You may (or may not) be interested in commenting on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#MILHIST reliable source database. The intent of the proposals seems to be the same as your projects. Note that I mentioned the size of the task of preparing a database of sources just for the American Civil War. This is similar to some of our correspondence. One thing I did not think about is the use of Chicago Manual of Style by many of the editors of American Civil War topics. On the other hand, you noted it would not be necessary to make the conversion for your project. I mentioned World War II in passing. I did not mention your project in part because I rushed my comment, long as it is, and as I thought of it later, I wondered whether you would describe your idea more accurately than I would have done. I made no mention of preparing a list of general sources such as I noted to you. An editor has put up numerous improved articles (well over 100 with more promised) for B class assessment. I have been trying to do a few each day. This unexpectedly adds to my use of time unless others start to make some of the assessments. FWIW. Don't take this as a request to comment if you would rather not do so for any reason, just as information. Donner60 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    @Donner60: thanks so much for posting this comment. It sounds very interesting, and I'll definitely go have a look, and likely comment as well. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    An article of its own?

    edit

    Hi Mathglot, happy new year. Since you're experienced in gender articles, I believe your opinion is valuable: I recently created a redirect from social construction of sex to the section about it in the article sex–gender distinction. However, I'm thinking it might be a case of creating a separate article for this topic. What do you think? Gmsrubin (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Hi, Gmsrubin, you too! That redirect goes to a section that leads off with Monique Wittig, author of the The Straight Mind; one of my favorites. Anyway, it's certainly worth some research to see what kind of sources are out there on the topic. Start with rereading WP:Notability, to refresh your memory, then do some source hunting, and see what you find. Remember that dozens of passing mentions basically don't count for much; what you need, is significant coverage; an entire book about it would be a good start, but if not, chapters in two or three books or journals which are mostly about the topic (ideally, chapter title equals or contains the topic title) then you should be good. You're welcome to use the Talk page of the redirect if you wish, to record some of your research, or do it offline, or in your sandbox. You could start with these links, and see what comes up:
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
    France sources: Bing · Cairn · DuckDuckGo · E. Universalis · Gallica · Google · (books · scholar) · Persée · Qwant
    I particularly liked Qwant result #13, an extract from Beauvoir, starting with her very famous phrase that one is not born a woman; possibly the first utterance of the social construction of gender, or at least, the first one I'm aware of. I'll be interested to see what you find for social construction of sex, and whether there's enough out there to pass WP:Notability. (There's another yardstick to consider, namely WP:PAGEDECIDE, but we don't need to deal with that now.) User:EvergreenFir is an editor I trust who is knowledgeable in this area and might have some good advice for you about this. If this turns into an ongoing discussion, then we should probably move it at some point to a better venue, possibly Talk:Sex–gender distinction, but let's see what happens. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks a lot! (Also, I replied in Talk:Doing gender#Partial merge proposal, in case you have understandably unsubscribed to it) Gmsrubin (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


    LGBT rights by territory or country revert

    edit

    Hello, @Mathglot. You reverted my edit at this article and said I should have justified the change at the Edit Summary and preferably also the Talk page. I did justify it at the Talk page, but I didn't point that out at the Edit Summary. My mistake. Could you take a look at the edit again and see if you think the revert should be reverted? Thanks very much for the advice. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Charlie Campbell 28: responded at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory#legal or lawful?. Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The Pure Theory of Law

    edit

    I changed the italics to quotation marks because The Pure Theory of Law uses quotation marks, not italics, around "ought," "may," and "can." I used single quotes around those words because I was quoting them within a quote. See page 5 of The Pure Theory of Law, which is accessible at Google Books. Surely the MOS: Manual of Style doesn't require us to alter quotations, does it? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Actually, yes: Wikipedia would use ought, may, and can per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Regarding your comment about altering quotations: the meaningful content of a quotation may generally not be changed, although even in that case, there are exceptions (antiquated spelling, ligatures, some abbreviations, non-English words, and various others); but punctuation generally is changed to conform to our Manual of Style, except when the subject of the content is about punctuation itself.
    I have the 1967 Knight Translation, and yes, it does use quotation marks in the first paragraph at the top of page 5, but Wikipedia does not, so we change it. I understand your reasoning: you changed the double quotation marks in the book to single quotation marks because the whole thing is double-quoted, and English rules require a quotation within a quotation to use single quotation marks around inner quotations, and so does Wikipedia. But that's not the case here; when Knight refers to a word as a word, he uses double quotes, but Wikipedia does not; we use italics per MOS:WAW. Consider this difference:
    1. Cheese is derived from milk.
    2. Cheese is derived from the Old English word ċēse.
    In #2, the word cheese is in italics because we are talking about the word, not the thing you eat. (Knight would have used double quotes around the word cheese, but we don't.
    It's irrelevant that Kelsen, or rather the publisher of the Max Knight translation house style manual calls for double quotes around words used as words, Wikipedia does not, and the Manual of Style calls for us to use Wikipedia house style on punctuation and other purely stylistic choices. The governing principle is MOS:CONFORM, which says:
    A quotation is not a facsimile and, in most cases, it is not a requirement that the original formatting be preserved. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment, provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud...
    followed by various examples you can read at MOS:CONFORM. Later, it is followed by this:
    Direct quotation should not be used to preserve the formatting preferred by an external publisher (especially when the material would otherwise be unchanged), as this tends to have the effect of scare-quoting...
    Note the differences in my first sentence above, and yours: you used double quotes, and commas (and a period) inside the quotation markes; I used italic markup to generate ought, may, and can per MOS:WAW, and with the commas outside the markup, per MOS:LQUOTE.
    Does this answer your questions? Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Maurice Magnus, forgot to ask: are you subscribed to this discussion? Mathglot (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Mathglot You explain the Wikipedia rule perfectly clearly. I disapprove of it, but I accept that I must follow it. I also disapprove of placing commas and periods outside of quotation marks, but I accept that I must when I edit Wikipedia. Otherwise, as when I write to you, I follow the convention in the U.S.
    I don't know what it means to be subscribed to a discussion. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Single or double quotation marks

    edit

    Mathglot In the following paragraph from Hans Kelsen, I would change all the single quotation marks to double, but I will wait until you approve. Is there a reason that they should remain single?

    Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law aims to describe law as a hierarchy of binding norms, while refusing, itself, to evaluate those norms. That is, 'legal science' is to be separated from 'legal politics'. Central to the Pure Theory is the notion of a 'basic norm (Grundnorm)'—a hypothetical norm, presupposed by the theory, from which in a hierarchy of empowerments all 'lower' norms in a legal system, from constitutional law downward, are understood to derive their validity, hence their authority or 'bindingness'. This is not logical validity (i.e. of deduction), but 'legal validity'; a norm is legally 'valid' if and only if the organ creating it has been so empowered by a higher norm. Public international law is understood as similarly hierarchical. In this way, Kelsen contends, the validity of legal norms (their specifically 'legal' character) can be understood without tracing it ultimately to some suprahuman source such as God, personified Nature or a personified State or Nation. The Pure Theory is intended as rigorous legal positivism, excluding any idea of natural law.

    Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Maurice Magnus: Tl;dr: the single quotes are correct as they are, but the wikicode could be improved with a template.
    This was a really good question; I had to look this one up. I was almost ready to agree with you, but I was hesitating between keeping the double quotes (but, is that really a quotation, if it's only one word?) and no quote marks at all, because afaik, we only use single quotes for quotations within quotations. Well, it turns out I was wrong about the second part, because according to WP:MOS#Double or single, you can also use single quote in two other situations: plant cultivars ('Golden delicious'), and with glosses, as is the case here.
    The use of single quote here is per MOS:SINGLE, and flags a single-quoted term as English translation (by Knight) of a particular choice of term by Kelsen. I would agree that since this is a lesser-known use of single quote in our Manual of Style, it is subject to misunderstanding by other editors who might change it later in good faith; in order to prevent that, I would change all the single-quoted terms to use the {{gloss}} template instead, as explained at MOS:SINGLE. After we add the template, it won't look any different to the reader—it will still be in single quotes, just as before—but it will look different to an editor looking at the wikicode. As also explained at MOS:SINGLE in the casa example, it would be helpful to have the German term precede the English gloss, although it isn't required. Do you want to make the change, or should I? Thanks again for inquiring about this; I learned something new about the MOS today. Mathglot (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Mathglot Please make the change. I have not educated myself about templates. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Maurice Magnus,   Done. You can see the changes at this diff. Thanks for your interest and attention to issues surrounding Kelsen and Pure Theory. I'm kind of snowed under on various projects here, do you think you'd have time to have a look at the article Basic law? With the exception of one, small note, it is entirely unreferenced, and that's unacceptable. Btw, if you ever have issues or questions with templates, feel free to ask me, I'm pretty experienced using them, updating them, and creating new ones. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Mathglot I am a lawyer, but it has been many years since I have looked at Kelsen's writings. Therefore, I made only style edits to the opening of Basic law, which appears to have been written by someone whose first language is not English. I had to guess as to what the person meant. If you think that I guessed incorrectly, I'm fine with your changing it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Maurice Magnus, I'm so sorry, I got my wires crossed typing the article name; what I meant was, the article Basic norm, which is about Kelsen's principle from PToL. I didn't mean to link the Basic law article (arghhh; sorry!) but now that you've edited it, you're right, it is better. (I followed up there with a hatnote at the top to help get people to the right article, so they don't end up confused, as I did.) I apologize for sending you on a wild-goose chase, but at least your edits definitely *did* improve that one, which probably needs more attention, too, but is not my prime focus. Can I importune upon you one more time, in order to have a look at Basic norm? That's the one that is related to Kelsen's Grundnorm, and remains unreferenced—probably because it was written in the early, Wild West days of Wikipedia (2004) and there wasn't much attention to referencing then. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Mathglot I just noticed "subscribe" at the upper right of each topic. That must be what you were referring to when you asked me whether I was subscribed to the previous topic. What happens if I click "subscribe"?
    Now to Basic norm. I am not competent to improve the article, except stylistically. I said that it has been many years since I looked at Kelsen's writings. Make that about 40. I did notice that, in the section "The origin of the term 'basic norm' from Merkl," "basic norm" was capitalized, as it is not elsewhere in the article. In the process of changing it to lower case, I made other style edits to the section. Later, I'll go back and see whether other sections need style edits, but that's all I can offer. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
     
    Screenshot of subscription notification. The rectangular box entitled 'Notices' pops up when you click the small, square icon at the top.

    Maurice, when you subscribe to a discussion, any replies to that discussion cause a notification to appear, in the same place where you get notifications when someone {{ping}}s you, or uses your username in brackets, which is to say, in the little square icon   at the top of every page of Wikipedia, to the right of your username and the bell icon. You can click that square icon at any time to see a list of your notifications. If there is a superimposed number, it tells you how many there are, and if the number has a blue background  , that means that there are some notifications you haven't seen yet.

    I've since made some stylistic changes of my own at Basic norm, as well as rationalized the section headings (briefer per MOS:NOBACKREF, and some nesting of subsections). As far as my level of competence or prior knowledge of that subject, it's all new to me; just fyi, I only heard of Kelsen fairly recently, and have no legal training; nevertheless, according to Who Wrote That? I wrote 94.4% of the text at Pure Theory of Law, and I hope it's not too bad. The point being, not that I'm tooting my own horn, rather the contrary: any volunteer editor capable of finding reliable sources and writing a decent summary of the principal views and citing them properly can contribute here. You're certainly more qualified than I am about Kelsen, norms, and legal theory; that's for sure, but you don't need to be an expert in a topic or have formal training in it to write about it here, so you are certainly welcome to contribute there if you wish to.

