize, and move towards actually improving some articles, that will mean something else entirely, and they might develop into a good editor.
 * Perhaps you'd like to get additional opinion from the closer, or others, on how to interpret the Rfc. I just can't believe that the Rfc means that we leave anyone alone, newbie or not, to rampage around in RGW mode, who exhibits no other interest in improving the encyclopedia. This seems like a tailor-made invitation for RGW-socking to force the changes you want into the encyclopedia, while others who play by the rules appeal to an Rfc to prevent others from acting to undo the "newbie's" damage. Good faith, and non-biteyness, is not a suicide pact. (By the way: when you find a user who is generally more welcoming to new users than I am, please send me a link to their Talk page, so I can thank them.)
 * I will stop for now, because of your concern, and because the point has been made and the TP message issued, and see how things develop with this user. There are still many articles I haven't had the time to undo, and waiting may make it harder to repair them, as time goes by; but I'll pay that price, as long as she doesn't make it worse.  If she picks up again and goes on another rampage, then I think we'll both know where we stand with her. I would consider it beneficial for the encyclopedia and policy-compliant for someone to revert such edits, however many they may be, without running into any kind of TE-barrier.  Stopping a tendentious editor for policy-compliant reasons, is not tendentious editing. If they don't stop, and I notice, and am available, and am not otherwise occupied, then I'll feel free to revert some or all of such edits by her, until such time as I'm persuaded that there is a policy-based reason not to do so, or she is blocked. (It should go without saying, that if I spot a user systematically changing "died by suicided" to "committed suicide" everywhere they can find it, I will feel just as free to mass-revert them, as well.) In the end, the Rfc closer struck the right note, in my opinion:
 * and I heartily endorse that.
 * Thanks for your message; I always appreciate hearing from someone trying to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, and it doesn't concern me if they happen to agree or disagree with me on some particular question or other; what matters is why they are here and you are obviously here for the right reasons.  Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ⟶ . Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See related discussion at Talk:Robin Williams. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you followed up with a welcome message, which I see as at least taking some edge off the biteyness. However, you may want to reflect on your statement "waiting may make it harder to repair them, as time goes by; but I'll pay that price, as long as she doesn't make it worse", because the passage of time suggests that other editors may be perfectly accepting of that phrasing in a given article, but still it is something that must be "repaired" to you.  --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, it was definitely something that needed to be repaired, because it was a systematic, mass effort to push a particular point of view into a series of articles in the encyclopedia irrespective of article content, rather than to individually improve articles in a way that each one individually needed to be improved. That's more or less the definition of POV-pushing, and is a violation of Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV. Just because it's POV, doesn't mean it's vandalism, as there may not be any malice or ill will, and from the edit summary, it appears the editor believed they were doing the right thing. But that's pretty much what any POV pusher would say, and since the behavior itself is counter to policy, it had to be stopped.
 * As far as responses by other editors, or rather lack thereof, not everyone is a vandalism fighter, or would even necessarily notice a pattern. The fact that other editors don't revert is in no way an indication that the systematic pattern of POV edits is acceptable. You found my original message at the user's talk page in explanation of my reverts too aggressive; okay, I get that; let's say it was. In that case, rather than smoothing out the rough edges in my message, or leaving your own welcome, you took an oppositional stance, linked WP:BOLD seemingly in support of their string of edits, and pointed to an Rfc, which is a bit much for a newbie on day three of their career (if they are a newbie) to bite off and chew.  If my original message was too bitey, you'd now engaged a tone of disagreement between two experienced editors on a newbie talk page, which probably just made them want to shrink and disappear.  It was unfortunate, in my opinion, that two other editors soon also appeared, one on each "side" of the issue.  I'm pretty sure we won't hear from this editor for a while, if ever, which is a pity. We all make mistakes as newbies (and later), and learn by our mistakes. This editor has 36 career edits; 35 of them were all essentially identical POV-pushing about a single expression in English; this simply is not the kind of behavior we want to encourage in a new editor, and the sooner it's stopped, the quicker they may take on the lesson, and move on to become a better editor. I fear that won't happen in this case, however. Let's hope I'm wrong about that. Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know. It was John - who sadly is not here - who made me aware of the problematic way to say someone committed suicide, as we say someone committed a crime. (The same John who pointed out that we should not call a woman by first name alone, as was done for Clara Schumann.) Ever since - and that was before the RfC - I try to avoid it in articles I write. I do understand going further, and changing it in other articles as well. While I'd not do that myself unless I get involved in an article, I have a lot of sympathy for both "missions", more respect for women, and less "crime" association for people who take their lives, such as Jochen Klepper. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. So saying "committed" is so inherently NPOV (despite the fact that major style guides say to avoid it) that not saying that is not only POV but something to be subject to "vandalism fighting" (despite not falling into the Wikipedia definition of vandalism.) And the problem was not that you were bitey, but that I dared to try to steer them to things that disagreed with your suggesting a need to find consensus before editing (do you find consensus for every edit before you make it?), and pointing them to the actual discussion where people were addressing the very sort of edits that they were making so that they might get information on how those edits are seen by the community. Yes, I did contrast with you; I sought to show them that not all editors are as hostile as you were being, and that Wikipedia was more open to edits than you were suggesting. And yes, it would have been good of me to welcome them, perhaps saying something like ... which I did. And if they're scared away, it'll be because I corrected what you were saying, and not, perhaps, because you've threatened that if they dare remove "committed" from further articles, you're going to feel compelled to reinsert it in not just those places but other ones where you've not already reinserted it. The way you have addressed this new editor is not the sort of behavior we should be seeing in any editor, and you don't have the excuse of being a newbie. (You might have even taken a moment to reflect that this editor had been responsive to correction from an earlier editor who had a gentler touch, as they stopped marking their edits as "minor" after that was addressed.) If you don't want people correcting what you say to new editors, it might help if you took more care in what you say to them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying "committed" is not inherently POV, and saying the contrary is not inherently POV, but systematically changing 35 articles in *either* direction with no other edits of any sort is inherently POV. This is the third time I'm saying this, but it doesn't seem to be registering. And rather than saying it is vandalism, I said the contrary: "that doesn't mean it's vandalism, as there may not be any malice or ill will". You made one constructive point which I've taken on board; other than that, I'm growing weary of your twisting my words or not hearing them, and making incorrect assumptions about my motivations. I accept that your motivations are well-meant, but  this discussion is not going anywhere, and I really see no purpose to continuing it. I thank you for the time you took to make your point. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying "committed suicide" is indeed a violation of Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV, so this situation is not so simple. Most participants at the RfC had !voted before the necessary research had been provided. Seemingly every post-2019 style guide and usage note which discusses "committed suicide" says it has negative connotations, and modern media rarely use the term. Hopefully we won't have to wait another year for a new RfC. In the meantime, however, as long as the edits are based on RS, we are permitted to update the language at individual articles away from "committed suicide". Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to put this to bed earlier, but some claims you've made here require a response. I understand you have a personal opinion about the correct language in a case like this, and I respect that, but it would be better to take it up at an appropriate venue. Nobody will see your comments here. When you do, if you wish to persuade anyone, please keep a few things in mind:
 * Saying "committed suicide" is most certainly not a violation of Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV. That may be your feeling about what ought to be considered NPOV, but it's not in the actual policy itself.
 * Whether your claim about style guides is true or not (and I suspect it isn't), doesn't matter; Wikipedia has its own style guide, and that is what we try to apply here on questions of style, not external ones.
 * I agree that you may make changes based on Reliable sources away from "committed suicide", as long as you follow policy, and in particular, as long as you avoid WP:SYNTH. Failure to do that, will undermine your argument. That is, if the article topic is "Death of John Doe", the reliable, secondary sources you choose shoiuld say something about John Doe; the Style Guide of the University of Westsoutheast Tasmania is not a reliable source for that claim, if that style guide doesn't mention John Doe, because that is WP:SYNTH (and WP:CHERRYPICKING), chosen to support the opinion of the Wikipedia editor, and not the content of actual, reliable sources that discuss the death of John Doe.
