My editing tips.

Falaise PocketEdit

Er... were you just clearing your throat? Valetude (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[]

👍 Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[]

good pointEdit

I make a clear distinction between sardonic and sarcastic humor. Failing to disguise (or to recognize) the former embarrasses me in a self-effacing way; stooping to the latter is a shame I strive to avoid. My nose never gets out of joint when I'm the target of either. Thanks for reminding me that not everyone feels the same. Anyway, "Sex is (fill in the blank)." Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 08:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Kent, I walk a fine line sometimes, trying to support your work on language in the right venue, while sometimes pointing out where your passion leads to enthusiastic alternative views which might be completely accurate, but perhaps not entirely on-topic for some non-linguistic corner of the encyclopedia. I hope you don't take it personally (it doesn't seem like you do) because I value your contributions, they make me think. I know I can go on and on about certain topics, and you're welcome to chide me if I go overboard or digress too much on some article or other; I have certain topics that I can wax eloquent about, and never stop. Thanks for keeping us all tending towards accuracy in communication, especially when clarity and the point of view of a reader coming cold to an article is concerned. I always try to think, "How are we going to phrase this, so that a second-year high school student, or even a smart middle school kid can gain maximum benefit from it?" It's when pondering that question, that I realize that sometimes my advocacy in discussions over single words like division, characteristic, attribute, type of, or whatever, really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. Which isn't to say that they aren't worth having; it's just about maintaining perspective, and keeping our eye on the essentials.
Being a logophile myself (and not only in English), I actually think it's worth my time to think and write about individual words in articles, and engage in Talk page discussions about them, probably way beyond what is "due" for the topic; but it's just something I enjoy. It's kind of a treat for me, to encounter someone that is perhaps even further along that axis than I am. Which means that you and I are in danger of meeting up in some discussion somewhere, and going on and on about the use of the in some sentence for a few days or a week, while the rest of the world rolls their eyes at us. So, if you'll keep me honest by reminding/chiding/teasing me when needed, I'll do the same for you!   Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Mathglot, that's all good. And I think that's the second time you've (or maybe it was someone else?) implied I'm a logophile and the second time I've cringed. I hardly consider myself in that light. I just try to look at text from perspectives that contrast my first and second glances to see if the meaning holds up. It doesn't matter whether I authored it or not. I get more dismayed by editors who overlook defects in my drafts than those who allege errors due to their own lack of expertise. Or lack of circumspection. Sometimes my own interpretations, regardless of moments of certainty, are subject to change based on subsequent enlightenment, improved memory, or lexical extension. Through it all I admit taking an uncharacteristically axiomatic approach.
Case in point: Today I decided that one sense among my definitions for "fence" should be changed from "... separates adjoining areas..." to "... separates adjacent areas..." A big deal? Not for most people. But for anyone tracking the relevant hyperlinks, the sense given for "adjoining" would have to be construed in a tenuous way when applied to the sense given for "fence." The cleanup (i.e. re-encoding all of the affected hyperlinks entailed in changing one word) ate up all of six hours. Fun? No. A labor of love? Hardly. Painstakingly OCD-induced? Well, I'll put it like this: The ego in me sees my work in the way I imagine Michael Jordan approached basketball drills; the way Mozart practiced scales; the way Kurt Gödel recited math equations to make sure they were at his fingertips. When I'm done, I hope people will herald the work's utility, not the nuts and bolts of it. You might be the minority of one who asks, "Kent, how did you do that?" My short answer: "You don't want to know." Your reply to the long answer: "I wish I hadn't asked."
When I go off about semantic stuff to make a substantive point on the Wikipedia talk pages I can see people's eyes glazing over. The poor CycoMas of this site (and apparently sometimes you) think I'm off on a tangent. Not so. Instead, I admit trying to see how readily editors here can grasp the semantic import of certain text by reading it in uncustomary ways. CycoMa thinks I'm pushing a particular POV. Another editor said my explanations smack of "turgid, turbid, awkward writing." So far, only one editor here, plus one at Wiktionary, have baited me into bona fide digressions.
Truth be told: I do pity those editors who never catch the barbed ends of my jabs at lexical incompetence more than I feel for those who feel stung and then cavil, piss, and moan. And I regularly question whether the back-and-forth stuff is worth the effort - especially since nothing productive ever comes of it. Old man that I am, there still are times I need to remind myself to grow up. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[]

My new heroEdit

I enjoyed reading every word of what you posted about soapboxing for CycoMa's benefit. Thoughtful, incisive, and articulate. Semantically clear and stylistically unassailable. Why can't you write like that in your edits? (Sorry I don't know where the cheeky-winking emoticon files are stored here.) Your pearls of wisdom just might help him to avoid a meltdown. Speaking of wisdom, I hope most everyone takes special note of this: "It doesn't matter if some term used by sources is just obviously straight up a misnomer." I remind myself of that each time I use terms like:

  • relative pronoun
  • relative clause
    • restrictive relative clause
    • nonrestrictive relative clause
    • reduced relative clause
  • subordinate clause
  • past/present participle
  • copula/linking verb
  • subject complement (as dishonorable mention since I hijacked the term itself for use in a way that conflicts with how it's traditionally construed)

If my axiomatic terms to the contrary ever gain popularity, I'm bracing to get trolled by someone who associates me IRL to certain posts here and to edits like this one, regarding the etymology of "past participle" and "present participle" in English usage. How would I dare expound the etymology of terms that I'm loathe to use? Answer: My lexicon has entries and definitions for such naïve terms with Cf. hyperlinks to terms that are cross-linguistically more efficacious.

Anyway, I hope you've saved CycoMa some grief. Keep up the good work, and I'll try to do the same. Here's sneak peak at the "sex" entry in my lexicon:

sex
noun
1. activity relating to genital contact or stimulation via intimate interaction between individuals; Examples: (a) “Tae Sung, how old were you when you first had sex?” Deborah asked. T.S. winced at the question. “Sorry. “How old were you when you first had sex with a girl?” she asked; (b) “When’s the last time you had sex involving another person?” she asked in a slightly more adversarial tone; (c) “For the record, Your Honor,” T.S. replied emphatically, “the last time I had sex with anyone other than myself happened six-and-a-half years ago. With you.”
2. a classification of individuals within certain species, including humans, according to characteristics pertaining to organisms that typically have two X chromosomes versus characteristics pertaining to organisms that typically have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome; Examples: See
  • female
  • male

Yes, each of those words are hyperlinked in the source material. X chromosome and Y chromosome are hyperlinked to the respective Wikipedia articles, so please don't encourage anyone (*ahem*) to mess with the definitions there. And yes, I do obsess over whether the first sense should be left as "between" or expanded to "between or among." Ultimately, the context relates to a specific couple, not to a Caligula-type mise en scene, so I remind myself that I've written a lexicon as a glossary, not a dictionary.

These days I'm not so much writing as much as I'm just encoding hypertext and inserting relevant screen tips for the 500,000 words in the textbook. My true passion relates to my novel, which forms the basis of the items quoted in the examples. The grammatical stuff is all boilerplate for that overriding interest. Indeed, I really had hoped to crosslink my second sense of my "sex" entry to Wikipedia rather than write my own definition. I suspect poor CycoMa would never understand how my lexicon's inclusion of "classification" demonstrates that I have no particular bias favoring "attribute." (I.e. "attribute" merely reflects the manner in which "sex" is employed throughout the majority of the Wikipedia article but doesn't accord with my textbook's use of the term.)

Club me over the head for the distinction between "classification" and "division." Does it truly matter? Only if you're the one who has to spend 14 hours re-encoding 1,000 hyperlinked items of text. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[]

P.S. If you're uppermost among editors, you'll have noticed that when T.S. said, "The last time I had sex with anyone other than myself..." entails his use of the word "sex" in a way that conflicts with the "between individuals" sense as defined. That conflict represents intentional mischief. Meaning, I take responsibility for the definition's sufficiency but I draw a bright line between what I (Kent) would say apart from the text and what a character (T.S.) says on his own accord within the text. Moreover, I think it's funny for anyone who wants debate whether masturbation constitutes sex. Let's ask CycoMa. Ha! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[]

One last thing: It's been so long that I worked on the whole "sex" thing for my own purposes that I just now recalled how the pop-up screen tip for the "(biological) sex" hypertext in my lexicon says only this: "sex (noun) - a classification of individuals within certain species, including humans, according to female characteristics versus male characteristics." My original research restatement. Shh - please don't tell CycoMa that my lexicon involves nominal rather than attributive use of the word. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@Kent Dominic: Hey thanks for putting my account on your watchlist. CycoMa (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Reversible binomialsEdit

[1] Love it! DMacks (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Glad somebody got it.  

