User talk:Mathglot/Archive 4

The Man from Snowy River
I have now added a special section to The Man from Snowy River (poem) article about the various adaptations of the poem, with a link leading to the disambiguation page. Hopefully this will cover the situation of the films and other adaptations being recognised - rather than just relying on the template for the information (as has been the case up to now). I hope that this helps. All the best. Figaro (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now expanded the section for the adaptations of the poem, and have removed the link to the disambiguation page. I'd be interested to know what you think.  Cheers.  Figaro (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=716344977 your edit] to History of Tibet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * publicized the cause of Tibetan resistance, with the Dalai Lama's eldest brother, Thubten Norbu, playing an active role in that organization. The Dalai Lama's second-eldest brother, [[Gyalo

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1959 Tibetan uprising into History of Tibet (1950–present). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for linking the guideline, it has some useful ideas and links to templates and suggested edit summaries. Actually, I thought I already did attribute my change to History of Tibet (1950–present).  Previously unaware of the WP:CWW guideline, I simply followed my own instincts based on my general awareness of WP attribution policies, and  provided the following edit summary for that edit:
 * Since this section previously began, "Reprisals for the 1959 uprising" without any indication of what it was, I adapted 5 sentences and 3 refs from 1959 Tibetan uprising to briefly describe it.
 * So now I'm confused. What else specifically would you have me do, that I have not already done?  My edit summary seems rather more specific than the one suggested at the guideline, which is this:
 * I named the source page, I counted the precise amount of content moved, and I gave the reason why. How is that not even stronger than the guideline calls for?
 * Now that I'm aware of WP:RIA and I'm happy to make any needed attributes ex post facto, but given the current situation, I'm at a loss to see what to do that I haven't already done. Copying was not extensive, so a note on the source page seems unnecessary, per the guideline intro.  Unless you're talking about the stronger edit summary attribution example given in section List of authors, but since the source article was created in 2007 and has hundreds of edits since then it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack to find the exact edit that added that text to the source page.  If it were simple to do, I suppose WP:CWW would have included a link or instructions on how to do it.  If you know how to find the author of a specific edit in the past other than by a tedious search, please let me know.  Is there a way to search previous history of an article for a specific string of characters?
 * I'll certainly keep the CWW guideline in mind in future edits, now that I know about it. For me, by far the most common case of text reuses is when I do translations, but a different attribution mechanism exists for that, namely use of the Translated page template; see for example here based on the Translation guideline.
 * If you have specific recommendations about how to improve the attribution per RIA or otherwise, please add or link them here. Thanks.  Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The edit that triggered a bot report was not the one you mention, but rather . It's not necessary to list the individual authors of the source page. All you need to do is say in your edit summary where you got the content. For example, . Please do this in the edit summary each time you copy material from one Wikipedia article to another. — Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The edit that triggered a bot report was not the one you mention, but rather . It's not necessary to list the individual authors of the source page. All you need to do is say in your edit summary where you got the content. For example, . Please do this in the edit summary each time you copy material from one Wikipedia article to another. — Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hm, that's odd, must've been a glitch of some sort; I on article changes, something must've happened there.  Thanks for the link to the edit that triggered the bot report, it would have made things clearer and obviated the need for this exchange had the bot had originally reported to me the offending diff like you just did. If you know who maintains the bot, it would be helpful to pass that along as a suggestion. Mathglot (talk)

Censorship of the article about David Reimer

 * Removed the comment that was to avoid confusion, as it is a word-for-word duplicate of the  at User talk:76.102.233.65 under a different section header title. Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Notre-Dame de la Garde
Hi, you reverted 1 link to a dead link, 1 link to an French site. Could You explain? bkb (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Sure.  The External links guideline requires that URLs listed in External links link to an existing website, i.e., links that do not exist on the internet or that never resolve are not helpful for improving the article.  I  that were previously there:  one link that 404s (webpage does not exist) and the other one that never resolves (spinner spins forever, browser cannot get the page from the server) as mentioned in the Edit summary for that change.


 * The removal was actually lenient and probably should have deleted one more link which still remains, because the External links guideline also discourages use of foreign language sites in External links, although there are some exceptions. I'm not sure that the French language link qualifies as an exception, but I've left it in for now.