    But we are all volunteers, and everybody gets to contribute where and when they wish, so I won't trouble you further about "Basic norm". I only mean to encourage you, in the sense that if you're interested in some topic you know nothing about (or it's been a long time), by all means, go for it! One of my main satisfactions at Wikipedia is learning about stuff I'm unfamiliar with, by doing the research necessary to write articles about them. In my case, the Liberation of France and War guilt question were two topics like that; Draft:French historiography is another one (in progress; wanna help?), and now I'm excited about Kelsen, H. L. A. Hart and other legal philosophers. Anyway, it's been fun talking with you; so feel free to jump in here anytime (or ping me from any page). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Mathglot I appreciate your comments. I'm tired and have nothing to say in reply at the moment, but I don't want you to think that I ignored them. I will reread them when I'm more alert. I gather that to ping someone means merely to contact him or her. I tend to avoid templates, because they create problems. For example, in n.2 of Ronald C. White, the title of the book cited was in quotation marks rather than italics. I italicized the title, but I couldn't remove the quotation marks, because they are hidden in the template. If the book had been cited without using a template, then they would have been easy to remove. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC) By the way, in case you're curious, Maurice Magnus was a real person.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Here is another (admittedly trivial) example of a difficulty I have with templates. In the list of References in France and the American Civil War, every item but the first has a comma before "p." or "pp." The first has a period. For the sake of consistency, I tried to change the period to a comma, but I couldn't (or, I should say, don't know how), because the period is hidden in the template.Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    It's true that single quotes are used for glosses that immediately follow the non-English word. It isn't a gloss if a translated word appears in the text:
    • (current formatting -- wrong) That is, 'legal science' is to be separated...
    • (correct 1) That is, Rechtswissenschaft 'legal science' is to be separated...
    • (correct 2) That is, "legal science" is to be separated...
    I assume that the quotation marks here are to emphasize that this is a technical term for Kelsen, or that it isn't really ordinary English usage. Otherwise, there shouldn't be any quotes at all:
    • (correct 3) That is, legal science is to be separated...
    Hope this helps. --Macrakis (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    edit

    Hello @Mathglot: I noticed you had previously commented regarded possible COI on Revivalistics, a book by Ghil'ad Zuckermann. I am looking into the promotional nature of these articles, as well as material related to this individual on other pages. Sunjaifriþas (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:The Other Karma

    edit

    Given the concerns being raised by multiple contributors at Talk:Effects of pornography on young people over The Other Karma's poor grasp of the English language, and what I see as the inadequacy of their response, I have started a thread at WP:ANI. You may wish to comment. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I think you might have been on to something there -- look how far we got working with Paulo Simoes(sp)? I've actually said before that maybe half the new editors who get blocked for CIR only need to team up with someone with better English who doesn't know the topic as well as they do. I'm guessing on the number but look at Paolo.
    Apparently that editor was not a good candidate however (!)
    I still think maybe we should talk about logistics and whether we could put something into practice. Thoughts?Elinruby (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Elin, yeah, Andy and others saw the situation earlier or clearer than I did, I guess, and I kept trying to get TOK to just shut up, because he made things worse every time he opened his mouth. I guess that's another kind of CIR issue he had besides just the English [in-]ability, and in the end Bish's upping it to indef was the right move. Sometimes I think I should get a St. Jude medal—I seem to be the patron saint of lost Wikipedia editor causes. I've had a few successes bringing editors back from the brink, or even out of indef in one case, but a lot more often I spill a lot of words trying to get an editor to back off, and they jump feet first into the abyss anyway. Oh, well. Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have my own atories like that, people I now regret trying to help. But listen... I remember you yelling me that I eas unstrapping my seatbelt and headed for a cliff ypu were trying to warn me of, or words to that effect. And while you were completely correct that Eastern Europe is toxic as hell, and I would have been better off to refrain, I have so far survived, so there is that. But what about the guy who knows his English isnt good and tolerates a brisk copy-edit? We should welcome those editors methinks though the disincentives have reached a point where I don't really do translation on Wikipedia any more. At least your protégés aren't trying to get you sanctioned, so you have better taste im protégés than I do if that's any consolation Elinruby (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, I was worried about you wrt Balkans at one point, but you were never in that group of "mentees" I was talking about above, because you were always an experienced editor to me, and I was only talking about relatively inexperienced users above. I could list them off; I remember being sad about the professor of Holocaust history; Sonia-something, I think; absolutely no issues with ArbCom EE restrictions, wasn't that at all; instead, she was indeffed because she simply could not get on board with the requirement for verifiability and citations. Who, me? I write the books on this stuff! Sadly, despite all the instruction and pleading, she just wouldn't cite properly, and got booted for OR or something. Wasted a lot of words on her, and so did User:CaroleHenson, who will remember who I am talking about. Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    i think I completely missed that. My most recent adventure in this area involved an editor who was at ANI for a month before I investigated, with his name in the section header as "again" covering up Lithuania's Nazi past, or some such. Turns out he removed
    "(name) was a war criminal responsible for thousands of Jewish deaths" from the lede of an article that said nothing at all in the body about any war at all. The editor kept saying that but nobody was listening and they were debating topic ban vs indef. I did intervene there and people were really mad that I "derailed the case" but it was someone who worked on the Collaboration page and come on, they were about to indef him for (checks notes) following policy...and I was uncivil for pointing it out. And off to Arbcom it went. So yeah, Wikipedia is not always rational, although sanity prevailed at Arbcom, so overall I would say that "get out of Eastern Europe" was excellent advice, actually. But I digress. Maybe it's too soon but: Wouldn't it be a good idea to set up some mechanism in an area where our coverage is lacking where one person can easily read the language and the other can easily read good English? Theoretically?
    ps: the supposed war criminal was prime minister for a month and thought the Nazis were going to liberate the Baltics from the Soviets, poor fool. I doubt he had the authority to be a war criminal but conceivably this might be true if he signed off on any extermination orders, per Nuremberg decisions. In time-honored fashion I jumped in feet first but I have yet to find that tho, but I am hampered by language issues
    Elinruby (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    pps- I wasn't thinking of Lithuania, since all potential editors there have now been eliminated. (The editor was not sanctioned but has now left the topic area and who could blame him.) I am not willing to be the next sacrificial victim. Brazil would be about a perfect example if we hadn't already done that. Korea or Argentina or Finland come to mind though ... Elinruby (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As to your idea of pairing up translators with different levels of mastery of a language pair involved in some translation project, we definitely should do something. That's getting far enough afield of this topic, that I've created a new section so it can take place under a recognizable title. See below. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Translation buddy system

    edit

    I've started this as a new section, based on this comment by Elinruby in the section above:

    Wouldn't it be a good idea to set up some mechanism in an area where our coverage is lacking where one person can easily read the language and the other can easily read good English?

    Yes, I think that would be a good idea. I have mused about that privately before, but hadn't gotten anything structured out of it to the point of doing anything about it yet. I think we've informally done stuff like that with Paulo in Portuguese and maybe some other examples, but I think with some thought, something could be developed. My original thought was modeled on the "buddy system" we learned as kids, so that for any given language, we would pair one native English speaker with iffy mastery of Klingon, with one Klingon native speaker with possibly iffy mastery of English, and consult back-and-forth on the Talk page. (The visual model I had for this, was a "three-legged race"; do you remember those? At the beginning, everybody falls flat on their face, until they learn how to coordinate properly, and then it starts to get smoother and smoother.) Although it wouldn't necessarily be just two editors, so maybe "buddy system" isn't a good name for it, but that was my first formulation, and I still think of it that way for now, regardless of how many people are involved. But anything you can bring to bear about how to make something out of your translation idea would be great. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    i have about ten minutes more before I have to go. Based on my experience I would say there should be clear expectations (be aware not everyone realizes how awesome you are, don't further ancient ethnic strife) for mentees as well as mentors (your mentee is not your meat-puppet), without, hopefully, getting too bureaucratic. People are unlikely to sign up of their own volition -- one of the hardest things at PNT was convincing original authors that their English was not as good as they thought it was, but maybe as a variation on mentoring, which has been tried a few times at ANI, not always successfully is the problem. In fact in the only case I have knowledge of the mentee sees no problem with his edits and never consults his mentor, who expresses helplessness, seen three rounds of AE on that, but that is behaviour not English. Those are the thoughts I have that may be a basis for discussion. Elinruby (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

    WP:NOPIPE at Buccellato di Lucca

    edit

    Dear editor, just picking up from your edit summary at Buccellato di Lucca; thank you for taking the time to correct my mistake.

    In offer of an excuse, in my experience, the VisualEditor likes to create piped links from minor adjustments in the text. In this instance, my copyedit changed the text from ancient Romans to ancient Roman to be grammatically correct, and the result was a piped link. It was by no means intentional, but I wanted to flag it up as something that can easily be done unintentionally, in good faith, by a visual editor with their eye off the ball like me.

    If you know any way to avoid this issue without the tediousness of checking through the source code, I would be grateful for your help :)) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    IgnatiusofLondon, thanks for your message. First of all, you did nothing wrong; I'm sorry I was snippy in my edit summary; I was a bit frustrated, because it was the second time in a few hours that I was fixing a problem that I had already fixed just previously in that same article. I realize it was not you that made the similar change earlier, and I apologize for my tone there. Furthermore, that change wasn't your fault; WP:Visual Editor has a long list of limitations, and this is another one—previously unknown to me, so thanks for describing it. I've added a new entry about this to WP:Visual Editor#Limitations with bolded header 'Wikilink changes'; please proofread it to make sure I summarized your issue accurately, and feel free to change it however you like to correct or improve the description.
    I am actually not that knowledgeable about the workings of VE (except for its shortcomings   ), so I can't help you figure out how to avoid this issue, but I would dearly love to know the answer to your question as well. This would be a great question to ask at WP:VPT, if you'd like to raise it there (you can say I suggested it, if you wish) and there a lot of high-powered tech people who hang out there who may be able to answer it. (If you do, please link this discussion.) Another possible venue is at Phabricator; you can follow the 'Report a problem' link at the top of WP:VE to do that. Once again, sorry for the tone, and imho it was VE, not you, that made the mistake (and even if it were you, nbd because we're all human). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for your prompt and exceedingly courteous reply. Don't worry; you weren't snippy! I will ask on WP:VPT now (wow, I didn't know that resource existed!), tagging you. Thank you! And thank you once again for correcting my edit :)) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Do explanatory notes need to be discussed in Help:Shortened footnotes

    edit

    Dear Mathglot, thank you very much for talking to me. I lack your experience. I thought your talk page might be a better place. To answer your question (have you ever combined them before?): yes, I have. I often use {{sfn}} inside {{efn}}. The only problem seems to be that one cannot list-define such explanatory notes, but that is besides our point here. I still do not see what the difficulties are that justify such a detailed treatment of explanatory notes in Help:Shortened footnotes as interactions seem to be limited to simple nesting. Johannes Schade (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

      Courtesy link: Help talk:Shortened footnotes § Explanatory footnotes
    Johannes Schade, I prefer to keep conversations in one place, and if I had time, I'd respond there, but I'm a bit oversubscribed at the moment. You may have a point, but I don't have time to look at it just now, and in any case, my page isn't the right place. Trying bringing it back there and try attracting more response there. You could try pinging Rjjiii from there who has done a lot of great work recently on rationalizing, clarifying, and expanding citation and other template doc, and really seeing it through with good explanations and good examples. Mathglot (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    We have Portuguese speaking help

    edit

    The edits I checked were constructive gnoming. I asked them nicely to use edit summaries Elinruby (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Consensus

    edit

    I can comprehend that there's a fear my post was "Forum shopping, admin shopping ..." but let me try to assure you that is not the case. I am looking for other opinions, not necessarily ones that match my opinion. I would reject neither agreement nor disagreement nor would I confirm either at this point. I think there is no consensus.