Help about subcategoriesEdit

I’m sorry to ask this again but I need your input, if a category such as State and local socialist parties in the United States does not have any subcategories for Eco-Socialism and Social Democracy is it right to remove them even though they are socialist parties? Bvcitizen (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@Bvcitizen: First, I'm not that well versed on subcategories, and your question would have a better audience at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Secondly, from the way you phrased your question, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. What is the them referring to, in the expression, is it right to remove them? Are you talking about removing articles that are currently categorized in Category:State and local socialist parties in the United States, that might be better categorized in a subcategory, if only the right subcat existed? No need to respond to this question here, as I likely wouldn't be able to help regardless; just think about it, so you can maybe rephrase your original question in a way that is unambiguous, before posing the question at WT:CAT where folks can better help you. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks sorry for phrasing it so weird but you’re always a help. Bvcitizen (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[]
@Bvcitizen:, no problem, you're always welcome. Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[]

sex: a trivial post-mortem from a semantics POVEdit

Hi, Mathglot. During the second draft of my 367,000-word novel, I developed some semantic algorithms that I applied to the characters’ speech to ensure that they didn’t all wind up talking like one another or, even worse, like me. Just for fun, I dug up that algorithm and applied it to the edit summaries and talk page discussion for sex. I suspected CycoMa would grade the lowest, but Crossroads beat him to the bottom. Some samples:

  1. “There was nothing wrong with the sentence, ‘Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex.’” – Crossroads, 06:39, 27 March 2021
  2. “‘Sex relates to’ is in violation of WP:REFERSTO.” – Crossroads, 20:21, 27 March 2021
  3. ["Sex is a male or female attribute in organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction." I think 'attribute' is better than 'characteristic' based on the etymology of the terms. Mathglot? Crossroads? Newimpartial? Anyone else?" -Kent Dominic, 10:05, 28 March 2021] “None of the sources define sex as an ‘attribute.’ And then people might read that and think it means a particular male or female attribute. What we should look for is what dictionaries of biology or encyclopedias of biology say and how they define the term. – Crossroads, 04:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. “Try ‘attribute.’ [E.g.] ‘Sex is the attribute of male or female in organisms that propagate the species through sexual reproduction.’” - Crossroads, 17:57, 30 March 2021
  5. "‘Sex is a male or female attribute’ makes no sense and sounds like some other attribute is being described. [‘Sex is the attribute of male or female’] is fine because it is the attribute ‘in’ organisms.” – Crossroads, 03:06, 12 April 2021
  6. “‘Sex is a male or female attribute’ is syntactically discombobulated. Stop WP:Edit warring over this.’” - Crossroads, 03:28, 12 April 2021
  7. "‘Sex is a male or female attribute’ makes no grammatical sense. Supposedly the pre-existing ['Sex is the attribute of male or female'] violated some rule of grammar, although it is not clear to me what it is. Sex is the attribute of male or female. That attribute is in the organism, etc.’” – Crossroads, 03:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The outliers include Crossroads’ irrealis use of “might” in the third quote and imperative use of “should” and “try” in the third and fourth quotes. Everything else is uttered as stative or indicative matters of fact. In law, we say such non-evidentiary statements are “conclusory.” In logic, they’re ipse dixits. On Crossroads’ behalf, I should point out the growth in stance from (apparently) rejecting “attribute” in statement 3 to embracing it in statement 4. From a strictly vocab POV, he still grades low in recognizing the various meanings of what “attribute” entails.

I was a bit surprised that Crossroads proffered the “Sex is a trait…” phrasing given his initial objection – on source grounds – to “Sex is an attribute…” That's what made me apply the semantics algorithm to ALL of his remarks to find there’s no continuity regarding much of the logic underlying his various statements.

In the end, I hope he’s happy. Please don’t tell him he did a 180-turn regarding his view of what “sex” means re. its attributive versus nominal definition. I’ve got the feeling that if he realizes he ultimately advocated the very idea that I initially suggested (rather than believing the current definition was his brainchild), he might renege on his support for the consensus.

Speaking of "renege..." If indeed you consider yourself a logophile, please join me when I mount a rebuttal to the cancel culture's attempt to eradicate the word, echoing the same grounds used when they railed against "niggardly some 20 years ago." --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@Kent Dominic: don’t tell who what? CycoMa (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Kent, some of those attempts are probably doomed, unfortunately. I remember the niggardly controversy back when, which I found cringeworthy. I figured that one was a lost cause. There's a word for a shift in usage, roughly rendering the "bad meaning drives out the good" concept, but I can't remember it now. Maybe you know what it is. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, no. Flunked your quiz. My test for today: linguistic analysis of the word, "gob-so-smacking-lutely." In the toolbox:
Poor Kelly, the woman who translated the novel from English to Korean. According to her, there's no Korean language equivalent for that neologism. I told her to make one up. Unlike Wikipedia, fiction thrives on imaginative OR. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Your Google Scholar search - "gob-so-smacking-lutely" - did not match any articles. That's what I'm talking about! If there had been any matches, my efforts at original research character's proclivity for extemporization would have been in vain. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Now it's time to compile my WP:RFD list:
  • sniggle
  • snicker
  • knicker
  • New York Knicks
  • niggle
  • niggler
  • any word that starts with "N"
--Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Kent, actually, Steve Pinker (pretty sure it was him) did an analysis of ab-so-effing-lutely, and a whole round of similar insertions on linguistic principles, and even analyzed why it cannot possibly be ab-effing-so-lutely. If I can find it, I'll link it for you.
Btw, I cringe sometimes, when you mention other users in a way they might either not like, or at least wish to be able to respond to. And I know your "Don't tell User:Example, but.." is tongue in cheek since the whole internet can read this, but it still comes across a bit U and non-U, and I want everyone to feel welcome here. I'm not saying you can't say whatever you want here, exactly, but don't forget AGF, and also there's a guideline or recommendation somewhere that calls for linking a username when mentioning them for the first time in a discussion. Then too, editor C's TP is usually not the right place for editors A and B to talk something out. Anyway, it's all good, but just be kind.
Still trying to find the "bad meaning" word; it's an analog of Gresham's law, only in the field of language shift instead of economics. Mathglot (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Hot on the trail of the Pinker (?) quote; haven't found it yet, but you might like this related essay by him. Very NSFW. Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Here's a possibly better link; except for the annoying popup. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Hmm; possibly it wasn't Pinker after all? See this blog post. Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
I'd welcome whatever you might find re. the above, but I finished my own analysis of gob-so-smacking-lutely last night. And I'll respect whatever parameters you prefer here. I suspect, however, that the non-U and non-Me editors would care little and understand less about all the grammatical, semantic, linguistic, and textual analysis that I spout. With a belated shoutout to Crossroads, I always welcome a sound refutation of my observations, and I value feedback that demonstrates flaws in my reasoning more than I solicit echo chamber agreement. My conclusions are always subject to change. So too is my reliance on premises that are shown to be invalid.
So far, in my experience here, you're the only other editor with the background and interest to recognize the six shades of semantic import underlying the ton of words that fly around the talk pages, edits, and edit summaries. (My jaw would have dropped to the floor if Crossroads had spontaneously pointed out that my 26 March 2021 edit for sex should have said "by" rather than "into" as a reason for reversion. Too late, Crossroads: I have only myself, not you, to thank for that bit of embarrassment I endured in private with nary a well deserved talk page nor edit summary dress-down. Indeed, your reversion highlighted "categorized" and "characteristics" as deficient when, in hindsight, "into" was the culprit.) Nevertheless, I know I risk boring even you, Mathglot, with all my semantic spiel here and elsewhere. And let me say this: I don't feel any amount of disrespect when the spiel is outright ignored, as is typically the case with Crossroads, or when my stuff goes un-replied. Or unread and deleted. Certain editors would benefit by doing more of that. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
I just read the Steve Pinker article. He and I are on the same page, but I have this niggling observation: True enough, the "fucking" in "fucking brilliant" would be an adverb if categorized under a traditional part of speech. In my lexicon, it's an adverbial continuative participle. (I shun the use of present participle.) And I use lexical category, not part of speech. So, the the "fucking" in "fucking brilliant" constitutes any of the following:
  • adverb (as traditionally given)
  • adverbial continuative participle
  • expletive
  • interjection
  • filler (perhaps; depends on Bono's intent and prosody)
  • obscenity (my call as of today, ask me again next week)
  • vulgarity (i.e. not for use in the presence of Her Majesty)
--Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Kent, not the link I was looking for regarding ab-so-effing-lutely, but thought of expletive infixation, which may have more about this. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Got it, thanks. My dilemma: where to steer my own readers. I'm leaning toward tmesis and infix respectively, which gets at the same idea. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[]

A question about thisEdit

Can you explain what you mean by that.