 * Does this answer your question? Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, really not, because of


 * 1 http://www.marseille-tourisme.com/en/what-to-do/visit-marseille/highlights-of-marseille access 19-06-2016 (10:42 CEST)
 * 2 http://www.notredamedelagarde.com/?lang=en access 19-06-2016 (10:42 CEST)
 * 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z1s1kktOMs access 19-06-2016 (10:47 CEST)


 * whereas replacement for #3 Photos personnelles de Notre dame de la Garde. Photographies prisent par Thierry.A des Docks. is dead link!
 * bkb (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again, . Both External links at the article work perfectly since before you commented here.  I'm sorry.  I really don't quite understand what you're trying to say.  I speak French (I assume that's your mother tongue); please repeat your question in French.  Mathglot (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @Mathglot: Bonjour, non, ma langue maternelle, c'est l'allemand. Regardez svp. en:WP, de:WP et aussi fr:WP.
 * Selon ma opinion, les reverts etaient faux, parce qu'il vaut mieux donner des liens externes en langue anglaise qu'en langue francaise (si faisible, au moins partiellement}. De plus, le lien externe #3 se presente comme 'dead link', il n'existe pas. A bientôt.
 * bkb (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay now I understand your language. With respect to your point, "It's better to provide external links in English" I agree completley, per WP:NONENGEL. That guideline does however allow for exceptions and this link may be one of them.  If you want to delete it however, please be my guest, no need to get my approval for it.
 * The rest of what what you said makes no sense to me, although I understand your words perfectly. It's as though we are looking at two completely different article pages.  In particular, this makes no sense to me:
 * "Furthermore, external link #3 is a dead link; it doesn't exist."
 * Whatever are you talking about? What page are you looking at?  Do you have a browser cache problem showing an old version?
 * Look, this mutual confusion doesn't merit too many more words. Why don't you just go ahead and just make a bold edit to the external links section, and change it in any way you want to suit your taste.  When you're done, tell me, and if I have a problem with it, I'll either change it back if there's something clearly against policy, or I'll raise any questions I have about it here.
 * Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Linking to sections with embedded slash
Hello Mathglot - I am the instructor for Writing in Women's and Gender Studies. You were kind enough to offer thorough, thoughtful and respectful comments to Student1543 on the Social construction of gender Talk Page this week. I thank you. You also offered very sound advice about linking to sections when engaging in extended conversations about article revisions. This is my first experience with Wikipedia, so I am learning along with the rest of the class. I want to share your advice about Anchor links, but when I look at the instructions at WP:Anchor, they don't seem to jive with the code I see you using in your response to Student1543. Could you clarify a point for me, please? When you are linking to the section titled "Gender identity and sexuality/sexual orientation, you use this code: (brackets eliminated so you see the code and not the link) -

Social_construction_of_gender#Gender identity and sexuality.2Fsexual orientation|GI&SSO

Since the section is the second time that title appears (once in the index), the Anchor instructions lead me to believe that the syntax should be:

Social_construction_of_gender#Gender identity and sexuality/sexual orientation_2|GI&SSO

But, of course, that doesn't work. Can you point me to instructions about the use of the ".2F" in your link? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I see that the auto-link feature has inserted a "(F)" in my own text above, but I don't know why and don't know how to identify a section. Apologies for not going to the teahouse. Since you know where you were and what you did, I thought this might be an easy and not too time consuming question. Thank you for any direction you can offer. Jagrif02 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. This is kind of an advanced topic, but basically WP sometimes acts differently in the Talk Namespace when it sees a slash character, depending on context.  In simple text, a '/' is just a character like any other and is displayed as such.  So you could write 'and/or' or '4/4 time' and so on, and it's all fine.  Inside a link in Talk Space, however, Wikimedia software (which underlies Wikipedia and other project families) assumes by default that a slash is a subpage indicator, as in the name of your course for example, which is under the 'Univ' subpage (which is itself a subpage).


 * Now, in the article, someone chose a Section header with a slash in it, i.e., Gender identity and sexuality/sexual orientation and any section header in Wikipedia can be the target of a link. However, you cannot link to that section in the normal way because the slash will be interpreted as a subpage indicator. (In addition, the Manual of Style frowns on this usage for stylistic reasons, but that's not germane here.)  What you need to do, is to tell the software NOT to interpret the slash character as special, but as a 'normal' slash character.  (The software process of exceptionally treating a metacharacter as normal and not special is called escaping the character.  Computer jocks in your class can explain more about this if interested.)  So you need to escape the slash, and in this case the escaped slash is.


 * If you want to know more about this topic, you could start at Help:Link, WP:WIKICODE, Page name, and WP:NCTR especially section #Forward slashes and periods but this issue won't arise very often.


 * Hope this helps!


 * P.S. I've taken the liberty of adding a section name above your question, to set it off. Please see Help:Using_talk_pages.