    One can read the diverse opinions that have commented on the original topic, but that diversity is limited to 5 Wikipedia users. Too, it's only the users who comment without request (the "proactive" population) as oppose to those users one would ask for an opinion (the "Silent majority"). Do you know how many users there are on this website? I don't, but I know it's many many more than that. Similarly, there are many many more admins than have expressed an opinion or declared some from the seemingly infinite and redundant) policies that may apply.

    5 from all users or admin is nothing like a consensus. It is statistically 0%. Obviously, the semantics to this particular topic don't concern everyone, but it likely concerns more than have offered an opinion by now.

    It seems fair to leave a link at Manual of Style/Words to watch. Or, maybe, the entire discussion should be moved. Maybe it should have been posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab) in the first place.

    ProofCreature (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I tried to post an WP:RFC to start, but I got disagreement for that because there was no discussion (just page reversions). Maybe that's appropriate now.

    ProofCreature (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    ProofCreature, I couldn't disagree more, and I think you are gravely misreading the situation. Editor time, as an admin recently mentioned at a User talk page, "is our most precious resource", and in my opinion, that is the likeliest reason that other editors don't respond at a discussion they see as already having consensus among the editors who are responding. I think if you post an Rfc now, you will be subject to opprobrium from some editors, shutdown of the Rfc, and possibly calls for sanctions either to stop you from posting at VPM, or to stop you from starting any Rfc, or possibly even calls for a WP:BLOCK.
    The conversation at WP:VPM has run its course, editors there believe that your proposal has no support, and you are not the one that gets to decide how many opinions or forums are enough, even if in some narrow sense you are not forum shopping for agreement, you just love a friendly, college, bull session among a bunch of knowledgeable folks even with lively disagreement from just about everybody. I get that, but that brings us back to the admin quote above.
    Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not having interminable discussions on points that one editor is passionate about, but that is clearly not going to result in anything, certainly not an improvement to the encyclopedia or its procedures. Editors at VPM are indulging you, to a certain extent, because you are a new-ish editor, but I think that indulgence has now pretty much run its course, there's a feeling there that there's a certain amount of failure to hear what people are telling you, and there's even a very indulgent and friendly admin at the discussion who has already posted there twice in a gently critical manner, and that's like the red flashing lights going off and the gates starting to come down at a railroad crossing. I think if you go on much longer there, the gate will land on your head.
    VPM is not for endless discussion about a proposal that is clearly going nowhere, and I think people's patience there is running out. I understand that you are enjoying the discussion and you'd just love to continue it even with more disagreement which you welcome in the "bring-it" spirit of a college bull session pile-on, and I sympathize, but Wikipedia just isn't the place to do it, and I think you risk sanctions if you continue. Maybe try Reddit, or some language blog devoted to such things, like LanguageHat.com. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm curious about your requirements for consensus, statistically, factually. What is an appropriate proportion that validates a consensus? How many and from what common pool is it taken (i.e. what common denominator)?
    ProofCreature (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't have any special "requirements"; I just stay open to what I am hearing in a discussion, the strength of the argumentation, and the ability to link that argumentation to the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. I'm afraid I cannot reduce it to a tidy little equation of this many statistics plus that many facts minus them there oppositions and expostulations divided by !votes. It's just something that comes with experience here. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I get it. It explains some comments. It is certainly easier and is not uncommon.
    An echo chamber isn't a consensus. It can be difficult to recognize.
    Maybe next week I'll research accepted statistics to determine consensus. If I do so I'll relay my findings to you and / or some Wikidedia committee or you could update policies.
    This is information I found easily that should have some bearing on a consensus:
    ProofCreature (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    A quick evaluation suggests that at the very minimum, to get a consensus with a 10% error possibility Wikipedia should get responces from 86 Administrators.


    ProofCreature (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    (edit conflict) I admire your passion and thirst for understanding based on empirical evidence. Regarding this:

    Maybe next week I'll research accepted statistics to determine consensus. If I do so I'll relay my findings to you and / or some Wikidedia committee or you could update policies.

    I'm skeptical, and it feels like there's a certain amount of WP:IDHT going on right here, but if I'm wrong and you're serious about that, find the right venue for it (here is not it, nobody will see it here), tread lightly, and be sensitive to feedback you get. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Your calculations are based on false assumptions about populations, and your results are meaningless. I'm not going to argue with you about statistics, but if your population (not sample, but population) has little to no variance in the variable you are measuring, then those equations are meaningless. For example: if I told you that of all administrators at Wikipedia, 97% of them are almost ready to give you a 31-hour block per WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:IDHT, then you don't need a sample of 86 of them to find out what the general feeling among administrators might be; you only need one.
    I'm pretty easy-going about discussions on my page, but I'm getting to the point where I think I've almost reached a limit, and I'm not sure I want this to go on much longer here. On your side, you should worry that all 86 of those administrators have an itchy trigger finger, and are just waiting for the one misstep from you so they can press the WP:BLOCK button and turn off the alarm bells and get some peace and quiet, so you don't need to sample all 86 of them, because they all feel the same way, pretty much. If I were you, your best response now would be something like this: "You know, I've been away from my main enjoyment here for too long, which is improving articles, and so I just added three references to article ABC, and I'm starting a new draft XYZ on a clearly notable topic I'm passionate about that will fill a gap in our coverage." Are you hearing what I am saying? Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I do not comprehend this last comment. The calculations seem backwards. One must sample 86 administrators to know that 83 would want to apply some policy and then one could state that "97% of them are almost ready to give you a 31-hour block per WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:IDHT". Also, you can check the population assumptions. They are directly from Wikipedia.
    Most other comments I get even if I disagree. The previous comment: "if I'm wrong and you're serious about that, find the right venue for it (here is not it, nobody will see it here)" is comprehensible. You don't want to learn about statistical application nor hear this topic from me.
    If you care to comment further, feel free to do so on my page.
    ProofCreature (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The Banner

    edit

    Thanks for your attempt at mediation here. I've laid out a summary of some of the background to this disagreement in the section beginning "A quick summary". I'm completely at a loss how to proceed. I asked for input from a friendly admin here, but without success. I'm reluctant to escalate a petty disagreement to a full AN/I, but I really don't want to let The Banner play this game with anyone else. Do you have any suggestions? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, my suggestion is just let it go. If you take it to AN/I, I think you will experience a WP:BOOMERANG and are at risk for getting warned, or worse. We are only two editors, and you can't force another editor to do what they don't want to do, and that's even assuming other editors would see it the way we do, which is not guaranteed. Best strategy now, is just move on, and let other editors notice similar edits in the future, and maybe get a larger consensus about it. Or not. Either way, insisting now, will just make it worse for you. That's my two cents. Mathglot (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I appreciate your advice. I sent the message above before I'd seen your nearly-simultaneous message elsewhere. The thing is that I've been walking away since last August, it's not working, and I'm tired of it. I'm curious though, why do you see WP:BOOMERANG as a likely outcome? The evidence of one-sided provocation seems fairly clear from where I'm standing. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's a both-sides thing. Regardless of who is right, if one party stops talking, the problem goes away. You may be right, but why risk it? We've all got better things to do, and meanwhile, give some other editors time to get annoyed with his behavior (or not; which will imply all the more that it's better to walk away). Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In this case, the evidence is that if one party stops talking, the other goes on alternately provoking and playing the victim. It's precisely because the problem isn't going away that another approach seems called for. I certainly have many other things to do with my time. Perhaps I'll sleep on it. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    edit
      I've been meaning to send this for a while, but for kind and well thought-out responses to newcomers at Talk:Lines of amity and a few other places: have a cookie. It's obvious that you take time to consider what you're going to say and that you care about helping those who aren't very familiar with the particulars of Wikipedia. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @LittlePuppers: very kind of you; thanks so much! Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Maybe there should be a policy about breaking-news references

    edit

    They're hard to define is one problem. Removing umpty ump dead links, or links that now go to something else, from the 2023 Brazil Congress attack article. Russian invasion of Ukraine had the same problem. They otherwise fit the RS definition. Usually it's Yahoo; currently seeing it at MSN Brasil. For the Ukraine war it was the BBC though, and and a Ukrainian source whose name escapes me atm but is usually also considered a stellar source. Just musing and thought of you. RfC maybe? Elinruby (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    PS Both those pages are highly referenced, and for the Brazil article it was used to document what happened at 4:15, 4:30 etc, so in this case counter-intuitive as it is we arent really losing anything but some recentism. It was a little less clearly so in Ukraine where the sentences was usually something like "Three people were killed by missile strikes in (location) on (date) that were harder to dismiss as unimportant. 06:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    edit

    It appears to me that you mistakenly applied the verifiability requirements for sources, which are cited in support of statements made in the body of an article, to the links to resources in a final section External links. The criteria for extenal links are much more lax. The videos of the RobWords channel cover a variety of topics and the video on Toki Pona is clearly well researched, informative, and not in any way fancruft. The videos are produced and presented by Rob Watts, who is not a professional linguist, but formally a newsreader, reporter and presenter in the UK on BBC radio, now working in Berlin as a reporter for DW-TV (and occasionally BBC World Service).  --Lambiam 12:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Wrong venue for a content question. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Re: Searle lecture

    edit

    Thank you for the recommendation on Phlsph7's talk page. I think I was introduced to Searle's work "backwards", as it were, initially through the criticisms of his cluster theory in Kripke's Naming and Necessity. While I'm definitely still compelled more by the latter's notions, the lecture absolutely helped me appreciate the formulations of Frege and Searle better. I'm excited that naturally, his next lecture will be on Naming and Necessity. Cheers! Remsense 04:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Remsense, Now it's my turn to thank; I've got that on my list to check out, now! Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's super brief and easy to read: I had a really brain-tingling weekend where I shotgunned it and then Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. I felt I understood a lot more about my existing thoughts on language, both intuitively and through osmosis and engagement with related work.
    Causal theory of reference is an article I think I'd like to work on, actually—it needs some love, but it's also the right size and scope where it's limited but I would really get a lot out of working on it. Remsense 08:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Could be a fun collaboration, if you need/want help, and don't need it soon, as I'm swamped in various directions, but it really sounds interesting. Mathglot (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'd love to! I also have a lot of plates in the air at the moment, but let me know when a spot opens up for you, I'll make sure I have one open as well. Cheers! Remsense 08:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Regency of Algiers

    edit

    I was just over there and realized how much you helped that guy out. I really appreciate it. It's a really important article and I was feeling helpless about improving those articles because the French stuff I was finding was so dismissive. A really important article. I just bragged about it at The Place We Do Not Name saying that this is what real inclusion looks like (a swipe at a Signpost article about WikiEdu that got cancelled)