On here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1022058571&type=revision CycoMa (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@CycoMa:, Basically, it has to do with the core difference between gender identity and gender expression, which are elementary concepts of gender. David Reimer was always a boy, although he didn't look like one growing up because of the surgery and feminizing hormones he was given per Money's "twins experiment", and wasn't dressed like one, because his parents dressed him and treated him as a girl at Money's direction, because they believed Dr. Money. Even with no penis, and feminizing surgery, and female hormones, and girl's clothing and everybody treating him like a girl, he always knew something was wrong but as a child, couldn't articulate it. The minute the truth became known to him, he immediately went back to being a boy outwardly, changed his name back to male, and demanded to be treated as a boy. The point is, he was always a boy, and even a vulva, breasts, female name, and girl's clothing could not change his inner feeling of who he was; that's how powerful his male gender identity was. He never had a female gender identity; he merely had female methods of expression forced on him, but he was never comfortable with it. Discovering the truth of his surgery, and "treatment", merely confirmed the male identity he was born with, and that even years of being treated as girl forced on him could not alter. What he changed, was only his outward presentation: the clothes he wore, hair, and so on became masculine, instead of feminine. His gender identity remained what it always was: "boy". Makes sense, now? Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rah 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 15:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Quiesced; moot. Mathglot (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[]

BharatEdit

Hi! You asked a question at Talk:Bharat#Requested move 2 May 2021 – sorry for getting back so late. The short answer is: no, I don't have any particular process that I follow. In that case, I was proceeding mostly from my involvement in the topic area, and the data I looked at was mostly just the one I presented in the nomination. I also took account of the pageviews though – they're never determinative, but are very easy to access and can often provide useful initial hints. My two rules of thumb for pageviews are: 1) if X is an article with a hatnote linking to X (disambiguation), then it probably shouldn't be a primary topic if it gets less than 10x the views of the dab page; 2) If Y is a redirect to X, with a similar hatnote to Y (disambiguation), then there's usually no primary topic for "Y" unless the dab page gets less than half of the views of the redirect.

If you're interested, you can get in touch with the editors behind Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol. They often deal with bad primary topics and I imagine they will have better developed know-how on how to identify them. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@Uanfala:, Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[]

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

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football 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 16:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:White House press corps 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 14:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_countEdit

Please search for any currently relevant names in this list. I make this list, and recently added a feature to hide the top 100 rankings to avoid unhealthy article creation habits by some editors trying to be #1, as discussed on the list talk page Wikipedia_talk:List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_count#Top_100_protected in particular the insights/research done by user FOARP. -- GreenC 18:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[]

What makes you think I’m a gender essentialist?Edit

Hey I remember in a earlier discussion you said something along the lines of what I was saying was a ge dear essentialist point of view.

Just to make sure you are aware I don’t really care about the sociological side of sex or gender. I only do research on ten biological side of it. CycoMa (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@CycoMa:, I don't recall what you are referring to; if you can link to it, I can respond better. But if your first sentence is correct, then I'm not attributing any point of view to you; that first sentence is saying that an assertion of yours matches a gender essentialist PoV, if that's what went down; it doesn't mean you are. So, in that case, the answer to your question is, "Nothing." That is, nothing makes me think you're a gender essentialist. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[]
It was on gender and sex distinction. Right here.CycoMa (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Right, and I said, "...I can't imagine that's what you were implying." That was an open-ended invitation for you to clarify what you were trying to say, because your comment came off like a gender essentialist position, and I assumed you were of the diametrically opposite opinion. If I was confused about what you were saying, probably other people were too, and I thought you would want to know. Mathglot (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry about that, I think I should have said was that the reason for the separation was mostly for sociological or societal reasons. Saying it was for political was honestly came off as negative on my part.
I do understand a little bit why sex and gender are two different things. But, at the same time it’s hard for me to understand.
Also do forgive me if I can off as confusing, I was confused at the time and I get confused a lot to be honest
I am commenting this down because I was honestly a little worried you assumed I was some kind of misogynist.CycoMa (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[]
@CycoMa:, don't worry, it's not a problem. And you don't have to apologize (although it's kind to do so if you think you made a mistake, but I don't think you have anything to apologize for here), and in particular, no need to worry about what I think, either. It's not like I'm an admin or something (and even if I were, I'd be a nice one;  .) Hey, we're all human; I know I can be confusing sometimes, in spades. Take care! Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Hopelesswiki is back...Edit

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hopelesswiki

Please take a look at these two IPs. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.180.150.196

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.195.227.54

There are most likely more IPs, but I only found these two so far.2600:387:C:6D36:0:0:0:7 (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[]

IP 2600, Excellent job finding these two; do you mind telling me what tipped you off? Also, how did you know to find me? Your quick work in finding these, makes it easier to deal with via undos and rollbacks, before their edits get buried in other, valid edits by other users. So, big thanks for this! Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Tracking these:

There's no doubt whatever that these two are Hopelesswiki (talk · contribs), so kudos to IP 2600 for finding them. I've notified the two IPs via their respective Talk pages, and have completed undos and rollbacks. I also added commentary at User talk:101.187.83.6#November 2020 but am thinking that's not the right venue for it. Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]

I now am watching Coronantivirus (talk · contribs) as well. This is likely a legitimate account, but they had some suspicious reverts in order to restore versions of the same articles edited by the two IP accounts above. Joined 8 September 2020, 2 TP warnings, one 24-hour block for e-w. Tried to restore edits by 49.180.150.196. Editor Interaction Analyser (49.180.150.196, 49.195.227.54, Coronantivirus) Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]

KagyuEdit

@Mathglot: thanks for your edits. Can you take a look? Please double-check and ping me if I did something wrong. :-) Lotje (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@Lotje:, thanks for your question. I responded to you at Talk:Kagyu#Fixing dead links. Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks Mathglot. Lots of link rots and bare urls, all hands on deck I'd say.   Lotje (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]
@Lotje: Yes    – be sure and ping me in case you have any issues rescuing the dead links. Archive.org is the best place to start looking for them. Mathglot (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@Mathglot: can you help me with Gothic rock? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Native speaker of English languageEdit

Only me again... from your userpage I take it you are a native speaker of the English language. Wondering if "prounciation" is or was an English word, or just another typo. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes, I am. To my knowledge, prounciation is not, and has never been a word in English, just a typo. You can check Merriam-Webster (m-w.com) which doesn't have it, or other dictionaries, and I think you'll find the same thing. Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Add ping: @Lotje:. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Foreign relations of CambodiaEdit

@Mathglot:, can you give me an example of how you would tackle this dead link? (Wayback states Orange indicates that the URL was not found (4xx). Thanks Lotje (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@Lotje:, that's what's called a WP:BAREURL, and it's unfortunate, because had they included a title from the original page, it would've perhaps been possible to find it at the internet archive, but with only a dead url, which is marked "fix attempted" since 2017, it's harder. You can try other archiving sites, like archive.is, wikiwix, archive.today, and so on. I finally found a copy of it, and added it to the article. When writing citations, please be sure to always add at least a title along with the url, it makes it much easier to find again if the url goes dead. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Buffalo, New York 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, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done Mathglot (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Human 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 07:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Closed. Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Re: Sex Reassignment surgery, etcEdit

hi! I'm a bit surprised that you decided to take my edits down because I thought I researched that topic in depth and really contributed and expanded the section as I believe it was lacking in important details. I'm also not sure about the citations that you thought were irrelevant as I really put effort into finding scientific peer reviewed articles on the topic - I would appreciate your input and advice on that. Cosmetic interventions are my passion as I have done quite a lot of them myself and hence my interest in them and desire to contribute to either lack of information, incomplete information or erroneous information. I will much appreciate your feedback/response on the items above. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautydepot (talkcontribs) 02:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Responded at your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Gender identityEdit

You reverted my edit of the word "superficial" in the article "Gender Identity" stating that there were no sources. The article currently reads as if sex reassignment surgery alters the biological processes of the human body such that biological sex factors are reformatted via this purely cosmetic surgical procedure. The article Sex Reassignment Surgery refers to the surgery as "altering to resemble" the other sex. Note the distinction between "alter to resemble" and "reassign." An alteration only to resemblance is what is called a "superficial" alteration. Perhaps there is a language barrier between us as you are obviously a polyglot and my edit is self-evident, universally-accepted information that is clearly stated in the intro to the Sex Reassignment Surgery article that you also heavily manage. If not, why don't you edit the Sex Reassignment Surgery article to state that "their existing sexual characteristics are altered to resemble those socially associated with their identified gender" to be consistent with the patently-false assertion that the reassignment of sex characteristics is not exclusively superficial? I edited the Gender Identity page to convey the same factual information that is present in the header for Sex Reassignment Surgery, and you edited it to contradict said factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchiha Itachi 25 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@Uchiha Itachi 25:, our messages crossed; see your Talk page.
Regarding your discussion above about why your content should be acceptable at Gender identity, I appreciate your comments, but this is the wrong place for it. The correct place is at Talk:Gender identity, and you're more than welcome to copy these comments there, if you wish, or to start a new discussion there, if you aren't already in the process of doing so. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[]

