Open main menu

My editing tips.


Please comment on Talk:George GallowayEdit

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

Ref: Constitutional democracy/Draft proposalEdit

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

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

Improvement/Correction Proposal of WP Article "Types of democracy"Edit

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:United StatesEdit

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

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

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

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

Archiving important documentationEdit

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

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

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

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

An update maybeEdit

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject GeographyEdit

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

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

You're rightEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:EgyptEdit

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

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

MGTOW Levels editEdit

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

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

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

Re: Demographic TablesEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:GreeceEdit

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

Sandy Stone (artist)Edit

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

Environment and sexual orientation articleEdit

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

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


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

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

Please comment on Talk:Saudi ArabiaEdit

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

Bay Area WikiSalon invitation for September 26!Edit

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

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

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

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

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

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

Fadel Al-AboudEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Flag of AustraliaEdit

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

Last call for RSVPs for Wednesday eveningEdit

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 28Edit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:United Daughters of the ConfederacyEdit

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

Your thread has been archivedEdit


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

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

Chaz BonoEdit

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Oscar López RiveraEdit

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

Avetik Chalabyan article up for deletionEdit

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

Thanks in advance for your attention to the matter.

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

Editing other contributors' commentsEdit

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about countiesEdit


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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Xinjiang conflictEdit

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

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

Comments at Talk:Sciences PoEdit

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

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

Christianity and antisemitism‎Edit

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

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


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

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

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

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

Lodi GyariEdit

Hi Mathglot, Here is I think Lodi Gyari :

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

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

Many thanks!Edit

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


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

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

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

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


Hello, Mathglot. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Mathglot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

PC review accept commentEdit

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

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

OR at Roman diocese and editor adding itEdit

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

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

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

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

Roman DioceseEdit

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

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

Roman DioceseEdit

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

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

Roman DioceseEdit

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

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

Roman DioceseEdit

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

A Barnstar for you!Edit

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

Editing Shroud of TurinEdit


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

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

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

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

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

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

About the edit on the "LGBT" Rights in Sri LankaEdit

Dear @mathglot,

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

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

About the edit on List of constituencies of Uttar Pradesh Legislative AssemblyEdit

You are writing that these all edits done by me are unsourced. These all edits are not unsourced dear, I am doing this because I live here and for your confirmation , I give you the sources from where I am doing changes-

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

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

Genderism ChangeEdit

Hello Mathlot,

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

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

Gender dysphoriaEdit

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

You are cordially invited to Stanford University to celebrate Wikipedia's birthdayEdit

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

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

Details and RSVP here • register here

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


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

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

Question about TalkEdit

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

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

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

A belated thank youEdit

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

Thank youEdit

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

Removing categorization parameter from InfoboxEdit

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

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


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

Thanks for reaching outEdit

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

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


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

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


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

Sources regarding Hitlers forgotten libraryEdit

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

Some other sources: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellarsson (talkcontribs) 09:26, January 26, 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have ...Edit

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

Cannabis deschedulingEdit

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

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

Genderism/Binaryism ProposalsEdit

Thanks for the kind note on my talk page.

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



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

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

RE: Discussion: invalid dataEdit

Hey Mathglot,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't blame me for anon edits.Edit

This edit was made by "", not me: Thanks, A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

About changing on page List of sitting judges of High Courts of IndiaEdit

All the sources are given in the page. What is your problem, you always undo my edits whether all the sources are given in page. If you can't find the source, it's your fault. See all the sources and check whether it is correct or not. I am giving you the links one more time-
Here you can see changes in judiciary monthly-
See recent changes in this page-

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:AchzivEdit

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World RallyEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and IrelandEdit

Nomination of Lisa Littman for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Littman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Littman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safrolic (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Country data New CaledoniaEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Paul AthertonEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Thank U, NextEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:List of music considered the worstEdit

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/TelevisionEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Olivia JadeEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:List of film spoofs in MadEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Otto WarmbierEdit

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


Please comment on Talk:Marc-André ter StegenEdit

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


Please comment on Talk:PCCWEdit

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)Edit

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

Please comment on Talk:Gavin McInnesEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:The World Factbook list of developed countriesEdit

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

Radical egalitarianism basic principlesEdit

Dear Mathglot,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexualityEdit

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject FilmEdit

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

Stile LibertyEdit

Hi, thanks for your warning about copyright but site itself says it is free for use as long as its attributed, which it is. - This is an open access article, permits unrestricted use etc. First page.Sourcerery (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991Edit

Please comment on Template talk:RfcEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:WikiLeaksEdit

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

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

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

About my translatingEdit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:And Then There Were NoneEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:Feminist views on transgender topicsEdit

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

A barnstar for you!Edit

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

A barnstar for you!Edit

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

Please comment on Talk:Vietnam WarEdit

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 2Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taxation in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public corporation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968Edit

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

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

Please comment on Talk:List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodesEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of WyomingEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discographyEdit

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


. . .

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

Please comment on Talk:Postmodern artEdit

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

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

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

Genderqueer move proposalEdit

Wondering if you had any thoughts about this: Talk:Genderqueer#The issue is scope not COMMONNAME. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  Responded at the appropriate venue. Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Italian supercentenariansEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:Order of the ArrowEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the QuranEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:Kamrupi dialectEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin CashEdit

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

Return to the user page of "Mathglot".