    Well freaking done. He and you both deserve barnstars and when I am feeling less tired and scatter-brained I think I may make that happen. Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Aw, shucks... all in a day's work volunteership. Thank you kindly! Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    He submitted to GA. Had I been consulted I would have said wait, let me do a copy edit, but since I was not I have been on a big push to get improvements in so tnat it won't fail again on technicalities. I do think it is a brilliant example of what can be done in a cooperation between an open-minded English speaker and a foreign-language subject matter expert so I do think there is potential for featured articles status and would really like to see that, both as a rebuke to the drek that usually makes the cut based on polished formatting, and as an example of an history that is largely unknown in English. He submitted to GA. Had I been consulted I would have said wait, let me do a copy edit, but since I was not I have been on a big push to get improvements in so that it won't fail again on technicalities. I do think it is a brilliant example of what can be done in a cooperation between an open-minded English speaker and a foreign-language subject matter expert so I do think there is potential for featured articles status and would really like to see that, both as a rebuke to the drek that usually makes the cut based on polished formatting, and a great example of history that is largely unknown in English. Elinruby (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I almost want to buy the movie rights (joke) but come on, a pirate flotilla rescuing victims of the Inquisition, conquistadors, assassinations, emirs, Napoleon, Ben Franklin and Victor Hugo :) It all makes me very happy.
    But there is a point to this rant -- not sure if you are watching the page. If not I could use some help, even if only a quick scan like Scope creep did for us. The other editor is pretty burned out and who could blame him. But the article needs a read for what might not be obvious to the average reader for one. I've done some of that but am still finding stuff. For another, if you are in the mood to wikignome, trans-titles and image alts are not completely done.
    For a third, I could use an opinion: the word jihad arises, and while I think it is appropriate in context given that this was the period of the Crusades after all, I think that post-9/11 propaganda may have created so many inappropriate connotations that caution is called for. The lede says "holy war", which is somewhat better. I realize you've probably worked on this more than I have at this point, and may have already thought about this, but these are the thoughts I am thinking.
    Now back to clarifying which emir did what. Thanks for any thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Elinruby, will try to get back to this. Actually, you're probably in a better position regarding content matters on the article, as I mostly made a big push to get the refs whipped into shape. N was unfamiliar with {{sfn}} but quickly caught on, made a few mistakes which I fixed up (but who doesn't, in an article with ~300 unique refs, and many more {{sfn}}s?). Iirc, there are still a few ref issues outstanding: look for author first + last names stuffed into just the |last= field. Can't remember if the corresponding sfn's are working or non-working; the former, I think, but may do weird stuff like {{sfn|John Doe|2025}} in order to make it work; that should be adjusted to last name only. There weren't a ton of these, iirc, just a handful.
    Your point about jihad is a good one; agree that this should probably be avoided. Or, if used, should have an explanatory note, giving the meaning as used in the article. Trans-titles I should be able to deal with. Lately have been busy with template stuff, some arcane things, but one with a pretty big impact, which is that all Talk pages that display a {{Talk header}} box and are bot-archived will now automatically have a bot-archive notice displayed in the header just above the archive search box, even if no archive bot parameters are explicitly passed to it. (What's new, is that it locates the bot config elsewhere on the talk page, parses it, and emits the correct bot notice). See Talk:Macedonia, for example. The parser was the fun part. This probably adds bot notices to about 100k Talk pages that didn't have them before. Mathglot (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ok. Will concentrate on content review for now. Elinruby (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Elinruby: had another look, and whatever the problem was with first/last being combined in {{sfn}}s before, they are not there now, so either N. fixed them up, or you did, so all's well with the refs (less some trans-titles; t.b.d.) Mathglot (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for checking that. Elinruby (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A cup of coffee for you!

    edit
      Thank you for fixing my incorrect revert over at the Steven Anderson article. Had meant to restore an earlier version. Sorry to make you clean up my mess there! Have a wonderful rest of your week. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Courtesy link: Steven Anderson (pastor)
    No problem! Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    After reading some more of your talk page, hope I can be as helpful, polite, and as knowledgeable as you are in future interactions with editors. People like you make editing here more than tolerable. Thank you again! Hope we cross paths for something more positive next time. :) Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Phönedinger's jellyfish II, much appreciated; and, me too! Mathglot (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean) on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment, and at Talk:Ram Mandir and Talk:Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League on "All RFCs" request for comments. 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Mathglot (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A barnstar for you!

    edit
      The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
    Your contributions are fantastic, and I honestly didn't realise you weren't an admin until recently - if you ever start a RfA, it'd be an easy support. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you! Mathglot (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Mail call

    edit
     
    Hello, Mathglot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
    It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

    Bishonen | tålk 17:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC).Reply

    Invitation to join New pages patrol

    edit
     

    Hello Mathglot!

    • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
    • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
    • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
    • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
    • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

    Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sultanate of Rum 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Taking your name in vain

    edit

    The attempt at ANI to CIR a Portuguese speaker might be urgent. Asked that the brakes be applied while a solution is discussed. Elinruby (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foreign Secretary 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foreign Secretary 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Radicalesbians

    edit

      Courtesy link: User talk:Edenaviv5 § Radicalesbians redirected to Lavender Menace

    Hey! So I have been considering your feedback and I see the confusion, as the Lavender Menace article misrepresents the topic a bit... the action/protest was called the "Lavender Menace," though, not the group.

    Would you mind looking at my sandbox page and letting me know what you think after I clarified some of that? I think, honestly, the Lavender Menace may be better as the redirect since its title isn't helpful. Edenaviv5 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Hi, Edenaviv5, absolutely, I will. I have no preconceived notion or personal interest one way or the other as to how this should turn out, other than it should comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially with article title policy, WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, as well as things like Content fork. It could be that this should go the other way, that is, the article content should be under Radicalesbians and the redirect should be from Lavender Menace. Since Lavender Menace was there first, I did the redirect that way, but that is subject to community consensus and could flip the other way. I'm pretty sure they shouldn't both exist as separate articles; at best, one of them should be a section of content within the other, and in that case the redirect could be tagged as a Redirect to section.
    As to the name being the group vs. the protest, I seem to recall lots of actions much later (80s–90s) that were ascribed to "Lavender Menace", but whether that was the name of the group, a rallying cry, or something else I couldn't say; I would have to research it. What I'm certain of, is that the idea of "Lavender Menace" by no means disappeared in the 70s and was alive and well decades later. That would have to be backed up by research and sources, of course, but just something to be aware of, so you can look into it if you wish. But this is only a side-issue of your main question.
    There should be a discussion open to the wider community about your question, and imho, you should open one either at Talk:Radicalesbians, Talk:Lavender Menace, or maybe even at WT:LGBT since more than one page is concerned, and that would be a good place to find informed opinion or at least more eyeballs for this question. I would probably pick the last for a venue. If you open a discussion there, please link the two articles concerned, your sandbox, and probably this discussion as well, and ask for feedback from the community there. I thank you for your work on this, and I look forward to working with you on this. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Fragmented discussion: see User talk:Edenaviv5 § Radicalesbians redirected to Lavender Menace. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hi again -
    So, Radicalesbians is central to my work off Wikipedia, and the sources I provided detail that the group lasted from May 1970 until December 1970. The "lavender menace" protest was them, but the phrase resonated far beyond them, of course. There were likely other groups (as you reference) using the phrase -- that, specifically, is beyond my knowledge as I research Radicalesbians specifically, not the phrase.
    This is largely why I initially made a separate article, however: the phrase "lavender menace" did not die with the group's protest in May 1970, of course. But, if we're discussing groups of lesbian-feminists, "Lavender Menace" is not the same as "Radicalesbians." From cursory searches, I see many groups and establishments with the name "Lavender Menace," but there is only one "Radicalesbians." Edenaviv5 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Edenaviv5, yes, and it's often conflated, even by sources that should know better, with radical lesbians. Don't know if you noticed I added a lot of in-links to Radicalesbians yesterday, but it takes some careful reading to know when a source that writes Radicalesbians really means Radicalesbians and not radical lesbians, and vice versa. Sometimes it isn't even clear, and in one case or two, I removed a wikilink because we can't put our interpretation onto the quoted words of a source, or even the summary words of a wikipedia editor to guess their intent.
    I am kind of hoping you will stop responding both here and at your Talk page, and take this to a central venue where interested editors will find it and perhaps comment, because they sure won't find it here. Try WT:LGBT. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I do not see the links you mention in the history at all.
    And I know, I was just trying to understand what to improve based on your confusion (since I have already read all the links you threw in to Wiki rules), hence replying off that page and just to you, but ok. Edenaviv5 (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Did I mention history? I'm not sure what you are referring to. I'm happy to keep the discussion going here, if you want to discuss specifically with me, but it seems like it would be more productive to open it up, that's what I meant. Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Pyxis Solitary, can you help unscramble this? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Mathglot: I've been away. Sorry to not have replied sooner. But I see that a Radicalesbians article exists separate from the Lavender Menace article -- as it should be. Lavender Menace was created in 2005 and since its creation 89 editors have contribute to it. As you suggested, this discussion should have taken place at "Talk:Radicalesbians, Talk:Lavender Menace, or maybe even at WT:LGBT".
    Lavender Menace was a group, not just a phrase or a protest. I know this because I came out in NYC in 1980 and a friend, who was 12 years older than me, had been a member of LM (in the 1970s she also got to hang out at Mother Courage). Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 10:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Teahouse question – hide edit notice

    edit

    Hi, I just wanted to follow up about a question I asked at the Teahouse, to which you responded. The thread was archived. I wanted to remove an edit notice, and you gave this advice:

    "Add the following line to your common.css page, purge your common.css, and refresh the Star Wars page:

    body .refideas {display:none} /* Turn off {{Refideas editnotice}} in edit mode */This will turn off the notice on all pages that have it. See H:CSS for some help with common.css. Let me know if you have any issues applying it."

    I did what you suggested, and the edit notice changed, but didn't go away. Now instead of a large box with text, it is a very small box with no text, but it's still annoying and I have to close it every time I edit. Do you have ideas for a next step?

    Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Wafflewombat, If it works for me and not for you, it must be you have a different skin or are using a different view or something. I might be able to help if I can see the html source code that is being generated in your environment. Can you send me a link to the page you are viewing as a test, then edit it so it shows the small box, then place your cursor on the page somewhere, hit context-click or right-click, which should give you a pop-up dialog box with choices like Copy, Paste, Select, and others. Look for one that says, 'View page source', which might be right there, or it might be under a heading like 'Developer tools' on some browsers. If you don't see it, scroll the dialog box. Click 'View page source', which will open a new browser tab. Go to the tab, select and copy the content, which will save it to your Clipboard. Go to my user page, and then find the link, 'Email this user' and click it. Depending on your skin, it might be in the left sidebar, or elsewhere; look around. Paste your clipboard into the email input field, add a subject line like, 'Hide edit notice with CSS', and send it to me along with whatever message at the top might be helpful. If you can do that, I might be able to help you. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I sent you an email with the Page Source for the Star Wars page, which currently has the "small box" version of the edit notice.
    Did I understand correctly what you wanted me to do? Wafflewombat (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Wafflewombat, yes, perfectly; email received. I'll look at it tomorrow. Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Wafflewombat, I looked at your source, and can see that you are on (default) Vector 2022, but I was hoping to find the page content including the Edit notice, but apparently the page view you sent is from before the server loads the page. Can you try the same thing again, but this time, once you are in Edit mode, hit Show Preview to let the server load the Star Wars page at the top, and then after it does that, place your cursor anywhere in the Star Wars content and click on any white space or black (non-clickable) word, and then do the right-click, 'View page source' thing again, and mail it to me. Mathglot (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Done. In doing this, I discovered that the edit notice only appears when visual editing is enabled, which is how I do the vast majority of my editing. Wafflewombat (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Progressing discussion

    edit

    Look, we could - and maybe you want to - have a full debate on how Catalan surnames are used and written, but teaching you that is not the point. We are at the point where I asked you a direct question on a proposed improvement (that is neither long nor inaccurate), and in response you went on a disruptively long rant about why you think your edit was correct. It doesn’t matter if it was or not, the template has an issue and I don’t know how many different times or ways I need to tell you that I want to discuss an improvement - which you can think of as simply further improving on the edit you made if it helps - before you finally realise that nobody wants you to rehash your decision making for the sixth time but actually progress discussion. I don’t know if you have always genuinely thought that I wanted you to convince me of your edit even when I explicitly said otherwise and proposed solutions, or if you just don’t want to progress discussion and maybe learn something in the process, but if it’s the latter, just say so and stop wasting everyone’s time. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