The Iron HeelEdit

Hello Mathglot, on May 26 I added information to the The Iron Heel page on Wikipedia about a theatrical adaptation of The Iron Heel that had a 3-week run at Pulitzer Prize-winning Theater for the New City in New York City from September 24 - October 11, 2009. I just noticed that you removed my contribution the following day, May 27. Can you let me know your reason for doing so and what I can do to restore this relevant history to the page? Many thanks! 72.69.161.2 (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[]

It's because you added material to the article that was unsourced. See Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability, and the use of WP:CITATIONs to a WP:Reliable source. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello again, Mathglot. I have reviewed the information you sent about citing sources, and I am still wondering what would be considered acceptable source material for an ephemeral theatrical production. Of course, people can contact Theater for the New City (TNC) in New York to verify that the production had a full 3-week run. The production was listed in 2009 on TNC's website, which is constantly updated. The writer/director of the production was interviewed on several NYC radio shows, including 3 distinct programs on WBAI Radio in New York. The process of creating the production and the production itself were extensively documented with photographs by prominent German-U.S. photographer Marlis Momber. These photographs have been available for for the public to view in online websites since 2009. The performance was also documented with a full-length video recording made by NY-based filmmaker, Charles Krezell. In the weeks leading up to the production dates, write-ups were featured in many printed and online news formats including the Villager newspaper and Broadway World, where the September 24 - October 11, 2009, production dates are clearly listed. The production was listed in the Village Voice, Time Out New York, the Columbia University Alumni calendar, and other printed and online publications throughout the 3-week run of the show. Performances were attended by Jack London scholars from across the country, who participated in post-show conferences at Theater for the New City. One of these conferences was video recorded. The production was well documented on social media and generated extensive commentary and dialogue from attendees. It united theater artists and Jack London admirers and also appealed to community people who are traditionally underrepresented by the theater. It remained faithful to Jack London's vision while contributing a new view on the material with lyric language and innovative performance techniques, as well as 20 new songs inspired by London's text. Songs and excerpts from the production are periodically performed at public events, including Theater for the New City's 26th annual Lower East Side Festival of the Arts, which took place this past weekend and was announced in the mainstream media in NYC.

Theater for the New City's 2009 NYC production of THE IRON HEEL predates the Untitled Theater Company's 2016 NYC production, which is listed in the Adaptations section of Wikipedia's page on THE IRON HEEL. While the Untitled Company's 2016 production does not feature original songs, it recalls specific production choices of Theater for the New City's earlier (2009) production in many significant ways. Additionally, the 2009 production (performed in TNC's largest theater space on a set designed for the production) included theater professionals affiliated with and known to the director of Untitled's 2016 production (an itinerant production performed on a smaller scale in site-specific meeting halls or in audio form). Both the 2009 and 2016 productions received a Puffin Foundation Grant.

TNC's 2009 production had been in the works since the mid 1980s. The Prologue and a draft of the script were written in 1984. In a phone conversation in 1986 the writer/director was gratified to receive assurance from Milo Shepard, a relative of Jack London and guardian of his legacy, that THE IRON HEEL was in the public domain and she was free to adapt and perform it as she chose.

Please let me know, if you can, what documentation would be acceptable for the influential 2009 work to take its place among the adaptations in Wikipedia's page on THE IRON HEEL. 72.69.161.2 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Dear Mathglot, is there a response to my 5/31/21 followup inquiry (above) about the 2009 production of THE IRON HEEL? Please let me know. Thank you. 72.69.161.2 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ages of consent in Europe 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 19:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Moot; rfc header removed as improper. Section is here: Talk:Ages of consent in Europe#Romania, repeated vandalism. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elliot Page 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 03:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Moot; closed same day. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[]

CubaEdit

Hi. I wrote for you in spanish, cause you are mexican right ? (at least, that the info on your personal info). Do you need i write for u in english language ? Not problem. Now, Could you explain me why did you reversed the changes that i did in Cuba article, specifically in the "Media" section ? Its just an actualization in a section with a lot of old information (and misinformation also, specially citing sources well known by his attacks against Cuba ) and I put cuban websites as a proof of the lies about the sell of computers in Cuba. How could I DELETE that lies ?. By the way, Im working in Wikipedia since years ago, and for example, the articles about cuban military, or the cuban special forces, were started by me. Thanks by your messages, and the technical details. In the next hours I will add new content to the music section, were "Celia Cruz" o "Gloria Estefan" are cited, although they ARE NOT the most representatives figures of the cuban music. Because, for example, Gloria Estefan NEVER made career on Cuba and Celia Cruz left Cuba 60 years ago. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianCubano (talkcontribs) 16:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[]

AdrianCubano, I'm not Mexican, and that is not on my personal info; perhaps you have me confused with someone else. The reason to write in English is because this is English Wikipedia, and writing in Spanish might exclude others who might wish to participate in the conversation. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Probably I read in other user´s page. Sorry. AdrianCubano 11:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:F. Murray Abraham 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 07:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Oradour-sur-Glane massacre‎‎Edit

Sorry for my edit removing the hidden comments you added. I did not realize until now that you has just added them to help you in the process of adding in-line refs. I hope I didn't screw things up for you too much. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Beyond My Ken, no worries, thanks for the heads-up! Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[]

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

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lew Hoad 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 01:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry about that past discussionEdit

Hey I’m sorry about that discussion at Sex and gender distinction. I didn’t mean to waste your time back there. CycoMa (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@CycoMa:, no worries/nothing to apologize for; I know you're here to improve the encyclopedia, so we're both after the same thing. Mathglot (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Capitalization of book titlesEdit

Hi Mathglot, I saw you reverted some of my edits with the edit summary "Please don't change the capitalization of titles, if they use sentence case and not title case." I've been following MOS:TITLECAPS, where it says "In titles (including subtitles, if any) of English-language works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized." Does that explain my edits or am I missing something? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@SchreiberBike:, Hmm, it does say that; and yet, the quotation style guide (I'll have to go find it) says, iirc, that we use the capitalization of the original. Either I remember wrong, or there's a conflict between the two guides, which will require a discussion at one of the style guide pages to resolve. In the meantime, I won't revert you if you make further edits of this type, as the guide does seem to support you, and even if the other one doesn't, that's probably good enough. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Lockdown protest talkEdit

First of all thanks for your post on my page. It's great to learn more about how Wikipedia works.

I've looked back at the talk page today for COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests in the United Kingdom, and the original post I made I worded perfectly. But my points were ignored and you complained almost immediately about a string of edits that I mostly had nothing to do with. It went downhill from there as we were both talking past each other.

The Guardian story says "The Westfield invasion came after a mass march of about 12 miles through London, starting in Parliament Square and reaching as far west as Acton. At its height there appeared to be hundreds of thousands of people taking part." If this "directly contradicts" the other "impeccable" sources you posted, then is the Guardian source, which you also posted, still "impeccable". I think it is a folly to describe any media source as impeccable.

I think I will have to restate my case at a future date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor252 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@Raptor252:, since this appears to be your second-ever post under this username, I assume you're a former IP editing primarily at Talk:COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests in the United Kingdom who I've interacted with before there and your IP talk page. Congratulations for signing up for a username, and welcome! (This makes it much easier to communicate; for one thing, you'll get an alert due to my use of the {{Reply}} template at the beginning of this message.) I don't want to out you, so I'm not making any assumptions, nor stating here, who I think you are. (You are allowed to do so, if you wish, but you don't have to; others however, must not.)
You're correct that I reverted some edits at the article, but I only have two lifetime edits at the article, one reverting User:Zerbstill (here), and one reverting IP 86.4.148.164 (here). All my other activity has been on the Talk page. Above, you said that I:

complained almost immediately about a string of edits that I mostly had nothing to do with

that may well be true, and I don't disagree. There was at least one registered user and four IPs involved in similar activity at the article iirc, so no doubt I was talking mostly about somebody else (or four somebody elses). As far as this comment:

I think it is a folly to describe any media source as impeccable.