 * P.P.S. When you want to see just the code and not the rendered link, use Template:Nowiki:
 * GI&SSO
 * Generally when doing that, I also add the code Template, which makes it look more like markup and less like running text:
 * yields   on the rendered page.
 * Mathglot (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mathglot (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank You
I just want to say thank you for your feedback in Social construction of gender. I appreciate your willingness to benefit and assist new editors through our process of learning. I plan to continue digging deeper into this article and could use your assistance if you are interested, but overall, just wanted to say thank you for your contribution. Student1543 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. P.S. Please use the 4-tilde version of the Signature which will automatically time stamp your edit.   Mathglot (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Union de Todos (or, you say Potato and I say patata)
Hey mathglot what did I get wrong? I have been trying to do the neutral article about this obscure Spanish party from WP:PNT. I know it wasn't perfect but am doing it bit by bit as I usually do. Why did you just blank it? I was in the middle of doing the bottom fiddly bits. I am trying to keep it as neutral as I can. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can understand why you reverted it and I think you were right to say "Oh, oh". I thought the same myself. This was up at WP:PNT and so I tried to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and deliberately tried to convey it in a neutral way. I hope you can helpme with improving the article, some of the translations are very difficult when dealing with politics, but as I said at PNT I do think it needs an article on WP in the most neutral way we can. Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is the WP:COI-taint. You realize that a translated article takes on the COI taint of the original, right? It's way too risky to throw away your time on this, as the whole thing will likely have to be deleted; or at least, anything that was written by Helen (founder of the party) which is just about everything.  Why waste your time? (Ref: PNT) Mathglot (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Two more edits since then? It makes me sad to see you waste your time like this, Simon.  This is my last try.  Please save your valuable time; don't throw it away on this!  I'm going to bed.
 * P.S. I renamed the section header above; hope that's okay! Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

!No problemo senor! We just had essentially an edit conflict but not an actual one, sorry I can't do the inverse ! and the cedilla and so on on this KB. I agree with you that it is a pile of junk, but sometimes to translate it shows it up to be a pile of junk – the thing is, you need to kinda delete it as a pile of junk and not because you disagree with any political view. That is going to be the hard one, but I reckon if you or I whack the leader of the party to CSD as non notable WP:POLITICIAN then the ladder is taken from under her feet. To my own view it sounds very kinda General Franco and what did he ever do for Spain? Okay reinstated the monarchy, got the trains running on time, etc... Si Trew (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Mathglot, I have just been kinda rehabilitad into Wikipedia today so I said I would take a backwater of doing something at PNT or so forth rather than anything controversial... Not much luck there then! Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, it totally might be notable, that's not the issue at all. And I'm not  making any judgment on whether it's a pile of junk or not, as far as content is concerned.  My only concern is that it may have to be removed purely for COI reasons, as it seems so transparently against the guideline.  If, given all that, you don't *mind* spending  your time translating it, well then, have fun! Mathglot (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But we don't have an article at ES:WP for this, so where is the "original" to which you refer? Was it deleted at ES:WP? Wikidata gives me https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25104440, without the accent on "Unión", just for gnoming I have marked the existing as, User:Noyster I think moved the page over to that with the diacritic, but I can't find any mention of it on ES:WP at all, where was the "original" then? ES:WP doesn't show it as a deleted page to me and I can't see any conflict of interest discussion about it neither at ES:WP nor EN:WP but I am probably looking in the wrong places... Is it because it was created with a username cunningly similar to the name of the president (User:HELEN MUKORO). ? That is not in itself a COI, I think, unless you take the view that someone is not allowed to write about anything they know about... User:Noyster has done some useful tidy up here while I have been out, it was very much a first pass translation when I left it, so may that user may have a view, too... we might want to move this discussion to its talk page? Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . The original version, as far as I can tell, is the article authored by party leader User:Helen Mukoro on English Wikipedia and which  as a single sentence written in English.  It was quickly expanded in Spanish by her and by others, notably by SPA account Aeccspain in, and in others.  Please see the numerous COI and other warnings on her Talk page regarding this article. Please feel free to move this discussion if you wish; I think it's a good idea.  Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Transgender history (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transgender history (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Transgender history (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 01:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinged you at Talk:Transvestism
Hey, Mathglot. In case you have your ping notification turned off (some people might choose to turn it off), I'm letting you know that I pinged you about a matter at Talk:Transvestism. If you'd rather not weigh in, that's fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ill changes
Hi. Ill was recently redirected to Illm after a TfD discussion closed as merge, and the ordering of the parameters has slightly changed. I noticed that you used the old parameter order in an article after the change, and it's been corrected. You can read about the very small changes in the first section of the documentation at Template:Interlanguage link multi. Thanks! ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)