      Courtesy link: Template talk:Family name explanation § Catalan name amended
    The discussion is hopelessly deadlocked. Please feel free to start an WP:Rfc, or proceed with any method of dispute resolution that appeals to you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject talk other/scdecode

    edit

     Template:WikiProject talk other/scdecode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


    In case this didn't make your notifications

    edit

    meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2)[2]

    Convenience links

    Elinruby Thanks for this. They almost fell off my radar. Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I had mercifully forgotten them and am currently having flashbacks :)
    I may as well copy these links to the discussion also Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Helpful IP 2804:F14::/32

    edit

    Note to self about helpful IPv6 2804:F14:80C6:A301:CF7:6618:2E02:A732 (talk · contribs), who answered my expensive parser function question at VPT, and even managed to stay on the same IP long enough to converse with at their UTP. They added this helpful tip about finding them:

    The best I do to find my own edits is Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32 (99% edits by me, although every once in a while it's an IPv4)

    Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Is that the Brazilian IP who was trouble-shooting ping with me the other day? And helped out at ANI with the Portuguese speaker? Elinruby (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Elinruby, Could be; it geolocates to Maringá, Parana state. The 2804 IP in this section helpfully provided me with a CIDR range link which targets their contributions without including a lot of noise (i.e., edits by other users that just happen to have nearby IP addresses), so just click that link above in the shaded blue part and see if any of those edits you are talking about are there. Or, click the Talk link in the first sentence, and ask them directly. (That said, it is a dynamic IPv6, and I managed to catch them at that address because I responded very rapidly after their edit at VPT; by now, it's several hours later, and their IP may have changed again, so they may never see what you post there. But you can use the CIDR contributions link (in blue) to see where they are now, and go to *that* IP talk page, and see if you can catch them before the IP swaps out again. That is the whole point of using the CIDR IP, so I can find them.) Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Copying this off to a sandbox as possibly useful at some point. Elinruby (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Er what? Confused by the notification I just got, and the history. If I did something wrong, LMK. Currently thinking someone else's misclick. In which case fine then, moving on. I was thinking of my intermittent need for SMEs if the issue is why I am interested in this person. This last comment can be deleted once read if so desired. Elinruby (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Elinruby, You did nothing wrong. Seems like there was a fat-finger error (see page history) that rolled back your edit, quickly spotted and repaired by the alert Firefangledfeathers. 👏 👏
    Aarggh, missing sig: @Elinruby and Firefangledfeathers: Mathglot (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Just an admin gone rouge no biggie. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Just checking. Elinruby (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The proseline tagging conundrum

    edit

    I recently came across a pretty bad example of proseline at Uber § History and sought to tag it with a maintenance template for cleanup. Seeing that Template:Proseline still redirected to the unsuitable-for-the-situation {{Prose}}, and that there is no template listed at the essay, led me to the TfD in which you valiantly but ultimately unsuccessfully tried to clean up the mess.

    It seems to me that there is probably enough consensus among experienced editors that proseline is bad that it would be possible to create a dedicated proseline tag, which would suggest either turning the content into a list or rewriting it from a broader perspective with more natural language, with parameters that would allow the editor who placed it to optionally indicate a preferred fix approach. What would you think of this, and how would you say it'd affect the handling of the existing redirects? Cheers, Sdkbtalk 23:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Sdkb, thanks for raising this. I am interested, but am overloaded and cannot take lead on this just now. If you can and wish to, please do; I can maybe play an assisting role from time to time. Ping me the first time, and after that I'll be subscribed. One thing that had occurred to me back when, and I just now recalled, is that maybe new naming could help. I think the term proseline is not helpful, and could be part of the problem. The term prose timeline, while longer, seems much clearer, and less subject to confusion. Maybe that could be one ingredient to add to the cauldron. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:1977 anti-Tamil pogrom 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

      Done; declined. Mathglot (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Your understanding of WP:AVOIDYOU

    edit

    Look, I have pinged an admin to what I would call your most recent egregious accusations, but I would like to explain to you that simply referring to, describing, or questioning user conduct is not considered a personal attack. You do not seem to understand this, as in your aforementioned most recent accusations at my talkpage, you have outright said that me saying the fact you edited something causing a dispute is, in your mind, an attack. Civilly and openly discussing user behaviour when that is indeed relevant is not an attack, and I would like you to stop writing paragraphs at me every time this happens. Because unjustifiably accusing someone is an attack. Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

      Courtesy link: User talk:Kingsif § AGF at 3O: comment on content, not on the contributor
      Courtesy link: User talk:Kingsif § Template talk:Family name explanation (permalink)
      Courtesy link: Template talk:Family name explanation § Catalan name amended
      Courtesy link: Template talk:Family name explanation § Third opinion
    Thanks for the heads-up. Nothing I said was unjustified: it's justified either with diffs (e.g., here) or by quoting your comments (here). I stand by all of my comments, none of which were uncivil. There is already a pattern of this behavior from you; if I am unable to point it out on your Talk page, that leaves me little recourse if it keeps happening. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    (For the attempt to progress discussion, skip to the last paragraph.) Mate, you cannot just say "this comment (insert diff/quote) is uncivil" and say that makes it justified. Look, WP:AVOIDYOU even says that accusing people without reason is uncivil, and I can explain that - while your words may be polite, albeit with a tone I have already told you can seem arrogant, accusing someone can be intimidating and threatening, which is uncivil behaviour.
    Again, referring to another user's behaviour in a discussion is not by itself any kind of uncivil. I am truly sorry if I have made you feel attacked, but just judging by your responses, am I correct in assuming that you are just going by the letter of examples rather than anything else (i.e. you have read the guidance that commenting on user behaviour and too many "you"s is often an attack, and are just going off that)? Apologies if not, but I repeat: I have only referred to your behaviour when it has been relevant to discussion, either in attempting to prompt you towards useful discussion or to explain this to others.
    The only pattern of behaviour here is, as I noted, yourself not contributing to useful discussion. Is your repeated uncivil accusations towards me part of that? I will also note that you saying if I am unable to point it out on your Talk page, that leaves me little recourse if it keeps happening is a fundamental misunderstanding that there is nothing to point out, no need for recourse, and your 'pointing out' of perfectly valid references to your behaviour is what is really uncivil; it (the comment here quoted) is also a clear insinuation or threat towards further action, which is explicitly uncivil.
    Look, I have no problem with you, and I hope you have no problem with me. If either of us is meanly insinuating anything about the other, it is you, not I, but I also don't have much of an issue with that as I do not see it as a barrier to working together productively. So let's try and do that: I will outline how I see our editing dispute, on the positive presumption that my perspective has not been clear so far and that is why no progress has been made.
    In short, your combined original edit reason and first explanation gave me all the information I needed on why you did it. I then attempted - I think casually at first - to steer the thread towards discussing improvement options. I.e. while I believe it is clear the hatnote needs to mention i, I am not wedded to any particular phrasing and I can accept your premise in where the original can be improved upon. To each of my attempts, which ultimately became explicitly asking "what do you think of this potential phrasing", you simply repeated an explanation of your motivation for the original edit. This is why I had to refer so much to your behaviour: I hope you'll appreciate that not addressing the point so frequently can be considered disruptive. If it is now clear to you that this is a dispute between myself trying to find the best middle ground and yourself (if I have interpreted correctly) trying to preserve one phrasing, I hope you will want to find the middle ground with me, or at least be open to discussing options even if your preferred phrasing doesn't change. That is all I ask. Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Conflating Spanish and Catalan

    edit

    I don't know if this is relevant to other issues, but I am not here for that, these are totally unrelated notes. Based on edit reasons here and here, you seem to be conflating Spanish and Catalan in unhelpful ways. A word and convention in Catalan that does not exist in Spanish, will not necessarily be used in Spanish, so a Spanish search is as irrelevant as English in determining the commonality of something that is Catalan (besides common searches, again, being irrelevant to actual names - nobody is removing middle names because they are not commonly searched for). This message is to warn you of this mistake so that if you handle Catalan names in future it is not repeated.

    Of course, in the first of those edit reasons, the prevalence of simply [first name] [first surname] (i.e. Jordi Pujol) has been your explanation to remove the "i", though leaving "Soley" there (i.e. Jordi Pujol Soley). I don't know if this is a misunderstanding or what, but with a mind only to warn of potential mistakes so they are not repeated: one similarity Catalan bears to Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian even, is that most people are most often generally identified only with their first surname (including Pujol, hence he is referred to only as Pujol throughout the article) - not universal, especially in the case of more common names - and that this also doesn't mean the rest of their surname is any less real or important. The message here is that general news sources, for example, are likely to just use the first surname and that these should not be considered something like "evidence in absentia" to suggest there is no second surname or anything else. Kingsif (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Kingsif, thanks for providing a citation in this edit; now that it's sourced, I have no problem with it, and afaic, we're done. However, since you raised a question about conflation, let me set your mind at ease: I never conflate Catalan and Spanish and am well aware of the differences between the two (and to some extent even between Catalan and Valencian, although that is tricky and more sociopolitical than linguistic, imho). A searchable Google ngrams database is unfortunately not yet available for Catalan, and data from Spanish sources are the closest we have. By the way, there was a typo in my original ngrams link, and shortening the date range helps as it is pointless to show data from 1800 about Jordi Pujol; the results are no different in the corrected link but the story told by the data is easier to see: here; in sources Google identifies as Spanish there are about 50 times as many books that use "Jordi Pujol" as "Jordi Pujol i Soley". (A separate search shows that Google ngrams shows no data at all in Spanish sources for "Jordi Pujol y Soley" with a 'y', but they do have data that include the "i" term. Re-executing the search in English sources shows almost identical results.) So, no misunderstanding and no mistake, just going with the best sources available as far as the question about how he is referred to at home in Spain. A more detailed search among reliable web sources would help provide more data about that.
    I have a quibble, though; you said:
    revert misguided edit: most common English language google searches mean absolutely nothing in terms of what somebody's actual name is.
    I'm not sure what "actual name" is, did you mean "name in their native language"? We don't go by that at en-wiki; in fact, "most common in English" is how we determine the article title here, even if the title is different in their native language Wikipedia, or even how they call themself, so those google searches do mean something, to the extent that they reveal what the WP:COMMONNAME is, and "most common [in] English language" sources is at the heart of that. And for the article body, English sources are preferred.
    Other than the ngrams link above, a google books search for "Jordi Pujol" in any language shows results mostly in English (partly because of my IP address no doubt) and only a handful with a second surname, with or without the particle. The first Catalan result is #22, Culture - Issue 29: Jordi Pujol, que encapçala aquest projecte moderat en les formes però profundament in-novador en una nova concepció del que ha de ser l'estructura de l'Estat espanyol and an all-sources search in English shows a large predominance of just "Jordi Pujol" over the two-surname version, with or without the "i"; the point being that it's easy to see what he is called in English, and harder to get a clear result showing how he is referred to in running text in Spanish and Catalan.
    Nobody is suggesting that Pujol's full name in formal context in his native language be struck from the article; obviously that is relevant information for the first sentence or at least the first paragraph; such inclusion is de rigueur among biographies of foreign individuals (Xi Jin Ping, Viktor Orban, Carl Friedrich Gauss) even if they are almost never referred to in English by the name they are commonly known by at home, although we always include the native version early on, and that is as it should be. It is perfectly appropriate (and I would say, obligatory) to do so, cited of course, and all is well at that article now, afaic. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Mostly clear. As for your quibble about "actual name", I was meaning well, full legal name - and I did not mean in reference to the article title (hence no issue with the article title of Jordi Pujol) as that should be at the name most likely to be searched for. The edit referenced was not to the article title, of course: I think there is an issue if someone is suggesting (as it seemed) that a person's full name being less commonly searched for than the common name they are known by, means it should not be written in full in the opening paragraph. If that is not what your reason was suggesting, there's no problem. Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Kingsif, good, I'm glad we got there. At the risk of prolonging this (I surely hope not), the title is by no means the name most likely to be searched for, but the name most commonly used in English RSes. I'd need to check Wikipedia access logs (or Google Trends) to be sure, but very likely people search for Einstein and Gandhi (and Ghandi) and not the article title; what people search for is probably the #1 reason why we create redirects and disambig pages. Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Been busy for a while but, yeah, to not overexplain, I think you know what I meant when I said that - I hope, at least. "Searched for" as in looking for, like in a reference text, not search trends ;) Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bassirou Diomaye Faye 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    {{sfnref}}

    edit

    I found the discussion Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_92#Best_practices_for_a_full_citation_with_no_author,_when_linked_by_shortened_footnotes and realized I have no clue on the history of {{sfnref}}, and would appreciate your pointing me to a right direction in finding why it came to be.