while I did use the word "impeccable", that was mostly to stress that the sources we have at the article for "hundreds" of protesters at Parliament Square are rock-solid sources, way beyond the normal bar for a "reliable source", including Reuters, the New York Times, The Independent, and so on. That's what I meant by "impeccable", although I suppose you are right that to the extent that means without fault, that's an exaggeration as no source reaches that threshold. (But one of the criteria of a reliable source, is that while errors are relatively rare occurrences, a reliable source issues retractions when they do happen, and all of those sources easily meet that bar). I don't want to quibble with you about the meaning of "impeccable", though; the real take-away here, is that Wikipedia follows what the preponderance of reliable sources say about a subject, regardless if what they say is true or not; and that the point of contention raised by the OP at the discussion was about the number of protesters on 29 May in Parliament Square and it was very clear that a large number of [impeccable] sources all agreed that the number was in "the hundreds". Whatever may have happened elsewhere in London that day, before, or since, is a separate issue, and with all the users and IPs jumping in with their own theories and claims, things may have gotten confused.
Raptor252, I don't have any issue with you, and I sincerely welcome you to the encyclopedia. If we got off on the wrong foot due to a confused situation at that one article, let's put it behind us. From your reasoning at the Talk page, regardless whether I happen to agree with it or not, I can see that you could become a good editor here, and an asset to the project. It will be crucial, however, for you to get on board with that one rule, which some find a tough pill to swallow, and that is this (and I know I'm repeating myself here): Wikipedia summarizes and reports what the majority of reliable, independent, secondary sources have to say on a topic, regardless of the truth of the matter. In particular, an individual editor's personal knowledge and experience, even if they were personally at the event, even if they are the *main speaker* or the *author of the definitive work on the topic* cannot be used at Wikipedia (the buzzword here is WP:Original research), unless you are prepared to include a citation to a reliable source to that effect. If you can accept that point (not everyone can), I think you'll be a fine editor here. I hope you will, and feel free to come here for questions any time. (There's also the WP:Tea house, and the WP:Ref desk). Thanks for reaching out, Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Re "clovergender" and "trans-age"Edit

I appreciate that you were attempting to avoid newbie-biting, but both "clovergender" and "trans-age" have been reported as anti-LGBT, pro-pedophilia hoaxes with ties to the alt-right. Just wanted to let you know, for future reference   ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@Ezlev:, okay, thanks. Maybe somebody who knows more about this should post a warning at WT:LGBT, maybe even WP:VPM as a warning to look out for it? Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[]

User SlimVirginEdit

Good work on the Simone de Beauvoir page. I noticed you tried to ping user SlimVirgin. You might want take a look at her talk page. Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@TwoTwoHello:, Oh no, that's so sad... Thank you for conveying the news.   Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]

So long, Cuba!Edit

Hi Mathglot, I'm taking Cuba off my watchlist. My initial editing interest stemmed solely from the need to link the article vis-à-vis its relevance to my own definition for "Hispanic." After making this edit, it's been an eye-popping, head spinning experience to see the number of wacky edits at the page. Please ping me if you need a hand bearing up under the crazy traffic there. Meanwhile, soldier on with your A+ work. Just curious: if you don't mind saying, what interest(s) you about the article? ¿Y tu puedes hablar español? Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi -Kent, yeah, it's wacky over there all right, with a fair bit of POV editing, plus uncollaborative editing from many socks of banned user Krajoyn (talk · contribs) who pop up every once in a while at that article, and a few others. Not sure how long you've been watching Cuba, but check out these discussions: #A brand new editor is adding unsourced content and #Reverting edits by block-evading socks.
I do speak Spanish (hablas would be more idiomatic than puedes hablar, and drop the tu either way) and I don't know how I ended up at the Cuba article, probably through sub-articles like One Hundred Days Government, or Sergeants' Revolt, which I created. A lot of editors think that with 6+ million articles in Wikipedia, there's nothing significant or interesting left to write, but that's far from true. I'm constantly amazed—sometimes shocked—at the lacunae in the encyclopedia, and I enjoy filling them. A couple of recent shocks of that sort led me to create Liberation of France, and War guilt question—can you believe we didn't have them? Or, more recently, Gendered associations of pink and blue (still a stub that needs work). So you see, there's still plenty of interesting things to do. Finding the holes can be like identifying the missing card in a deck of cards, but there are some tools that help; if interested, let me know. Mathglot (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
(talk page stalker) Lacunae! I may have to change my user name. —valereee (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Valereee, before you do, you might want to read La Disparition by Georges Perec (in French; fr-wiki article at fr:La Disparition (roman) ). Or, in one of the translation tours de force of all time, A Void (in English), by translator Gilbert Adair. Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think I'm intellectual enough for this user talk. —valereee (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Mathglot, lo que aprendí en la escuela alta es todo que recuerdo. Estoy escribando ésto sín Google transductor, asi perdóname. Me siento mucho mi un semestre de español. Para divertido, mires: "Un semestre de canción de amor en español". --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Kent, Wow, there are a few small problems, but if that's just one semester, that's fantastic! I would have guessed at least a year or two. Well done. You must have a great memory. I'm jealous. Mathglot (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]
(Shh... Our secret: It was more than one semester. I'm embarrassed to admit how many.) --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Biased information that was removed.Edit

Hi, Mathglot. You removed some of the edits I made to the Cuba page. I'm sorry I didn't explain why I made those edits. I'll try to do it here... I noticed that some of the information was incorrect or biased and its sources were not reliable because they were... the Cuban government itself! I am Cuban myself, born and raised. As you probably know, Cuba has lived under a totalitarian regime for more than 60 years and the government has absolute control over the media. Therefore, any information coming from the Cuban government itself and its many institutions would be "less than neutral" as you said yourself. Particularly, I noticed a lot of information that was conveniently favorable to the regime with no data to back it up (to be honest, blatant lies). I also have to say that some parts of the article were obviously edited by Cuban counterintelligence forces because their terrible English and their absolutely propagandistic style are unmistakable. As a Cuban, I think many foreigners already tend to be misinformed about my country, because all of the information coming out of Cuba is fabricated and spread by the government itself. This is unfair towards the Cuban people who live under the regime, and also definitely not neutral. If you moderate this article you should be alert of the efforts the Cuban government itself puts into keeping pages like this favorable to them. They care a lot about foreign opinion because that's how they make money, thanks to tourists and "allies" of the system. 98.116.102.242 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]

98.116.102.242, I responded at User talk:98.116.102.242#Your comment about Cuba on my Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Riemannian geometry on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: History and geography request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pahonia 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 02:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 00:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Periodic sentenceEdit

Hey Mathglot, would you look at the talk page for this article and either archive the "Talk:Periodic sentence" section or, if you don't want to do it, tell me how it's done so I can do it and take the rap? Also, I'd like your input about my intent to delete (or massively edit) the first sentence in the article's "Decline" section. Ironically, that sentence itself is an example of a periodic sentence, which isn't in decline except for the Romantic period variety excerpted later in the article. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Kent, Aha, so the sentence is autological, eh? I'll have a look... Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[]
"Autological." Good word. I've never used it myself and have to dust off my memory for its meaning each time I encounter it. The last time I saw it was in the oxymoron article, which says, "The word oxymoron is autological." I disagree with the "is" wording but resisted changing it to "was." Or, alternatively, "The word oxymoron is etymologically autological." So there! Still, do many users really care how Latinized Greek affects English? Assuming the contributor got the etymology right, I actually appreciate knowing that bit of trivia in case I ever become a Jeopardy! contestant. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[]

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

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Wire (India) 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 22:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[]

wrylieEdit

Hi Mathglot, if you have time and interest, you might consider whether the stuff I posted here is worth adaptation as a Wikipedia article. I posted it mostly for the contributor who stupidly reverted a huge chunk of etymology, as you'll see by reading the edit history of the associated page. You'll also notice how that same contributor was/is ignorant to an understanding of catachresis beyond its use as a figure of speech. He nonetheless made a fair point that there was a simpler way to make my relevant point. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Turks in Germany 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, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Partly done. Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Notification of discussion at Talk:Sex reassignment surgeryEdit

Discussion at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery § WP:OTHERNAMES to use in the first sentence?Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery § WP:OTHERNAMES to use in the first sentence?. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 20:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC) RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 20:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[]

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

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jessica Yaniv 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 22:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Ariana Williscroft's Talk Page and a recent comment of yoursEdit

Thanks very much for signing the comment I left for you on my talk page. That was extremely kind of you. I forgot that I was supposed to sign it as I haven't used Wikipedia in a while. I'll do that from now and I appreciate you reminding me of that procedure. Additionally, I'm sorry for saying that your comment was transphobic. It wasn't. However, I thought it was at the time - but now I have thought about what you said more deeply and I have realised that I was wrong about that. However, I still stand by everything else I said. Finally, would you mind explaining the comment you left for me on the article 'Attraction to transgender people' (in which you talked about self-reverting) as I didn't understand anything you said. --Ariana Williscroft·(talk) 11:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Also, I really appreciate you sending me a Welcome message on my talk page, too. That was extremely nice of you. Although, you didn't have to do that since I've been a member for four years hahahaha --Ariana Williscroft·(talk) 11:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@Ariana Williscroft:, yes, I knew you've been around a while, but your total number of edits is low, so I thought you still deserved a welcome, and that the links in the message might still be helpful to you. I hope they will be. It looks like your message here, crossed with one I was writing to you at the time; see my response at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Ah, okay. Thanks very much. That was extremely kind of you :) Ariana Williscroft (talk) 11: 42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 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 13:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: History and geography request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eoin Ó Broin 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 08:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[]

InternetArchiveBotEdit

With regard to this revert, please see this discussion. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@M.Bitton:, thanks for the heads-up. Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

For all you do around here~Edit

It’s a maze of twisty passages all around here. Sometimes, it’s hard to feel appreciated, and you deserve some love! This Heart-shaped Labyrinth is to say Thank YOU for all your hard work. I appreciate you being here - I really do - and so do these peeps!
You can also share some wikiKind wikiLove by adding {{subst:Heart Labyrinth}} to any talk page with your own message.