 * Your assertion about the popularity of "died by suicide" is suspect. While it's clear that the term has been rising in popularity in recent years, it's much lower than the frequency of usage of "committed suicide". Books indexed by Google have a much higher probability of being reliable sources than web pages do, as most books go through editorial review before publication. If you view this ngrams graph comparing "committed suicide" and "died by suicide" in Google books, you will see that the former is 32 times as common as the latter in 2019. This is down from a factor of 110 in 2000, so it's clearly gaining ground; but it's nowhere close, yet.  Maybe in another ten or twenty years, it will be.
 * In sum: you can certainly make changes at individual articles away from "committed suicide" to "died by suicide" where the relevant sources for the given article use that term. But if the words are yours, then it may be WP:POV, and if you do it on individual articles based on sources that have nothing to do with the article topic, then it's WP:SYNTH; and if you do it en masse based on your own opinion of what is the right language overall rather than the language of the sources, then you are engaging in WP:Righting great wrongs, WP:POV or WP:Tendentious editing; and if you have a pattern of doing that, then it can be problematic. But you can certainly change it in individual cases, in articles where the sources support that language.  Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Committed suicide" is a violation of WP:NPOV because the RS which discuss the term, such as dictionaries, say that it has negative connotations. Assuming that is true, would you agree that the term violates WP:NPOV? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , absolutely not. Words don't violate NPOV by themselves, because words don't have "points of view"; people do, and NPOV is violated when editors use words in a non-neutral fashion, corresponding to the bias inherent in their point of view. The word "pedophile" has negative connotations. "Serial murderer" has negative connotations.  "White supremacist" has negative connotations. "Antisemitic war criminal" has negative connotations.  They may be negative, and all of them appear in Wikipedia articles, but none of those terms are inherently POV if that's what the preponderance of reliable sources say about a topic.   If sources say, "he committed suicide", then that's what Wikipedia should say, in Wikipedia's voice. If they say, "he died by suicide", then so should we. When there's a division of opinion, but a clear majority one way or the other, we should follow the preponderance of sources. When there's no clear preference among the sources, then we could either double-quote the most reliable source (medical examiner, perhaps, as quoted in a highly reliable news article) or change the wording ("the medical examiner declared it a suicide", etc.). But the expression itself is not POV, because words don't have POVs, people do.
 * It's okay for editors to have bias, and a point of view. It's not okay, for them to write articles based on their point of view. I think this is enough now, and if you want to follow this up, please try at a more centralized venue; maybe WT:NPOV. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I feel like we're talking past each other/you're missing my point/I'm not making my point clear. (The RfC was the centralized venue, but due to your involvement with these edits I think it's important for you to hear this.) WP:NPOV states "Prefer nonjudgmental language" and "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)." We should not be using disparaging terms (unless we are using a direct quote). A source from 2014 or so may say that someone "committed suicide", but that was before the consensus of RS said that "committed suicide" has negative connotations. We do not use dated language just because an old source does (except in a quote). Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not missing your point. I totally get it. You (correctly) quote NPOV about judgmental and disparaging terms, including the part where it says that such language should not be used. Therefore, because "committed suicide" is disparaging, judgmental, and negative, in your view, you conclude that it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and editors must not use it except occasionally and then only if double-quoted and supplied with in-text attribution. You believe that such sources that did use that expression formerly, are largely older than 2014; we should not stick to such old, outdated language, recognized by multiple modern style guides as harmful and disparaging.
 * Your quotation is accurate, but your conclusions are mistaken. You are also mistaken in your assertions about usage since 2014, which leans very heavily towards "committed suicide" by a very large factor, as I linked to you in the ngrams link above. Your whole argument falls apart, because you make the assertion, or assumption, that "committed suicide" is judgmental, disparaging, or negative, and therefore out of bounds per NPOV.  Unfortunately, you appear to be being led astray either by a failure to understand NPOV, or else by your bias about the term "committed suicide", which you appear to be unaware of. Probably because of this unrecognized bias, you fail to see that the term "committed suicide" is not inherently a disparaging term. Just like the expression, "serial murderer, rapist, and pedophile" is not inherently a disparaging term. Either expression may be used in a biased, POV way, if an editor uses them in a way that doesn't meet the requirements of verifiability, reliable sourcing, and due weight.  Either expression may be used in a neutral way, when used in a way that adheres to all Wikipedia policies. The expression "serial murderer, rapist, and pedophile" is used neutrally in the Richard Ramirez article for example, because that's what the reliable sources say. The expression "committed suicide" is used neutrally in the Adolph Hitler article, because that's what the reliable sources say.
 * But we are just going around in circles, now. If you have anything further to say about this, I really have to insist that you raise it in a centralized discussion somewhere, where other editors may perhaps have more success in clarifying this point, than I have been able to do. I'm sorry, but this conversation has gone on way too long already, so I'm going to close it now. Thanks for participating, I read all of your comments and they were interesting, but we're not going to resolve anything here,and I suspect we both have better things to do now. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unclosed upon request: please have your say, and I will close this immediately thereafter. I'm really really over this. Ready, steady, go: Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is here, but I wish this conversation would have stayed more simple and focused. Assuming that every dictionary and linguist, etc., said that "committed suicide" is disparaging while "died by suicide", "killed themself", etc., is neutral, then if we are to communicate in an article that someone killed themself (without expressing any source's opinion), I don't see how it would comply with policy to say in wikivoice that they "committed suicide". We can disagree on what the RS say, but that is my understanding based on my reading of the RS (beyond style guides). Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Within 1st hr had 18 eds at s-related articles. In first 30' 10 with full ES all tagged m. Caius G. advised her not to use 'm'; after she dropped the m. TJRC rv'd 10. 04:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Viggo Mortensen&#32; on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" 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 07:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Aggsbach Charterhouse&#32; on a "History and geography" 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 15:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Free France
It's actually more complicated than your dummy edit suggests. I reverted this series of edits by sockpuppet, and these two edits by sockpuppet. Per Talk:English Americans, nothing this editor adds can be remotely trusted, they fabricated a quote in order to support their addition at that article. FDW777 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, totally. I wouldn't have added a dummy edit at all, had their original edits been immediately below your revert, or even relatively close so it would either be obvious, or not too difficult to find. If you see a reason *not* to identify exactly who is involved in an undo of a sock in a dummy edit, please let me know, as otherwise my tendency is to identify them, for reasons of transparency, as well as to protect you from any suspicion of your motives about exactly what you're reverting and why. In this case, if the revert goes even further back, or groups multiple, disjoint sets of edits, one could either link several batches if desired, but probably as long as one edit or batch is identified, along with the user, and the timestamp of one of them, at least that gives anyone who's interested in delving further sufficient information to get started. That's partly why I used the weak connector, "in connection with"; perhaps that could have been worded better, but it was kind of a balance between some information, and too much information. Lmk if you see it differently. Thanks for raising this. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I think in future I'll also make clear which account(s) are the sockpuppets as well, unless it's obvious already. FDW777 (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 05:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of the duration of orgasm and the gender differences in this.
Hello. You wrote to me that I can ask questions, I ask them. I, on April 28, corrected incorrect and self-willed statements about the difference in the duration of orgasm between men and women, as well as about the duration of male orgasm. To confirm my thoughts, I attached the correct links from PubMed. What is the reason for spreading false information and making such arbitrary conclusions from studies with a sample of 11 people, where the authors themselves stated that it is impossible to draw any conclusions? Didn't you write to me that gender differences are a sensitive topic, and it requires caution and objectivity, which I just strive for. For what reason, the statement: "the duration of orgasm in women is much longer" is made on the basis of some words of an interviewer or a certain researcher IN an OLD ARTICLE(not even a scientific study) without actual data. There are clear data that were collected back in 1980 and 1982 on the basis of 11 men and 11 women, which confirmed some of the conclusions of Masters and Johnson, but at the same time supplemented them and slightly changed them. There were differences on average between men and women, but the range of duration was extremely high and varied from person to person. Gender was a weak variable here. I.e., one male could have a duration of 25 or 56 seconds, and a female of 7.4 or 13. Tables with this data are publicly available. The authors themselves stated that it is incorrect to draw conclusions because extremely wide variation in indicators. The study is extremely reliable and reliable, because a series of such experiments was conducted on each person from these 22 and their readings were +- the same from session to session. In fact, they divided orgasms into the types that occur in men and women, so I do not understand this stubbornness. You make conclusions that are sucked out of your finger. The duration of both male and female orgasms has been very little studied. If there is only one study about men. Then there are only two of them about women(We do not take the statements of Masters and Johnson, they are extremely stable) What rules I do not follow and for what reasons my edits are not accepted(some of the edits you accepted, and thank you for that). I also don't understand the statement that the refractory period increases with age. One study questioned this. An extremely unexplored aspect, which is simply copied from year to year in various books(to which you refer) but it has no scientific basis(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19515210/). This also applies to the absence of a refractory period in women(absolute nonsense, it is and always has been, the link I attached in the edits, you did not delete it. Thank you for that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordvinEvgen (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are very welcome to ask questions. I will be busy for a while, and will respond to you more in detail later. In the meantime, please have a look at WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:MEDRS.  Back later, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting. My article was rejected because it is not new. At the same time, the claim that women have an average orgasm duration of 20 seconds is based on an article published 5 years later(1985). This article, however, confirms the claims of the authors of the 1980-82 articles, where a strong variability in the time of orgasm from person to person was found. The same article is used in 1982 by the same authors as the article I suggested in 1980, and no one deletes it. This logic is somewhat incomprehensible to me. Despite the fact that the work of Masters and Johnson is still older than 1966 and there is a lot of criticism on it(as well as on the four-step model, which in fact may not differ at all between the sexes, this was not taken into account by them. There are other models that may be more convenient and reasonable). And in part, the studies of 1980-82, which were cited as proof by me and you, somewhat expanded this work and even contradicted it in some places. At the same time, it is claimed that women experience longer orgasms, but there is no comparative review within a LARGE SAMPLE(in small cases, this cannot be reliably identified, since it is proven that the duration of orgasm varies from person to person). There is no point in publishing tantric nonsense. And so, on different sites you can find that, for example, the average duration of orgasm in women is 16.8 seconds, and in men 25 seconds. If you study different sites on the Internet(be it medical or entertainment), the numbers tend to differ. The conclusion is the same, everything is taken from people's heads - it is their value judgment. It can be taken from the heads of not-so-distant scientists. For example, there are studies that measure the duration of an orgasm through interviews. I hope there is no need to say how subjective and inaccurate this is. Many people may confuse orgasm and post-orgasmic experiences, and many people may perceive time differently in principle. On the contrary, to prove that there is something longer in women, interviews are given in which it is not known whether the author spoke about this difference and how great it was? The statement "MUCH LONGER" was extremely false. Not only is there no measurement and comparative characteristics of the duration of orgasms between the sexes in that 2005 study, but the interview itself is only recorded in text form, which may be an exaggeration of the words that the author of the study said. Why, for example, are the converse cases not considered? This has already been proved more than once in the works of Bohlen et al. and the authors of a 1985 study that the duration of orgasm varies from person to person. And that spread can be colossal, i.e., according to this logic, the male orgasm can be longer than the female one. In what numbers, it is not known because the male orgasm is examined for many aspects much less often than the female one. There are no reliable studies about prostate orgasm (although the orgasm itself exists), about dry orgasms (although the oragasm itself exists). Just a couple of studies on multiple orgasms, even though it was done in the late 20th century. Then no one was interested in the modern review of 2015 (if I'm not mistaken) I was also surprised by this. About the fact that the refractory period increases with age, there are no clear primary sources that would really prove the truth of this statement(Roy J. Levin 2009). Unfortunately, this omission will not be resolved in the near future. Women also have their own peculiarities in research, for example, their refractory period, which according to the laws of any logic should be. Oragzmy can not be infinite because it is stress and stress on the body. There is nothing eternal in man. I will briefly repeat the question, than the 1980 article from Bohlen et al. worse than their own article from 1982, which was published. Or the 1966 Masters and Johnson study, which already has a lot of inaccuracies, or the 1985 article, which claims that the average duration of a female orgasm is 20 seconds? All these articles are from the same era and are extremely similar in their research models.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordvinEvgen (talk • contribs) 10:34, May 1, 2021 (UTC)


 * Restored, for the archive record. Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)