    The automatically generated anchor in the case of having no "|author= " entry in the journal citation template defaults to CITEREFpublicationnameYEAR, so the reason for adding "|ref={{sfnref|anchorname|YEAR}}" may be to enable using a shorter anchorname in place of full publication name. But since the full publication name is automatically used without adding "|ref=", wouldn't it be better to abolish {{sfnref}} and make "|ref=" do what "|ref={{sfnref}}" does now? In other words, isn't "|ref=anchorname(YEAR)" (which does not work now) much better than "|ref={{sfnref|anchorname|YEAR}}" because it's shorter and with one less template to do the same thing?

    This may well come from my total lack of knowledge on the history of the sfnref template, and my question may be re-worded as: "when is |ref= used without a {{sfnref}}?" As far as I can tell, the answer to this question may be "when anchorname is in the form CITEREFanchornameYEAR" which, in my mind, is not a good practice (or is it?). Yiba (talk | contribs) 08:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yiba, not sure if I'm the best person to give a history of {{sfnref}} (a.k.a., {{harvid}} ), even if I have participated in some of the discussions about it. Also, others more familiar with it may have helpful comments for you, but no one will see your question here. I suggest you move or re-post your comment at a more apt venue, perhaps Template talk:SfnRef—although that is a slow-moving page—so something more central like Module talk:Footnotes might be better, as that is where {{SfnRef}} is implemented. If you do start a new discussion, please {{ping}} me to it, and some of the other participants like Rjjiii and Redrose64 as well. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you very much.Yiba (talk | contribs) 00:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Template:Cite journal/doc

    edit

    Hi Mathglot, thank you again for your support in the discussion on Module talk:Footnotes. Given what we just discussed there, could you re-visit and examine the revert you did on my edit on Template:Cite journal/doc on 24 March? I now realize I worded the description on my edit very badly/wrongly, and that I should have used {{SfnRef}} in the example. But otherwise what I did on the page, I feel, is basically in line with the result of that talk:Footnotes discussion, and hope you'll see that too, if you revert the revert (with or without saving). If you still stand by your revert, we could discuss further here. If not, we could move to its talk page and discuss how to improve the doc further with my edit as the base. Yiba (talk | contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Please follow up at the link. Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Possible splitting help

    edit

    I believe anal fingering should have its own article split from Fingering (sexual act) as anal fingering comes with its own techniques and risks. Do I have to be patient when it comes to consensus? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Autisticeditor 20, At 17kb and only 673 prose words, I think it is way below the normal threshold for a WP:SIZESPLIT. In particular, "own techniques and risks" is not mentioned as a reason for a split afaik, and your split proposal should quote or link reasons from the WP:SPLIT guideline about why your proposal is a good idea. You can, and have, proposed it on the Talk page, which is the right way to do it. At this point, imho you are right to be patient, and I would avoid making a unilateral split unless you gain consensus for it. Thanks for asking, and good luck! Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you very much. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Busy

    edit

    Queen of Sheba y did you unadd

    edit

    In the Quran, Queen Sheba is mentioned in Surah An-Naml (27:22-44). While the Quran does not explicitly state that she was from Yemen, it describes her kingdom as being wealthy and powerful. Scholars have interpreted these descriptions as indicative of the legendary kingdom of Sheba, which was believed to have been located in the region of modern-day Yemen.As for the Bible, Queen Sheba's visit to King Solomon is described in the First Book of Kings (1 Kings 10:1-13) and the Second Book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 9:1-12). These passages depict Queen Sheba bringing gifts of spices, gold, and precious stones to King Solomon, suggesting the wealth and prosperity of her kingdom. Based on these accounts and historical interpretations, scholars widely associate Queen Sheba with the region of Yemen. KnowledgeSeeker899 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Closing br tags is no longer needed

    edit

    This sort of edit is no longer necessary, thank goodness. The syntax highlighter works fine with unclosed br tags now if you add this code to your .js file. The change has been a boon for my gnoming workflows. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    @Jonesey95: thanks for this really worthwhile tip! It will be a boon to mine, as well. Mathglot (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    On GNG/SNG

    edit

    For your reference, there has been extended discussion of the relationship between SNGs and GNG at the WP:N talk page, including the pre-RfC discussion in this archive that led to the well attended RfC here that produced the current text of WP:SNG. Consensus can certainly change (and probably will, at some point), but any such change ought to receive as wide consultation (and preferably as much thought) as the last such revision, I think. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, no doubt; thanks. Too bad I missed that one. I'm starting to think that the locus of the problem I'm perceiving has something to do with the inconsistent use of the word presumption at the main page and at the SNGs, where the former clearly lays out "sources" as the basis of presumption, while the latter talk about reviews, prizes, college courses and so on, without mentioning sources, making N seem like an either-or. And in the end "presumption" is what it is, and should be seen as an evaluation process or time-management tip, and not a criterion for N which is significant coverage in reliable sources, and is not watered down by presumptions that turn out to be wrong in a given case. I probably need to think about this some more. Thanks again for the links. Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    One lesson I took from those discussions is about "presumptions", and one is about sources. The word "presumption" is indeed used in two ways in notability guidelines: sometimes as a presumption of having an article (direct presumption), and sometimes as a presumption that sourcing exists (an indirect presumption, since it is a predictor of a presumption of having an article rather than a direct presumption of same). I ended up not being sure how important this ambiguity actually is, though, because no degree of sourcing, no matter how strong, offers more than a rebuttable presumption of a standalone article. Indirect presumptions can be rebutted at either of two steps while direct presumptions can only be rebutted at the final page decision, but again I'm unsure of the salience of the difference.
    On sources, what I learned is the real salience of the distinction between WP:V reliable sources and SIGCOV reliable sources. The way many SNGs work at present, a WP:V RS that back a claim to significance (like a Nobel prize in Economics) is sufficient to trigger the presumption of an article even when "solid" GNG sourcing is unavailable. The fact is that editors cannot agree about what is actually required to satisfy GNG, as illustrated in a long, (and inconclusive) discussion last year about the number and depth of sources needed. Some editors think it is fine for GNG to be somewhat ambiguous and flexible, as it can then handle more cases more adroitly. Other editors want GNG to offer more robust universal rules about sources (i.e., SIGCOV, which is the yardstick for GNG sourcing), in which case there are more obvious "exceptions" needed to GNG (which is the way many editors interpret PROF - as an exception). The tension between "one source standard for all notability decisions" and "WP:V is enough in certain contexts" is real, and having sat through many discussions of this I can't predict it being resolved any time soon. I'm actually not certain that "resolution" would even benefit the encyclopaedia... Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks very much for this additional detail, and your insights on them. I suspect this point may be key:

    The fact is that editors cannot agree about what is actually required to satisfy GNG

    and I need to follow up on those archives, and think about it some more. Meanwhile, David Eppstein made a good comment at the discussion, and I need to think about that, too. And regarding "resolution" not being a benefit, you may have a point there; maybe this is a "fuzzy logic" situation. Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Since I was pinged here, one other point: my understanding of the word "presumption", as used in notability guidelines, is that the real test is what happens in an AfD, and anything else in the guideline can be used to guide the outcome of an AfD but is not itself determinative. So GNG provides a presumption of notability, not notability itself. If a topic appears to pass GNG, because there are multiple sources which appear to be in-depth, independent, reliably published, etc., it may still turn out to be non-notable, for instance because AfD participants come to a consensus that the sources were not as reliable as they initially appeared, or because they determine it fails some part of WP:NOT despite the sourcing. "Presumption" does not really mean that we'll let GNG override; it means that we'll let editor consensus override. This is true of all notability guidelines, SNG and GNG. Some SNGs do let GNG override. Some SNGs (such as NPROF) do not, but do also allow some topics to be considered GNG-notable even when they do not pass the SNG. And some SNGs (such as NORG) are strengthenings of GNG, and do not allow GNG to override that strengthening. Regardless, they are still rules that require interpretation, that interpretation might be mistaken, and an AfD provides the forum for straightening out any such mistakes. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "Notability" is a mess, and it's always going to be a mess, because there's no way to answer the question "Does this deserve an encyclopedia article?" in a few bullet points — not when the domain of the encyclopedia covers all human history. If we took the GNG out of the page where it lives now and elevated it to a policy, a new rule at the level of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, we'd still have to develop more and more sub-pages to clarify what is "routine" or "substantial" in each topic area. ("Man, [Wikipedia] has all these crazy social rules. They just create drama." "Let's agree to change them, and make [Wikipedia] simple!" [3]) XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Ancien Regime

    edit

    With ref to your recent edit to the History of France..

    Oups! .. I misread your edit. Carry on as you were! Scarabocchio (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Vichy France during the Liberation of France

    edit

    Many members of the Milice were captured during the liberation of france. Some were even executed. Other Vichy French involvement includes the withdrawal to a government in exile and anti partisan actions Salfanto (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Salfanto, I’d be happy to discuss at the article talk page. This is not the place. Mathglot (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Djong (ship) 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mukokuseki 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Concern regarding Draft:Brazilian criminal justice

    edit

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

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

    Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I'm so sorry

    edit

    I thought I was on your user page and I was crying. I will miss that courtly and unflappable old man, whom I just assumed was immortal. Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff would never have happened without him, not to mention all the rest of it. It is some comfort that the last entry on his memorialized user page is the Teamwork barnstar I gave him. So at least I told him so.

    I will fix the draft talk page shortly.

    A very fast answer to your question is that there is no lede to speak of. And the topic is huge,

    How long do you have?