~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 18:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks Gwennie! Mathglot (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[]

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

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) 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 14:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:5α-Reductase deficiency on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Concern regarding Draft:Template:Uw-gentle-medrs/docEdit

  Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Template:Uw-gentle-medrs/doc, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Moved. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[]

On the name Hungary, which probably originated from the name OnoguriaEdit

On your last revert on Hungarian language, in a section named "Historical controversy over origins", you showed the incompetence, insufficiency on the subject, unfortunately, without being aware of the fact that the "Onogur" theory for the name "Hungary", is the strongest theory, hence naming it "fringe" is nothing but an unfortunate statement, sorry.

Let's read it together, here Etymology of the name Hungary:

"The "H" in the name of Hungary (and Latin Hungaria) is most likely due to founded historical associations with the Huns, who had settled Hungary prior to the Avars. The rest of the word comes from the Latinized form of Byzantine Greek Oungroi (Οὔγγροι). The Greek name was borrowed from Old Bulgarian ągrinŭ, in turn borrowed from Oghur-Turkic Onogur ('ten [tribes of the] Ogurs'). Onogur was the collective name for the tribes who later joined the Bulgar tribal confederacy that ruled the eastern parts of Hungary after the Avars."

Good day.

Karak1lc1k (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 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 23:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Removed spam by Jefferymo923Edit

Removed PROMO previously in this space, added by Jefferymo923 (talk · contribs) at 2:14 on 20 July 2021 (UTC) and warned him on his UTP. Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: History and geography request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2021 Cuban protests 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 14:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Question - Korean pseudo-anglicismsEdit

Hi, you reverted two Korean words I added to pseudo-anglicism article. As the article says A pseudo-anglicism is a word in another language that is formed from English elements and may appear to be English, but that does not exist as an English word with the same meaning.

You reverted these two words as being real English words

  • overeat – "vomiting" (오바이트 [o.ba.i.tʰɯ])
  • hand phone – "cellphone" (핸드폰 [hɛn.dɯ.pon])

But as the above says both of those *do not exist as an English word with the same meaning*. In English "overeat" has no image of vomiting, and unless you are German or schizophrenic (and talking to your hand) you wouldn't call your cellphone a "hand" phone in English. So I will add those words back unless you disagree. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@Nesnad:, that is not the right definition as far as I know, someone must have changed it. A pseudo-anglicism has parts that look English, but the whole is not an English word, like tennisman or rally-paper. You can try putting it back, but I think it's subject to getting the right definition in there. You might have a case with "hand phone" which has English parts, but doesn't sound like an English two-word compound; overeat of course, *is* an English word, so it's not pseudo-anything, it's a real English word which is simply borrowed into Korean, but with a different meaning. English words shift meaning in English (try following the changes in silly), that's just a normal feature of language.
But that is not even the main problem with these words. The main issue is that you have not provided a source. I've tagged the words as needing a citation, to give you some time to find sourcing that says that these are pseudo-anglicisms. Per Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy, any material that is challenged "must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material". Make sure you understand WP:SYNTHesis before you look for sources; in particular, two dictionary references on the same word, where one supports the meaning of overeat and the other supports the meaning of '오바이트' do *not* fulfill the requirements of verifiability for the word; you will have to find one reference which mentions '오바이트' and says that it is a pseudo-anglicism, otherwise it is a SYNTH violation. Would a week be enough time to find your sources?
By the way, as this is an issue about article content, a user Talk page like this one is the wrong place to raise this discussion, as no one else will see it here. Going forward, if you have a content disagreement with an editor about an issue on any article, please raise the discussion on the article Talk page, so other editors can contribute as well, if they wish to. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[]
My problem was with you not the content of the page. As you can see from the history, the description I attached was the SAME when you removed it. You are trying to make your own idea about what is ok or not ok and becoming a gate keeper. That's why I contacted you, but you are clearly one of those proud "holier than thou" Wiki users that will just try to politely find rules as a way to attack me instead of discuss anything with me, so I guess it is not worth my time. Incidentally, all those words were from Wikimedia sources. They are not invented by me. Anyway, you do you I guess. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[]
@Nesnad:, I beg your pardon? I am really, really surprised by your response; shocked, even. I am not attacking you, and I'm willing to discuss anything you like. You added two unsourced assertions about Korean words, which I reverted per WP:Verifiability policy, once, and once only. You then reinserted the same items, contrary to WP:BRD, and without waiting for discussion, and still without citations. Rather than revert your edit-warring, I simply tagged the two items as lacking sources. And you say *I* am the one with problems at the article? You are an experienced user with a sixteen-year badge apparently, and you shouldn't need me to quote policy to you, or to tell you that once unsourced material has been removed for cause, you cannot simply reinsert the same material again without adding a citation to a reliable source to back it up. If you re-read my previous response, that is all I was asking you to do, and it's still all I'm asking you to do.
As for being attacked: personal attacks are strictly forbidden; if you feel I have attacked you, you are free to take this up at the Administrator's Noticeboard and name me there, for further investigation.
As for the article, it now has two {{citation needed}} tags on the two Korean items that you added and reinserted. Please provide citations for them, at your convenience. If they remain unsourced after a decent interval, they are subject to removal per Wikipedia policy. But I'm sure you know that already. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for your kind offer to discuss. I have nothing against you as a person. As you mentioned, I have been around a long time. I have seen a lot of users like yourself who just like to provide silly links to policy and whatever instead of just trying to improve the Wiki. For example, it is easy for you to complain about no citations, but why not put the effort into finding the citations you need yourself? This is a collaborative effort after all. None the less, I will trust you that you weren't attacking me. I hope that truly is the case and I wish you a good day. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for your response, and you're welcome. I understand your feelings about sourcing, as this is a very natural response, that comes up all the time:

...but why not put the effort into finding the citations you need yourself?

The reason why not, is described in the Verifiability policy, in the bold part here: WP:UNSOURCED. This makes good sense, because if it were the other way around, and up to the person "complaining" about lack of sourcing to add sources, think about what would happen to the encyclopedia: you'd have a flood of IPs and new users or even vandals or paid users working for companies or governments or other interests stuffing unsourced material into articles as fast as they could, and a dwindling number of vandalism fighters trying to stem the tide, who would eventually get angry and frustrated at spending all their time cleaning up someone else's mess, and leave the project in disgust. So, it has to be the way it is, with the burden of adding sources being squarely on the person that adds the material. Any other way, would quickly devolve into chaos. We're good, thanks again for your comment, and I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I know the burdon is on the person who added, but this is a collective effort and you know I am not a vandal so not trying to help find sources is just adding to the limiting of the Wiki instead of the expanding of it. Further, your explanation of reason is flawed. By the same logic IP vandals could flood pages with each word being tagged unsourced and demotivate editors who couldn't find sources for every single word added. Whatever, we are getting the "semantics" section of a Wiki discussion. You will disagree with more policy links or claims about me and whatever, Wiki bureaucratic minded people can really shut down efforts to help. I hope someone sources those additions as they are valid. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[]
@Nesnad: I see your point of view, up to a point. I agree with you that it is a collective effort, and of course I know you are not a vandal. Besides the policy issue of burden of proof, there's the simple fact that the encyclopedia is a volunteer effort, and people work on what they enjoy working on. I enjoyed working on this article for a while fairly intensively, turning it from more or less an unsourced list of supposed pseudo-anglicisms (some of which were, and some of which weren't) into an article which discussed the linguistic aspects of it, sourcing numerous researchers on the topic. I think my choice, as a volunteer editor here, of not searching around to source every example that other people add without sourcing, is a natural one, and in no way "add[s] to the limiting of the Wiki instead of the expanding of it". I can hardly be accused of not being part of the collective effort to improve this article: according to xtools pagestats, I'm a top contributor to the page. As it stands now, the majority of the sourced text of the article above the examples section is from material I added, after doing basic research on the topic, which hadn't been done prior to that. So, I've been a major player, perhaps *the* major player, in expanding the article, while you've contributed 41 bytes in three edits. And you're accusing me of not expanding it? That's a bit cheeky.
I can see you don't agree with my defense of WP:BURDEN, but IP vandals aren't in the business of tagging every word in articles with "citation needed"; if they did, we would simply revert them; for one thing, they would be easy to spot, because cn-tags are visible on the article page when you view it. So, that's kind of a red herring.
And I am not making claims about you, I'm merely trying to uphold what has to be the single most basic policy statement in all of Wikipedia, which is a sentence from the Verifiability policy that says this:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

That is like the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, if there ever was one, and besides increasing the scientific basis of the article based on linguistic research, that is all I have been trying to do in this article. The fact is, the article attracts a lot of drive-by additions by well-meaning editors, some of which are valid but unsourced, and many of which are not valid. Those need to be removed.
But let me ask you pretty much the same question you asked me, because there's something I truly don't understand. If I understand you correctly, you think that my failure to help look for sources for the Korean words, which I freely admit, amounts to my "not trying to help find sources [and] just adding to the limiting of the Wiki instead of the expanding of it." Do I read you right? Okay, let's just say you're right, and I'm limiting the article and the Wiki. In that case, why isn't your failure to add citations for those words also "adding to the limiting of the Wiki" in the same way? It seems like what you're saying is that when you add new stuff to the article that's a good thing, and that someone else coming by after you and not searching around for sources for your additions is "limiting the Wiki" when they do it, but not when you do it. As you say, "I hope someone sources those additions as they are valid." Why "someone"? They have to add sources for your additions, but you don't? And do we simply take your word for it that they are valid, if you can't, or won't, source them? Why wouldn't you want to source them, as that improves the Wiki, right? I truly don't follow your logic.
I know this is a lot to think about, and it's a volunteer project for you, just as it is for me; so if you don't feel like responding, don't; and if you do feel like it, you're more than welcome. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[]

2021 Cuban protests and source analysisEdit

I just wanted to thank you for your comments and say that what you did here is what should be done for any RfC, RfD, etc. Since I believe you did a good job for that, I was wondering whether you could do something similar for another article, which I and several others found to be violating more than one policy. I do not want to take so much space for your talk page, since I was not able to summarize, though I tried my best to format it in a way to make it readable for you a little by little, so I am just going to link you what I wrote through my sandbox here. Take all your time to read it and read it a little by little but please let me know whether you are interested or not in helping me out for this source analysis, and whether my source analysis was good. You can check the Archives to verify anything and understand more, though it was such a long discussion, which led nowhere, last time I checked early this year and which caused me to take a break from discussion and controversial articles for several months. Davide King (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Davide King, thanks for the kind words. Not sure I'll have time for that just now, as I pushed off a lot of other stuff to do that, which I need to get back to. If your request has no deadline, remind me again down the road a few months, and maybe I can respond. In the case of the Cuba protests article, I have no special interest in that topic, and would never have heard of the Rfc if it weren't for the Feedback bot-request above. I might have just ignored the Rfc, but I was interested in it because of what I see as the misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about WP:DUE among some editors playing out there, and how it can lead to warped results in some Rfc's. It was more of a laboratory for me, to see how a WP:V vs. WP:DUE conflict would play out, although I never really doubted the outcome. At some point, I may address this at one of the policy Talk pages (likely NPOV) and use that Rfc as an example of how things can go sideways; but that also is way down my list, although I'd like to get to it at some point. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you so much for your response, you can take all the time you need, I just hope and wish you will find it to do this analysis because I would really appreciate and found it helpful, especially because if you end up agreeing with me and the other users, I am sure you would be able to better explain and summarize the argument. If I could find a way, I would directly ask myself to some of those which are used to support it, and genocide specialists and scholars of Communists what they think of those articles and whether they reflect the literature. Because my understanding is that there is not even an agreement among genocide and Communist scholars on this, and there is disagreement among themselves too. If it can raise your interest, This is an example of how both articles should be merged and discussed like (using actual experts in the field not cherry picked), and this is what should be the main topic of both articles, i.e. discussing the theory, narrative, concepts, and the like, rather than discuss all over again the events themselves (they are cherry picked summaries of the article's main article to support describing them as fitting the Terminology section; they only include those which support the article, and in some cases are in contradiction with the main article or what historians of Communist say about the events), which are then lumped together to support the articles, but most of those events are not described as crimes against humanity and mass killings, there is disagreement among genocide and Communist scholars both between the two fields and inside them, and very few have overwhelming consensus in them being genocide or mass killing), for which we already have individual articles and individual Communist state and their history articles, which is where synthesis and original research come in my and other users' view, and redundancy and POV forking.
I think it is a shame you did not come earlier because I believe more users would not have been as persuaded to just look at sources provided and say 'yes.' I am also very curious about the verification vs. due conflict. I actually wish there was an encyclopedia like this where there would be different versions of the same article, like one following Wikipedia and most encyclopedia and academic rules to be (1) very good at summarizing and sourcing, (2) another more detailed and much longer, another which puts more emphasis on verifiability, etc. In a way, this is already possible, as we have sandboxes for this but it would be cool if it would be make more official by having several unofficial version of the same article directly clickable; I think this would also avoid many conflicts, as one may much more easily accept removal of something from (1) but that would be fine for (2). Unfortunately, many articles follows (2) rather than (1), and while I actually like (2) and different versions of the same article and topic, I believe we should ultimately follow and respect our policies and guidelines, and go for (1).
I really hope you will find the will and time to do both source analysis of those articles I mentioned and address RfC issues such as this one, especially the verifiability vs. due conflict, and how "per sources" arguments are taken too much at face value, perhaps because given sources are taken without necessary skepticism and verification to represent the majority and the result of a neutral inquiry and research, not fully analyzed, and sourcing analysis result in long messages which are dismissed as TLDR. Davide King (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[]
By the way, yes, my request has no deadline, so take all the time you need. Since I am here, as I already wrote here, have you noticed any change in sources about the 2021 Cuban protests since they began. I did find a recent Reuters article saying that "[t]housands took to the streets of the capital Havana and other cities on July 11 to vent anger over widespread shortages of food, medicine and other basic goods, frequent power outages and a lack of civil liberties", which is what we already say, except for power outages. Davide King (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC noticeEdit

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Editor TP bansEdit

(reminder to self) List of editors who have requested I not post on their Talk page:

Revert queryEdit

Mathglot, did you make this revert without reading the article Talk page? Your edit summary doesn't seem to acknowledge any of the (fairly extensive) Talk discussion, which was pointing to a rather different way forward. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Immed self-revert per user request. Mathglot (talk)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pythagorean triple on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Please don't ever use my talk page to intimidate me againEdit

In this edit on my talk page on 9 August, you attempted to intimidate me by calling into doubt my assessment of your long term behaviour on Talk:Czech Republic#Requested move 25 July 2021. Just to be succinct here, your edit, which selectively quoted my response in favour of an argument you were making is pretty much the definition of bad faith argumentation. It - along with the frankly awful behaviour of some of the accounts in that discussion - is what puts people off engaging in Wikipedia and leads to the sort of false consensus those discussions always arrive at: if only because its the same people, trotting out the same arguments, drowning out everyone else. I think that discussion is a prime example. Please never leave a comment on my talk page again. I would also note, that there is a user in the oppose camp of that discussion who does have a long history of removing the term Czechia from articles, and you can see that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_High-Performance_Computing_Joint_Undertaking&diff=912749475&oldid=911405759

Please do try engaging with others in line with the community spirit and ethos that Wikipedia promotes. Bye.

Luxofluxo (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@Luxofluxo:, I'm very sorry you were offended by the rather mild message I left on your Talk page entitled "Assuming good faith" with the edit summary, "At Talk:Czech Republic, please talk about how best to improve the article, not about your assessments of other editors' motives or lack of good faith." Far from being an attempt to bully or intimidate you, it was an attempt to explain the important behavioral guideline of Assumption of good faith to you, which you had previously transgressed in two edits at the Czech Republic talk page (here, and here ("...he is way too partisan to be involved in this discussion") ).
It's inevitable at Wikipedia that you will encounter other editors with opinions different from yours on various topics, or contrary to yours, but it's a linchpin of our policy of collaboration and consensus that even if an editor disagrees with you, the basic assumption is that they are here for the same reason you are, namely: "to improve the encyclopedia", and you should accept that their disagreement with you is not necessarily an indicator that they are here for nefarious purposes. Assuming good faith means we don't question the motives of other editors at article Talk pages; instead, we stick to questions of content.
If you truly believe an editor is here for some nefarious purpose, then as I mentioned in my message to you, the proper venue for comments about another user's behavior is on the user's Talk page. Since you apparently believe I have some behavioral problems at Wikipedia, this Talk page is the right place for such comments, so thank you for bringing this to my attention here.
I noticed that after I tried to raise issues of good faith at your Talk page, your very next edit was to delete it (diff) rather than comment on it. That is completely up to you; it's your talk page, and you get to delete what you want. But even if you didn't comment in text, you did in your edit summary on the delete, which read:

You're not interested in improving the article, you are interested in intimidating people off the encyclopaedia. Hence your lack of actual engagement with the arguments put forward. Please try editing in line with the community spirit of the encyclopaedia.