    It is very sketchy in places. Those places are however those that will be the easiest to fill in, I think, given a little concentration, like the structure of the judiciary. I copied it off to my sandbox, but come to think of it, doesn't the clock reset if I just edit it? I will make sure I do something over there tonight. As I recall I was supposed to working on this, and one shiny object led to another. Oops. I am sorry. 05:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Elinruby Yes, if you edit, the clock resets, but then no more warnings five months later. But if we can get it to pass a minimum bar, we can just release it and then let anybody improve it. P.S. Who are we sorry about, did something happen to Paolo? Mathglot (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    He died. I am sorry I reacted on the draft talk page. I doubt that it would get through AfD as is. Not that we use them, but as a metric. Possibly in the next month. Elinruby (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:PauloMSimoes Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Wow, didn't know that. Mathglot (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    me either Elinruby (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    OK! Draft has been edited

    edit

    Just once so far but it's a pretty good, substantive and referenced edit. I have a couple of tabs open and will see what else I can do. I am trying to get Algiers out of my hair, tho. Should I go ahead and write an Agriculture section? Elinruby (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Elin, Yeah, go ahead, and sorry for being AWOL on that one. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oops, reping: User:Elinruby; yeah, I never did get back to R. of Algiers; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    OK good, actually, I was just looking for something I could do without edit conflicts and eyeing that section. We all desperately want to finish this and get it out of our hair. It is considerably better mind you Elinruby (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    that link from the Porsecutor's office is intended for lawyers. Will take research but is definitely a serious source Elinruby (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Diamond.xza

    edit

    Diamond.xza (talk · contribs) made a bunch of bad edits. I have reverted the most recent 2. Can you revert the rest (where necessary)? Thanks in advance, Polygnotus (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Thank you

    edit

    Thank you so much for your input. I'm immensely grateful. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Since you banned me from your Talk page I'll respond here

    edit

    Polygnotus, I raised the discussion § CIVIL behavior is policy at your Talk page because of the unacceptable harrassment of another user at their Talk page. Since you chose to leave your reply up for less than a minute before deleting the entire thread (diff) and banned me from your page, I'll reply here, instead. In your reply (diff), you said:

    Copy of your reply originally at User talk:Polygnotus#CIVIL behavior is policy:
    Falsely accusing someone is not allowed. Stirring up shit when both parties have moved on is not a good strategy. Both you and Ian have been uncivil to me. What to you is rude is clearly not rude to me and vice versa. Please, in the future, stay off my talkpage. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk)

    You are absolutely right that falsely accusing someone is not allowed. However, it is entirely false that either I or Ian has been uncivil to you, as anyone who follows the discussion will be able to see with their own eyes. Your hypocrisy and gall was clear in your final comment at the discussion, where, after your repeated rudeness and false accusations towards Ian, you signed off with this flourish:

    An incredibly disappointing response. If you want to contact me again you should apologize first. Polygnotus (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

    Because you appear to be recalcitrant and as far as I can tell, either unable or unwilling to take on board the requirements of WP:CIVILITY policy, I feel I must quote my last statement from the deleted discussion back to you, so you may consider it:

    Your behavior at Ian's page is not okay, it is WP:DISRUPTIVE of good order and smooth functioning of Wikipedia, and it is a violation of core behavioral policy as listed under the Five pillars of Wikipedia. I am here to tell you that if you repeat this pattern of behavior you may be subject to sanctions, including suspension of your editing privileges.

    Polygnotus, please take this warning seriously. Because you have banned me from your Talk page, I am unable to give you any further advice or warnings privately, if I observe a further pattern of WP:UNCIVIL behavior on your part. My only recourse at that point will be to raise a discussion about you at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. There, neutral and uninvolved administrators will take over and sort out the situation. Hopefully, this wake-up call will be enough to forestall that eventuality. I wish you the best of luck. (You are still welcome to respond here at my Talk page if you wish.) Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I do not want to "ban" you from anything and I do not have that power. Just give me some time. I wish I could let you borrow my brain for a minute. From my point of view, the way you are going about this is basically the opposite of what you should do. We seem to be living in mirrored realities because from my perspective I should be reminding you of WP:CIVIL. If you are truly curious to understand a radically different perspective I can explain it in detail at some point in time. Just not now. Maybe next week, when we had some time to cool off. For now, lets just agree to disagree and move on. Polygnotus (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) Polygnotus, actually, you do have that power. If you want to rescind the ban, you can, but you would have to say so. I'm sorry, but the way I go about things here is based entirely on my interpretation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, irrespective of what your opinion may be about what I should do; it's nothing personal. Thanks, I'll stick with my own brain. Sure, I'm happy to "move on", whatever that may mean; the time I've spent dealing with you is time lost from improving Wikipedia. Still, it's worth it if it protects good and civil order at the encyclopedia, and if it helps retain you as a productive editor; despite whatever you may think, I'm trying to guide you onto the right path so you don't get blocked. Please consider what you've read going forward, so you don't. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    One of the worst, and most painful, lessons I learned is that there are multiple contradicting realities that can coexist at the same time. My offer stands, I am happy to explain things to you, and if you do a goodfaithed attempt to understand and if I do a goodfaithed attempt to explain I am sure you will understand my POV (although you still would not agree with it; at least you would understand it, it is not complicated at all). It is a legal and safe way to experience a reality different than your own. Luckily we've started communicating better. I know that you are trying to guide me onto the right path. But in my reality, that is silly. In your reality it would be silly if I tried the same with you. For the record I am not a spiritual person at all and I am not talking about a multiverse. You are not banned from my talkpage. I just needed some time to collect my thoughts. Basing your way of life on a single set of documents is dangerous whether it is a religious book, the Wikipedia PAGs or the constitution. Certainty is the enemy of growth. Good luck, Polygnotus (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) Polygnotus, although in RL I enjoy a free-ranging conversation including maybe even "multiple realities" as much as the next person, here that is getting a bit far afield. Be that as it may, at any Wikimedia project, we are bound by the Wikimedia Terms of use (linked just above the "Publish" button every time you save an edit); that is not optional and has no exceptions. Beyond that, here at English Wikipedia we are subject to all of English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which can be quite different from those at other Wikipedias—another type of "multiple realities" if you like, and one of them might be more in line with the way you view things.
    So, while you consider your reality, my reality, and other realities, please keep in mind that this is the reality of English Wikipedia, therefore you must adapt to the English Wikipedia rules if you want to edit here, regardless what your reality is. Can't make up your own rules or play Australian rules football when you're playing on a Premier League pitch, right? Same thing here; while your view of reality might be an interesting one worth exploring, it won't help you here, unless you learn to adapt to English Wikipedia rules. It's either that, or face eventual banishment; nothing personal, it's just playing by the rules of the game. I'm willing to help, if there is anything in particular you do not understand, and the Wikipedia:Help desk is open to you for any questions about editing Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If you want to understand, ask me in a week or so and I will explain. We might be able to add something to TPS about not fanning flames. For now, I am going to focus on other things. Good luck, Polygnotus (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Insight Crime

    edit

    Did I ever point this site out to you? I was skeptical of it at first, but it's been around a while and is quite well-regarded. I first encountered in my Panama Papers period. Focuses on crime in Latin America [4] Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    [5][6][7] Elinruby (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    ICIJ story on deforestation mentiones Brazil [8]
    also seems worth a look [9][10][11][12][13]

    I got on a roll here, will stop now. Copying this to my sandbox; if you want to move this elsewhere that would be fine with me. Elinruby (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Elinruby, no, it's good; I just used Insight at Draft:Brazilian criminal justice#Current outlook, and will have further use for it. Good source, thanks for passing it along. And the Wilson Center is a great resource; I get a newsletter from them; I should go check out old copies or see if they are all online. Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ok. Clicking around. Not going to be doing anything in-depth today, but looking at sources with an emphasis on explainers in english Elinruby (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    getting a lot of hits about corruption and police killings and gangs. We're trying to write about structure here though right? As in, how it works in theory? Elinruby (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Elinruby, if you mean at the Draft, yeah, basically from the title "criminal justice" it does kind of imply the system itself, and not the state of crime, which more properly belongs at the Crime in Brazil article (which certainly could use improvement, if you want to avoid edit conflicts completeley). However, in order not to enforce an artificial separation or isolation to keep the Draft antiseptically theoretical and completely divorced from any actual bad guys or evil acts, I have included a brief, § Current outlook section at the top, and thats where I added something from InsightCrime about criminal gangs. But most of the crime story doesnt belong here, but at the other article. Actually, I had run into those gangs before at the Draft, and they are already in the section on § Organized crime laws, but probably the gang info from there should be moved up to § Current outlook. And don't forget the Brazil Glossary. Mathglot (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Elinruby, Also, there's a new navbox draft:

    It's all red links except for one, so if any translations tempt you there, feel free to go for it. (Thirteen of the red links don't exist at pt-wiki either, so nothing to translate for those ones.) Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    AfC reviewing instructions

    edit

    Hi Mathglot, I reverted you change to the reviewing instructions for a couple reasons. One because of your edit summary stating "Translated drafts lacking required attribution are being approved at AFC contrary to Wikimedia's Terms of Use, and this cannot continue." If this is an issue it needs to be brought to AfC's attention with a couple examples if possible. To be honest, I am sure how to tell a draft is a translation from a sister project other than suspicion so at least for me personally, tips will be helpful and likely for others as well. You don't get in the Interlanguage links in draft like you do with articles. The other is because such an expansive statement is not even in WP:NPP instructions so I think maybe a sentence about it might be due but others might have a different opinion. You are right to point it out but let's have discussion about it at WT:AFC. S0091 (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    S0091 Our messages crossed. What do you want to do now? Most of the time it is obvious from the very first sentence, which translated word for word from the original, but not 100% of the time. An identical or highly overlapping set of References, many in a foreign language, is another giveaway. There's more, but those are two big hints. Sometimes they even say it is a translation, but don't attribute it, and that is proof positive (but doesn't happen too often). Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Please start a discussion at WT:AFC. If this a chronic issue, reviewers need to know and only updating the instructions is not the best way the get the message across. S0091 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    S0091, really? Don't they read the instructions, then? Okay, if you say so, I'll start a discussion. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    New/new-ish reviewers I hope do but I doubt experienced reviewers check the instructions on a regular basis, if at all. I have also noted when editors request the WP:NPR perm or WP:AFC pseudo-perm (or any other perm for that matter) there is no confirmation the requestor has actually read the instructions or relevant policy/guideline. Some state they have but if they don't, it does not preclude them from getting the perm. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ S0091 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    S0091, Got it; that makes sense, given human nature. Maybe we should have a RTFM button on the page somewhere  . P.S. Just added a section at Talk, as requested. Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:True North Centre for Public Policy 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Make it make sense: The example of Jean Bergeret at Template:Vichy France

    edit

    It shows up on a list of erroneous ILLs (Wikipedia:Database_reports/Interlanguage_link_templates_need_to_fix)(I know you didn't do this). I tried the force parameter, which does not work as advertised. Display does but by Gog apparently we are going to link to that 18th century doctor no matter how irrelevant he is.

    Apparently that is how things work now.

    There is a back story to this involving Regency of Algiers and a Tunisian football player, but I'll spare you. This is a much better example of the problem with assuming that any failure to link to the English article is clearly an error IMHO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talkcontribs) 01:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Elinruby   Done. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    OK. So we need to just do a manual work around in each instance, huh. Did you do the others? If not I will. It is the sort of short task I need today Elinruby (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Elinruby No, just that one. I'm in theory working on Draft:Brazilian criminal justice, which is much better than it was, but I've hit a pause, in order to add a lot of terms to WP:Brazil-G, upon which the expansion of the Draft depends. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    ok. Maybe I will help with that in a while. Need to do something else for a bit I think. Strong urge to bite. Maybe a nap. Elinruby (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I need help!