It's more than a bit ironic, that beside the fact that this is contrary to the purpose of edit summaries, rather than engage in a discussion about the principle of AGF on your talk page, you chose to go on the attack, imputing at least two additional bad-faith motivations to me in your edit summary, as your response.
But apparently that wasn't enough for you, as you simultaneously left me the message I'm responding to here. In your first sentence, you said that I "attempted to intimidate" you, and in the second sentence, you said that my behavior at Czech Republic is "pretty much the definition of bad faith argumentation". Neither of these claims holds up, as any reader will see by reviewing the messages. My message to you on your TP was a neutral description of good faith policy; it's normal for relatively new or less-experienced users to receive a message like this, or even more experienced users if they succumb to the passions of the moment. We're all human. It's not the end of the world, and it doesn't require a battleground response, or even any response at all, and it's not all that serious when it happens in isolation.
If it becomes part of a pattern, then it's a bit more serious. If the mere notice of possible AGF issues on your Talk page causes such a furious response, laden with further occurrences of lack of good faith, then that's a problem. Because you've now made numerous declarations of my bad faith in a short period, and because this is my Talk page where others who happen by may see this and wonder about it, I feel I have no choice but to set the record straight on a number of misstatements on your part:

You're not interested in improving the article...

  • That's a baseless accusation. I have one lifetime edit at Czech Republic (from 2018) and it remains live today. As for other articles, improving them is my only motivation when I edit.

you are interested in intimidating people off the encyclopaedia...

  • Another baseless accusation. As a member of the WP:Welcome committee, I've left hundreds of welcome messages, and helped mentor many users. I've developed or improved numerous templates now in wide use by members of the Welcome committee. I've "intimidated" no one off the encyclopaedia (although I have pulled out the stops in some last-ditch attempts to try to prevent several prickly editors from being indefinitely blocked, not always successfully, when just about everyone was impatient to block them).

In this edit on my talk page on 9 August, you attempted to intimidate me...

...by calling into doubt my assessment of your long term behaviour on Talk:Czech Republic#Requested move 25 July 2021

  • I'm not entirely sure what you meant by this. I don't have any long term behaviour at Talk:Czech Republic; my first ever edit was two weeks ago (30 July) and my last was 12 August. But as far as the short term is concerned, I certainly do call into question your assessment of my behavior there, which has been nothing but completely compliant with all behavioral policies (and short-lived).

Please don't ever use my talk page to intimidate me again

  • You chose that for the section header of this discussion, so a quasi-attack all right there in large, bold font for everyone to see. Only, it actually calls into question your behavior and motivation, not mine, so I have no qualms about leaving it there until it gets archived.

Please never leave a comment on my talk page again.

  • I'll respect your wish (except where policy requires it). In the meantime, you're welcome to comment here.
Just to be clear, I do understand that receiving even a mild advisory about Assumption of good faith may feel like a reproach, but the intention was to inform, and to help you be a better editor. There are tons of guidelines and policies around here, and nobody is expected to know everything all at once; plus, I understand that you are coming off an extended period not editing, and perhaps it takes some time to reacquaint yourself with the way things work. Certainly the initial comments at Talk:Czech Republic which I flagged at your Talk page were quite minor transgressions, and that should've been the end of it. Instead of just taking it in stride, you seem to have doubled down with more of the same, which is a bit troubling but I hope you'll let it go now, keep the AGF principle in mind when dealing with other editors, and let's both of us get back to the business of improving the encyclopedia, which is, after all, why we are both here, right? Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay, now it all makes sense: you act like this with everybody, not just with me. Here you are in your topic ban appeal at the Administrator's Noticeboard, repeatedly smacking down one admin after another who are trying to help you: WP:AN#6 month topic ban end (perma, diff). Good luck with that approach; I think you escaped an indefinite block there by a hair's breadth. Mathglot (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: History and geography request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics 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 23:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

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 06:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

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

 

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox artist 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 19:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Psychology 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, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bruno Mars 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 23:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jeremiah Lisbo 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 21:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC on which flag to use for Austria-Hungary's infoboxEdit

You are being invited to discuss the question of which flag to use for Austria-Hungary's infobox because you participated in this last discussion back in 2019. The discussion can be found at Talk:Austria-Hungary#RfC: National flags vs Civil Ensign White Shadows Let’s Talk 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Met a Farsi speakerEdit

I pointed him at WP:PNT but I can’t remember where that list of Pootisheavy MT articles lives these days, do you remember? This guy writes competent English, maybe level 3, but easily editable. Problems with definite and indefinite articles but pretty good otherwise. Thanks for any brainpower you are able to apply to this problem.Elinruby (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

nm, found it 01:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar for youEdit

  The Original Barnstar
Here’s a barnstar for all you have done for this website. CycoMa (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you, CycoMa, I really appreciate it! Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Tips subpage?Edit

Hey I saw you have a subpage on tips. I must what’s it for?

Is it like some test page?CycoMa (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

CycoMa It's not a test page (although I have those, too). It's a convenience subpage where I can find all the guidelines, policies, and other useful information that I repeatedly use, but often have trouble finding when I need them because there's so much stuff out there that I can't possibly remember all the helpful pages on Wikipedia, and even searching for them I can't find them sometimes. It's helpful to me to link them all from one page. Hence, my "tips" page.
It used to be more lean and mean, and has become bloated over the years. If it were intended for more general use, it would need a lot of work to tighten it up, but since it's really only for me, it's kind of like an old, comfortable car, that only I know how to start by jiggling the key just right, and I'm good with it, messy as it is. But you're welcome to steal the idea and create your own "tips" page if you want. Mathglot (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Mathglot: I have a similar subpage to the one you have already. I also have enough subpages anyway. And it’s probably best I don’t make anymore because for some reason everyone on Wikipedia has their eyes on me and scroll through everything of mine.
I kinda miss being 2020 CycoMa. But, 2021 CycoMa is different.CycoMa (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@CycoMa: Not sure what "everyone on Wikipedia has their eyes on me" is all about (and you don't have to tell me) but if you feel that's the case, then just make up your new "tips" subpage, and keep it on your laptop hard drive, mobile device Files app, external drive, or wherever you like to store stuff. I don't mind if people browse through my subpages; mostly they'll probably just get bored and fall asleep.
Oh, and by the way: when someone writes on my Talk page, I get automatically WP:NOTIFied, so you don't need to {{ping}} me when you write on this page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry about that weird comment. But basically what’s going is that a couple weeks I was nothing more than a typical noob editor. But, now it’s very obvious I no longer fall under that definition.(By the way I usually don’t mind people scrolling my pages.)CycoMa (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Oops it appears I’m breaking the whole WP:NOTFORUM policy.CycoMa (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
CycoMa, thanks for thinking of that, but WP:NOTFORUM policy does not apply to User talk pages, only to article talk pages. So, within reason and within the constraints of overall policy and talk page guidelines for User talk pages, you can say whatever you want. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay I must ask you a question. I looked through your edit count how did you manage to make over 10,000 edits in 2021? And how are your edit counts growing? I mean that’s a lot of edits in that time card.CycoMa (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry if that’s a weird question. I’m just impressed by all that.CycoMa (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@CycoMa: No, it's fine. Actually, it's not that large a number; there are tons of people with a lot more than that, including some using WP:AWB who rack up that many in a few days or weeks. Or check out the total edit count of User:BD2412, or their recent contributions: in just the last 2 days they've got over 500, so that's around 2,000 a week. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah it’s amazing how people could edit that much on Wikipedia.
In away I think I’m turning into one of those people. People on discord were concerned when they saw that I made over 3000 edits in 30 days.CycoMa (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh my lord I’m very sorry for saying all that. I was off my ADHD medication that day because I ran out. Why did I think saying all that was okay.CycoMa (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@CycoMa: relax, it's all good. Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Allahabad moveEdit

Hi Mathglot. I noticed that you commented on the move in the RfC. Since there is a RM that has since been opened, I've closed the RfC to avoid confusion. You may want to reiterate your opinion in the RM. Best. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I just saw your comment in the move discussion. Though frowned upon, technically, there is nothing to prevent an RM discussion starting while an RfC is in progress. Regardless, since the discussion has drawn numerous opinions, it is too late to close it. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@RegentsPark: I moved my comment down to the new one. Mathglot (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]