    edit

    On the Vagina article, there are unremoveable letters in capitalized text that says "User:CheezDeez ON TOP". I need your help to fix this, please! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I assume this got fixed? Elinruby (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Elinruby, I see nothing like that, and I think that must've been something in his browser (maybe even hacked, or an exploit attaching ads or links to his browser page views), or skin, or something. I don't see anything like that on the article, either in desktop mode, or using a mobile device. If you do see something suspicious, please follow up below. Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I didn't, but let me take a closer look. Maybe a recent changes patroller got it. Elinruby (talk)
    If it was ever there it got revdelled. Which is possible. Is this one of your mentees? Elinruby (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Elinruby, kind of, but not an official one. I try to help him when I can. He's come close to being blocked a couple of times, but I've rescued him from the brink (I think). At least one other editor is bothered by the contribution list heavy with topics related to sexuality, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest, and if that's the topic area where they want to contribute, it's a volunteer project, so I'm fine with it as long as he's operating within guidelines, which usually he is. Every now and again, I post something at his UTP to keep him on the straight and narrow. He often apologizes profusely (unnecessarily so) and it's clear he really wants to improve the encyclopedia, and doesn't always know the best way to do that. He is usually very responsive to advice or gentle proscription. I'm glad to have him here contributing, and if I can help, I'm happy to do it. As far as revdels, they don't disappear without a trace, but are visible as strikeouts in the revision history, and I don't think that has happened. He's a net positive for the project, and I'm happy to have him around; the little mistakes here and there are not serious, and can be dealt with. Most of all, he learns from mistakes, and generally will not repeat them, once he has been advised of the expected behavior. Mathglot (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    (ec)That wasn't wasn't condemnation, just a conclusion I drew from the fact that they asked here. Stuff at talk page indicates he was splitting the article and got some admin attention. I did not go through his edits. If nothing is on fire I am happy. I will need to de-orphan my conman later, too tired for Newspapers.com right now. The only prospect I see for de-orphaning at the moment is a lieutenant-governor of Alberta and before I say he got bilked out of a bunch of money I want a closer source than a St Louis newspaper. Will take a quick look at Brazilian criminal gangs before I go to sleep. Don't know if you noticed I was looking at Tres Fronteras again? Elinruby (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Elinruby, Sure, np; I got that. By the way, I made an assertion above about revdels always being visible in the rev history, and now I wonder if was correct about that. You might want to follow WP:VPT#Stealth revdel. Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    fwiw there is an editor named Cheezdeez who is blocked. For socking Elinruby (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For the record, this was template vandalism, specifically to the {{Literal_translation}} template, which is used on the page. The vandal edit is still visible in the edit history there. Writ Keeper  13:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Aha thank you. Another admin said something like that but I did not understand. Looking now. Elinruby (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ah that makes sense. Looks like that vandal got indeffed and their couple dozen vandalized templates quickly reverted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    fyi Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Carillon Elinruby (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Misbehaving sfn if you have a minute, plus you may enjoy the project

    edit

    I found this while wondering what else they have lists for and found this under articles with a wierdly large number of maintenance templates. Mira. The things some people think are not notable. In any event I am bugging you because why won't Bacon in the bibliography play nice for me? The stuff under references I inherited and plan to convert to sfns or delete. It still has a prod template because I was using the links, if you are wondering. And why? Time spent in Corralitos and Salinas, mostly. I probably talked to someone affected once. This is notable bullshit that only affects about a million people and I am about to reference that per the Guardian. Because I very easily can and therefore probably should. I'll be done in a couple three hours, this isn't Regency of Algiers. I'd ask the help desk but I keep getting blank looks over there. Elinruby (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    so whatever I did wrong, I did it with the Huang reference also still not seeing it. They are both cite web but there are others there that work? Don't sweat this if you are busy. I am sure it will be blinding obvious sooner or later, and all I had to do was show notability by three day from now and I am ridiculously far past that. You might like a link however. Elinruby (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    FOUND IT! one was a weird date format and the other was a "[" masquerading as a "|" Elinruby (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Glad you got it! Mathglot (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's cute that I thought that this would take three hours but I think I basically am done now. If at some point in the near future you have a few moments, I could use an assessment of how well I have explained to the casual reader that, for example:
    • Parajo Valley = Watsonville + Parajo
    • why this was *not* a court case and was not allowed to be a court case.
    Also, I think the whole thing is objectively outrageous, but maybe it isn't immediately obvious that these guys crawl on carcinogenic earth then carry the toxins home on their clothes and either hug their kids or pay $800 a month to sleep six or seven men to a garden shed...hmph. But RGW, I know. And I can't figure out a better infobox than the "court case" that was there, even though it wasn't one.
    If busy, no worries. Nothing is on fire. Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Actually I found some even more outrageous stuff and decided to add it. So I don't really need an opinion on whether more text is needed, because it's definitely going to happen. If you have a bright idea about the infobox, I'd love to hear it. The helpdesk tends to be confused by my questions, and yeah, it's kind of wierd that people aren't allowed to sue, but I would rather not get bogged down in that like we did last time over whether or not a Tunisian football player was running Algiers in 1725. But there is still nothing on fire. Elinruby (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of best-selling Sega Dreamcast games 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Not interested. Mathglot (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    "Javier Zaruski"

    edit

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


    Hi, have you any idea how to get the article checked by someone? thank you Medianextgen (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Medianextgen, if you are ready to have Draft:Javier Zaruski checked by someone, then please add
    {{AfC submission}}
    to the top line of the Draft. This will submit it to WP:AFC. After that, be patient; everyone here is a volunteer, and there is a backlog. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Looks like you submitted in December, got a decline along with some good feedback, and that you removed the AFC header after that. If you believe you have now answered the feedback from the decline, you can resubmit it. Check with the folks there, but I think you are supposed to leave the decline banner there while you work on it, so the next reviewer doesn't have to start from scratch, and can compare your improvements to the problems that were identified earlier. Not having the previous reason for the decline present, may impede approval of your draft. Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So basically what I did, was to add more references and secondary sources. that was the reason it got declined, but after 5 month of doing that I still didn't have a review, so where exactly should I add the
    {{AfC submission}}
    Medianextgen (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe at the top line of your Draft, as I mentioned above. But let's find out from the people who really know about this stuff: I'm continuing this at AFC; please follow the link and watch for replies there. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Thank you for the correction.

    edit

    My bad about the word people not having plural - I honestly never heard "peoples" and thought that "people" was just the unspecified amount (but plural) of "person". Thank you though, and again, my bad! OneShot-Niko (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Editor experience invitation

    edit

    Hi Mathglot :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Hi, Clovermoss. See here. Mathglot (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm so sorry. I have a document I've been using to keep track of who I've asked/who've participated on their volition and I messed up on this. My first mistake inspired the list. Again, so sorry I messed up here. Fortunately it's only happened twice - I hope to not make the same mistake again. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Clovermoss, really, don't worry; nothing to apologize for. Have you thought about what you might do with the results ? Mathglot (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This is the most recent discussion I had about all this. I've recently considered maybe making a summary style of recurring themes someday if no one else does. Like "x people mentioned they found it difficult on a mobile device" or "y people mentioned that it took them year(s) to really be active on the site" etc. I'm a bit undecided as to the usefulness of it but some people would probably find it interesting. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Clovermoss, I've dabbled in statistics, but not enough to advise. However, we have a WP:WikiProject Statistics, and you might consider posting a kind of open-ended question asking for brainstorming or ideas of how folks over there might approach extracting some kind of useful information from your data. Mathglot (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel–Hamas war 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Pakistan

    edit

    Suddenly, a few references have begun causing me trouble, and I can't pinpoint the issue. Other references, which are similarly defined, are functioning properly, but references 41, 62, and 74 are generating errors. Could you please take a look? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    SheriffIsInTown, should be fixed, now. Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Your draft article, Draft:Template:FAC archive navigator

    edit
     

    Hello, Mathglot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Template:FAC archive navigator".

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

    Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Military criminal code

    edit

    it's still pretty crude but I think I found the important point -- this is a problem for Brazil with international agencies because its effect is that the police are never prosecuted, and violations of human rights under the military regime were never punished. I am not sure I made all that clear. I will try to come back to it. Elinruby (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Elinruby Sounds interesting. Should probably link to it and maybe have a brief section on it at Draft:Brazilian criminal justice, as the military code would be in scope. Learning a ton, but had to take a big detour and beef up the glossary; a bunch of key terms have tricky names for an English person to understand and generate tons of mistranslations all over. Took me a while to understand fato penal, fato típico, tipicidade and related terms, but I’ve got it now. (See WP:Brazil-G.) That held up the Draft for a while and now I’ll be away for a bit (this is my first edit from 40,000 feet) but I’m eager to release it, hopefully by the end of July. Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is also a separate Amnesty Law that should be mentioned but Human Rights Watch and an OAS agency are quite clear that cases involving the military and military police go to a separate military court and die there. Btw in my sandbox: 1830 Penal code and er, I think the other two are Mining and Forestry. Translated but not ready for en-wiki Elinruby (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    re the above, also an early electoral code, looks routine. First mention on political parties is its claim to fame. All this in the main sandbox, in case you need to know that. Came back to mention that "Philippine ordinances seems" to be a missing article. Nothing to do with the island chain -- this is 16th-century colonial law under Philip II of Spain, who was king of Portugal at the time. There are some other ordinances, one set of which has an article whose name I don't recall. Don't sweat this, but please note any sources you may encounter. Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Elinruby I guess you saw the {{ill}} red link to Philippine ordinances in the Draft? It’s in section 'Colonial period (1500–1822)' but pt-wiki and fr-wiki both have an article on it, in case you want to check if the French one is worth translating. There is also the Alfonsine ordinances, linked in the same section. Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, I hadn't noticed that yet. It isn't linked from the Portuguese 1830 code article and I hadn't been looking at this while I was working on Angelita and Regency of Algiers. I will check that out. Elinruby (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    l'air de rien: [14] Elinruby (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Almería 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Nomination for deletion of Template:Lorem ipsum/P1

    edit

     Template:Lorem ipsum/P1 and others have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mughal Empire 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Your draft article, Draft:French historiography

    edit
     

    Hello, Mathglot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "French historiography".

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

    Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. plicit 00:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Light skin 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:FCSB 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox political party 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Greta Gerwig 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alexander the Great and Talk:Let Her Burn on "All RFCs" request for comments. 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:9t5 User Page Contest 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

    edit
     

    Your feedback is requested at Talk:Battle of Kosovo 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good closure

    edit

    Thanks so much for closing that time sink. Anytime that editor gets involved, the bytes explode, and the confusion grows. My eyes glaze over. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Adding categories that should only refer to known events, not mythical or speculative

    edit

    I'm referring to the Ancient seafaring category. There are other similar ones I've noticed. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Apparently in connection to this revert at Phoenician Ship Expedition. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hi, Doug. I can't find Category:Ancient seafaring; is template {{Ancient seafaring}} populating it? What category are we talking about? Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Turns out it is the template. But it’s still wrong for that article.Ok for say Noah’s Ark. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hi, Doug. In order to allow others to weigh in if they wish, I have replied at the [[Talk page of the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Many apologies. I forgot to say I took this to rsn, better to respond there as it’s a more general issue. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Related discussion: WP:FTN § Should categories such as "Ancient seafaring" "Transport in Phoenicia" , be used for non-historical voyages

    Nomination for deletion of Template:User18

    edit

     Template:User18 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    English translation of some French movie reviews

    edit

    Hi, I saw your name at WP:TRLA and thought you might be available for translation. Would you mind translating the following French reviews: Le Monde, Premiere fr, Le Parisien? They're for Infested, which I nominated and expanded for WP:DYK and was later approved; though I might be asked to expand on how the movie was received in France; guidelines recommend that I do so, anyway. I would really appreciate it, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, I do sometimes do translations from French, but that applies mostly to articles on French Wikipedia destined for creation on English Wikipedia. I wouldn't normally translate an external source, such as any of the reviews you link. However, machine translation is now at a point where it's good enough, especially for certain languages like French, to do a good enough job that the meaning is clear in most cases.
    So, I would suggest that you just try your favorite online translator, it's fast, easy, and you don't have to wait for some editor to respond to you. On the other hand, machine translations, although often very good, are not perfect, and they sometimes screw up rather badly, especially in areas where there just isn't a lot of discussion in English about some foreign topic. I ran into this recently regarding a term from Brazilian law which is almost always translated wrong, so you do have to watch for that sort of thing, but you are unlikely to run into that in a book review, unless the book is about some really arcane topic and the book review quotes some of the technical jargon.
    So, go ahead and try online translation, and if there is anything that looks off, or just doesn't make sense to you, feel free to come back here and ask me about it. I don't mind translating a phrase or a particularly strange sentence if you run into a problem, it's just that it doesn't make sense to translate a whole external article anymore when automatic translation does such a good job on average these days. Out of curiosity, for what Wikipedia article do you need these book reviews? Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply