User talk:Mathglot/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Improperly formatted, please try again

It seems, you want to play the teacher ... Wouldn't it be better to improve yourself? Are you interested in content or in dominance? AVS (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The comment above is apparently in reference to my revert of your recent edit at Dasein ohne Leben. Your edit took an explanatory footnote that had been properly formatted, and turned it into one that was garbled and unclear.

I think what happened, is that you attempted to place a reference into the note. That's fine, even a good idea, however, the ref was improperly formatted and interpolated the reference text inline into the note, even separating an adjective from its noun by 20 words, instead of being formatted properly as a footnote. I reverted with an indication that your edit had been made in good faith, explained in the edit summary what was wrong with it, and encouraged you to try again. And this is your reaction?

This seems to be a pattern. You have been prickly before in your reaction to other edits at this article which were made in order to protect its integrity or prevent disruption. Your first reaction to someone altering an edit of yours often appears to be to assume that you are right, and that no one else could possibly be interested in improving the article but are merely standing in your way, or expressing "dominance". I'm not sure if this represents a sense of ownership of the article on your part, just a natural combativeness, you're unable to admit a simple mistake, or if you truly don't see that anyone who disagrees with you might be honestly trying to improve the article. Whatever it is, you've been around for long enough to know that finding consensus is a core principle of Wikipedia, so when you disagree with someone, just talk it out on the article page, and don't make baseless accusations about other users.

So, please cool your jets, no more temper tantrums, and let's just concentrate on improving the article and assuming that others are trying to do the same; okay?

Oh, and one other thing: the comments you leave never have a link to what you are talking about. People work on lots of different things, and if you want to raise an issue with someone about an article, the courteous thing to do is to provide a link, preferably a {{diff}} to what you are talking about. At the very minimum, you need to at least name the article you are talking about, otherwise you force the person to search their contribution history and yours, to try to figure out what you mean, and that is just rude. So, please, don't do that; ideally, use {{diff}}s if you can, otherwise plain article links will do. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Pride parade

I did see any edits to the article that would justify removing a maintenance tag that had only been placed a couple of months ago. The IP editor did not add a note explaining why they had removed the tag. Pjefts (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I see what i did wrong. Pjefts (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Hi Mathglot, thank you for your recent edits to Feminist views on prostitution. I think that you did a great job improving the overall tone, neutrality and style of the article. Please enjoy this bubble tea as a token of my appreciation. Cheers, Cocoaguy ここがいい 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(untitled)

Hello Mathglot,

Thankyou for your words, and advice about ropes. It seems to me that what constitutes a constructive comment about an article will always be, to some degree at least, a matter of opinion. I have no objection to the term cisgender when used in an academic context. I have read a lot of academic papers on subjects ranging from metallurgy, salmo salar behaviour, autism and economic history, to name a few. I appreciate that academic writers vary in their ability to communicate with non-academic readers, and I imagine many would consider that it is not their job to make their research widely accessible, as opposed to narrowly accessible. Yet wiki articles MUST be based on published sources. The weakness in this article is an absence of scepticism about the ASSUMPTIONS that the quoted sources have made. This is not so big a problem if the <cisgender> term is recognised as having its main currency as part of an ongoing academic and political debate. When writers are not open about the assumptions that have made, each reader must come to their own decisions about the significance of any implicit assumptions. If this article is intended to be about a construct <cisgender>, it is always going to be borderline meaningless unless it clarifies whether cisgender is a subordinate construct to a <non-binary gender> construct, or one of a pair of poles that frame the <binary gender construct>. If the truth of the matter is that the jury is still out regarding the true nature of gender, then it is not unreasonable to point out that the subordinate construct <cisgender> is still just a matter of opinion. My point of view, that cisgender is often used in a name-calling way, is amply evidenced in published print. I am not a creative person, so when I called it 'my' point of view, I am being innaccurate. I have borrowed it, and I have not attributed it, because I don't remember the various places where I read it, or heard it. (I get most of my newsfeed from the radio) If wiki editors wish to censor contributions because they are challenging precious assumptions that are seen as axiomatic, perhaps Wikipedia might decide to publish the assumptions which it is comfortable labelling as 'axioms'? When Lavoisier published his 'discovery' of Oxygen, he was seen as a 'scientific' vandal by the older scientists whose body of work into combustion and related matters had failed to realise the fact that <air> was a mixture of several gases, some flammable and some inflammable. The sociology of 'hard' science is a very interesting subject area, but perhaps it is time we had a sociology of sociology? Kind regards, redalasdair@gmail.com 82.32.112.174 (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Moved user comment above from top of page to this position.

User comment above appears to be in reference to this commment of mine at User talk:82.32.112.174#January 2018.

"failed verification" of reasons for stealth behavior on Transsexual

In your edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transsexual&type=revision&diff=728441990&oldid=727603667), you claim that the statement that transsexuals "choose not to disclose their past for numerous reasons, including fear of discrimination and fear of physical violence" is not verified by the reference.

The following statements in the reference would appear to support this statement:

• Large majorities attempted to avoid discrimination by hiding their gender or gender transition (71%)
• Ninety percent (90%) of respondents said they had directly experienced harassment or mistreatment at work or felt forced to

take protective actions that negatively impacted their careers or their well-being, such as hiding who they were, in order to avoid workplace repercussions.

Do you nevertheless feel that the reference does not provide satisfactory verification of the statment in question? Fabrickator (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: You're right, it does support it. I missed it because the source is 228 pages long, and since no page number was given, rather than read the whole thing I simply searched it for the word 'stealth,' which did not turn up, so I assumed it failed verification. Thanks for finding the supporting references, which as we can see, do support the assertion. A better tag to place at the time would perhaps have been, {{page needed}} (and it's still needed), but I appreciate your comments here. I support removal of the {{failed verification}} tag. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Second-wave feminism/Timeline of second-wave feminism

Hi Mathglot. It appears you might be working on a draft for a future article at Talk:Second-wave feminism/Timeline of second-wave feminism. Talk pages of non-existent articles are subject to deletion per WP:G8. so that talk page is not really the best place for this. You should probably move this to either the draft namespace or your userpace. If, however, you feel that a Wikipedia article on this subject is justified, you can also just create the aritcle yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about G8, Marchjuly, I wasn't aware of it. Since there's already agreement at Talk:Second-wave feminism#Split proposal: Timeline that a new article is justified, I'll just go ahead with that option. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Just for refernece, however, the non-free files I removed from that talk page per WP:NFCC#9 should not be considered automatically compliant with any new article created.Each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy all ten non-free content criterion listed in WP:NFCCP. Non-free use in list articles like that timeline tends to be almost never allowed because such usage lacks the context required by WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS. Just for looking at how the files were being used, I don't see how their use would satisfy the relevant policy, but if you disagree than you will need to clearly show how they do by providing a non-free use rationale for each file for the particular way they are being used in the new article. Providing such a rationale, however, does not mean compliance and the non-free can be challenged per WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I did avoid using a few non-free images that I had found, but I must have missed the notification on some others when including them. I won't assume any of the ones you removed would be compliant, so I'll just leave them out. Thanks for having my back on this. Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

1928?

Hello. I don't understand your reasoning here. Although the word has been reclaimed and is often used positively, this is far from universally so. In any event, how can Category:Misogynistic slurs and Category:Pejorative terms for people apply but not Category:Sexuality and gender-related slurs? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Okay, I reverted. Btw, thanks for the heads-up on the other categories; the latter two are super-categories of the former; I've removed them. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered about that but didn't really have time to look into it closely enough. Thanks! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

periodontitis Biofilm microscopy

I did put different text with some changes and removed Youtubes. Now, can I use this text as added section of periodontitis??? Without it being removed by I do not know who! And not starting a edit war for which I am always the looser for many years? How come the other part can remove it and I be the looser and I presume others don not know anything in science about microscopy of biofilm in periodontitis???? ThanksTdebouches (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Response at your talk page, at User talk:Tdebouches#Biofilm Microscopy 2. Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Gender socialization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consolidating conversation in one place.

---

Hi there. Don't you think that the very genesis of gender roles is significant enough a question for the matter of gender roles to appear in the lead section of an article about gender roles? 77.126.47.196 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

duplicate content: see here for unified discussion.

Hm, in light of your recent message to me... I'd like to point out that the "Theories of gender as a social construct" section already tackles the social reproduction of gender roles, i.e. gender socialization. It uses the term socialization multiple times, though not gender socialization specifically. If the term gender socialization was used in that section, would you view its introduction in the lead section as summarization? 77.126.47.196 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Probably, but I'm mobile right own and it's hard for me to jump back and forth. Being bold in your editing can be a good thing, but as a new editor you should go slow while learning the sometimes arcane policies and guidelines around here. Articles related to gender are an especially difficult area in which to learn the ropes because they are scrutinized much more carefully, and missteps are curtailed much quicker and perhaps more severely (see WP:ACDS), although as a new user, you should get some slack from other editors, maybe once or twice, although no guarantees on that score. It would be a lot easier for you if you edited some non-Gender related articles first, while figuring out how things work around here. I'll ask EvergreenFir for a second opinion and to have a look generally, and see if they have any additional advice for you. Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Aarrgh, I hate splitting threads among two talk pages can we please just keep this in one place? Copying content to your talk page... Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Chinese Famine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Translated article on gender

Dear Mathglot. I now see you left a message in December. The Wikitrad project is not moribund. We started working on the project in September. So we will keep translating the original article even though we will not publish it in the end. Thanks for your message and collaboration. --Mcptrad (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)  Done

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)  Done

Responding to your message

Hi, I did add an edit summary to the edit I wrote. I only added the first two sentences of that specific section, where I also included a citation. The rest was not written by me. Thanks. If you have any other suggestions, I would love to hear them.Kaitlin 121 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

repondre aux messages

Moved to User_talk:Tdebouches#Dites, donc... at 09:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peru, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aymara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Periodontitis

Attendez j ajoute un paragraphe sur ce qu on trouve a la microscopie dans periodontitis et je suis ... permettez moi l expert mondial en la matiere... et je me le fait enlever par...???? A chaque fois! C est insensé! En plus il est là en francais! Si ca n etait que du mauvais anglais on pourrait courtoisement me corriger! Mais tout enlever!!! C est de la dérision et de l acharnement a la meconnaissance. Tdebouches (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)  Done

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Belarus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Belarus. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)  Done

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your civility and helpfulness. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gbawden submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Mathglot to be Editor of the Week for his consistent civility and helpfulness to not only new editors but all editors on WP. I first came across their work at User talk:David-waterways where they gave solid advice to a new user. They also made the user feel welcome and valued and I believe this encouraged the user to continue and improve rather than simply give up. From viewing their talk page I see that this behaviour is consistent throughout their talk page, and taking a look at User talk:Yoselin C. Mathglot once again gave solid advice in a welcoming, non judgmental way to a new user. Editors with this level of civility and friendliness need to be celebrated.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Mathglot

Editor of the Week for the week beginning February 18. 2018

Consistently civil and helpful to all WP editors - new and old. Solid non-judgmental adviser to new users, making them feel welcome and valued ...giving encouragement to continue and improve rather than giving up.

Recognized for

Friendliness

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 21:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Gbawden, Wow, I'm humbled, didn't even know this existed, thank you so much for the nomination! Thanks also to Buster7. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Continuation War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Continuation War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)  No action

elections in Brazil

I've seen and been amused by descriptions of Operation Car Wash as "operatic" and "panoramic". I am, yes, watching this, but as mentioned elsewhere I don't speak Portuguese, and I gather that Brazilian Portuguese is fairly distinct in and of itself. It's essentially going to be a referendum on corruption. I have put some time into building out 2016 in Brazil and 2017 in Brazil and so on, so at least some of the dates of indictments are there. However the politics of Brazil only gets spotty coverage in English language newspapers, etc etc. There is some rather specialized vocabulary: for example "award-winning" testimony is given in return for more lenient sentences, and has nothing to do with prizes. In ten words or less, we could really use Portuguese speakers willing to help out, as we still don't cover this adequately and the situation seems guaranteed to escalate.Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I can help a little with a specific translation if you need something in a hurry, but if it's more for the medium or long-term, don't forget we have all the infrastructure for recruiting foreign-language editor/translators left over from the X2 project just sitting there, ready to be used. I still intend to fire it up again for WP:PNT when I'm not busy on other things (just now creating an English version of de:Luise F. Puch), but in the meantime, if you'd like, we can fire up just the Brazilian Portuguese part of it, and see if we can recruit half a dozen speakers willing to help out. If you're concerned about bias from local speakers, on the X2 project I always preferred native English speakers who were xx-3 or xx-4 level on the foreign language as their English will be perfect, so what do you say we get a few pt->en translator/editors who are en-N and pt-3 or pt-4 to help out? If they're anything like me, they will not know a whole lot about Brazilian politics, and have no particular bias one way or the other. I can make up a new template like {{X2 review help}} just for this project, to make it easier on us to find translators. Another thing that occurs to me, is to see if we could try to find editors from Portugal (or Angola, Cape Verde, etc.) who probably won't have any particular bias on what's going on in Brazil, but we'd have to make sure their English is good as well.Mathglot (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

that would probably be useful. There is a lot that needs doing and as you know Portuguese makes my head hurt and yet nobody else is fixing this stuff so... I am not so sure that I am worried about *bias* per se in the overall coverage of the upcoming elections - it's more a matter of what is objectivity? Most of the coverage makes moral statements so you have to try to get all the POVs including bidness as usual. People whose families made their money owning plantations are litigating with one another and against unionist politicians who were once guerrilla fighters against a military dictatorship. So many people involved are involved, help is needed just recording all of the court proceedings, and I am not even attempting to parse the rights and wrongs. For example I just found a story about a judge driving an incarcerated defendant's seized automobile, and have found an article about the billionaire's insider trading charges, but this was the first I'd heard of the case at all, and it would be interesting to know what happened go that charge. I'd be willing to bet not much. The incarcerated billionaire was released pending trial on the same day another politician was videotaped accepting a bribe, but I am sure that's a coincidence ;/ I'm betting the details are out there but in Portuguese. Specifically Folha. Most of the litigation is criminal charges but given the office of the defendants is treated in an impeachment-like track. A politician found guilty of criminal charges cannot hold office under a "Clean Hands" law passed under Lula or Rousseff. All of these people are testifying against one another because of another law which permits waiving parts of some sentences in return for cooperating with the prosecution. Impeachment is also possible without criminal charges, as in the case of Dilma Rousseff, who was essentially impeached for sending out social security payments even though the budget was tied up in the legislative branch, as I understand it. Now, the articles about her are definitely biased, in my opinion, or at least were at one point. Most of the politicians have an article already, at least in Portuguese, in varying degrees of peacock. Usually they have about one cryptic line about the criminal charges, except for the multiple pages about the proceedings against Dilma Rousseff. ;) so that's the flavor of it.

But sure, let's set up a project, it'll be fun ;) Elinruby (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

was just thinking, have been able to get some of this stuff fixed, even where people are trying to own the page, just by saying what does this sentence mean? It does not appear to make sense to me an average English speaker. Slow and irritable progress but progress nonetheless. So strictly speaking these pages could also use help from editors who don't speak Portuguese but are willing to read about this stuff. Elinruby (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Giovanni Gentile

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Giovanni Gentile. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)  Done

Transgender people in sports

Are you sure this is vandalism? It seems correct to me. Just thought I would check with you in case I am missing something. AIRcorn (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: You're entirely correct of course, and I've reverted back. Thanks for keeping tabs, and letting me know so quickly, I appreciate it! "Boy, is my face red," as they say.... Mathglot (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I was sure something must have been wrong with it, but couldn't for the life of me figure out what. These things happen and with the amount of vandalism this area is prone to it is not surprising that there will be the odd mistake. AIRcorn (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

if you want to work your Portuguese, a specific Operation Car Wash question I can't figure out

So there is a Joesley Batista, who is involved with JBS SA, and also a brother, Wesley I think. Both are to some degree something something in Car Wash , so, ok. Lots of that going around. But there is also an Eike Batista who used to be a multibillionaire and had a string of companies named OSX and OGX and the like. He is also somehow involved in Operation Car Wash. While older than the other two Batistas the relationship does not appear, based on the infoboxes, to be father/son or for that matter sibling. I am assuming that while this is not a completely unusual last name, but...once you shrink your populations to multibillionaires involved in Operation Car Wash, it seems to me that we need to mention the relationship, whether uncle or cousin or none. I mean, Joesley is bribing a politician the same day Eike is released from prison pending his trial. (The suitcase was allegedly for the current President, Michel Temer, but he survived the impeachment vote and the Supreme Court can't proceed. The criminal court doesn't have jurisdiction while he is in office. So all this is definitely notable if we can explain it).

So - can you find the family or corporate relationship? It seems like there must be one. Or if these are completely separate instances of corruption, this seems notable in and of itself. Thanks for any brainpower you may apply to the question. PS: Helpful vocabulary btw: bribes often referred to as tips. Elinruby (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop edit warring and harassing me

Please stop harassing me and my edits with your edit-war tactics, I do not want to have to report you, which may end up getting you blocked. I would like to discuss if necessary the reasons of why you feel the way you do instead of boiling it down to you harassing other people. My edits are very much on point and accurate and are based on strict guidelines of the community, that of which always accepts criticism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askingquestions2 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The preceding message apparently in response to messages about edit warring and proper use of the lead left on their Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Orthodoxy RM

You recently participated in an AfD discussion for the Anti-Orthodoxy article here. A request to move (retitle) that article is currently under discussion here if you'd care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)  Done

Please comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)  Comment.

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done – No opinion. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Platform shoe

The link contains no reliable evidence or verification and does not meet Wikipedia standards. I will take this up with an administrator if necessary. Anyone can say anything on the Web. This does not make it 'fact' or suitable for Wikipedia. I have started a thread on the article's Talk Page to garner the opinions of other editors and to see if evidence of this 'fact' is forthcoming.

(Ethel D (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ethel D, I think you are overreacting. Mathglot merely pointed out that personal experience is not as good a reason for making a change as a reliable source, or lack of. A solitary reversion is hardly harassment, whereas threatening to take a matter up with an administrator could be. Instead of seeking authority from a higher power, instead seek consensus from the community. I think the removal of unverified information from platform shoe has improved the page, but your whining has vexed me. Also, remember to sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). AJ2265 (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ethel D: Taking it up on the talk page is the right thing to do. Thank you. You may be right about the link, let's see what others think.

@AJ2265: I'm mobile for a few days so it's hard for me to respond to Ethel's comments in detail; thanks for stepping in. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Platform Shoes - 2

I have inserted the following on the Platform Shoes Talk Page:

text copied from Talk:Platform shoe

Fish Tanks And Light Bulbs On The Feet I have removed an assertion which suddenly appeared here a few weeks ago which states that some people were wearing fish tanks on their feet in the 1970s - and lighted bulbs, which would have been impossible to engineer at the time. These 'facts' are based on an article which cites no reliable sources or documentary evidence. This has brought me into dispute with another editor. I would be grateful for the thoughts of other editors on this matter. I must admit to feeling slightly fazed and harassed by the actions of this editor, as the article in question does not meet Wikipedia's specifications.

What you seem to be saying here is that one person is wrong, another is right. But where is the evidence? Where are all the contemporary mail order catalogues, magazine articles, designers, telling us all about the light bulb and/or fish tank platforms of the 1970s? It is the word of one modern article.

(Ethel D (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ethel D: If reliable sources cannot be found, then it should not be there. It's a day later, you're not edit warring if you remove it again, pending outcome of a discussion on the Talk page, although usual procedure per WP:BRD would be to wait. But I won't undo any change of yours until we see where the talk conversation ends up.

PS It's better to provide a link than copy your whole text from a Talk page so I've collapsed it above and added the link.

PPS Please read WP:FOURTILDES. Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits on violence against prostitutes

Dear Mathglot,

I saw you removed my edits to the violence against prostitutes page, but I am struggeling to understand your reasoning. I would like to know how sharing information about punters and pimps murdering prostituted women denies their agency? Nowhere did I mention the agency or choices of prostituted women and men.

Hiding violence against prostituted women isn't going to make them any safer. Talking about issues with safety (yes, even under legalization) is the only way to improve the situation. The more people know about it and can pressure law makers to put better protections in place the better. The page lists one case of murder being committed in a legal brothel - but clearly it is incomplete.

How does giving the public more evidence about the lack of safety measures in legal brothels deny anyone's agency?

Maybe instead of deleating all the information (which I did give many many sources for) you could edit out sentences which are too poltically charged? I know I tend to add conclusions and not just neutral information. But seeing as that was being done in the entire article, I thought it'd be only fair to add that not everything about prostitution leglization has been a success.

I myself wholeheartedly suppor the decriminalization of prostituted women and men and in fact do not support that the German state has some restrictions to that. But I can't pretend that there aren't still women being attacked and killed under legalization. And I think people should know and we should come together to find a solution? Isn't that something which we can agree on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.17.207.162 (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Kind regards, Elly Arrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elly Arrow (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Contentious issues are best discussed on the talk page of the article. For example, the section Talk:Violence_against_prostitutes#We_should_be_using_'sex_worker'_not_'prostitutes' covers one of the issues within your changes.

Regarding the phrase "denying their agency", which I think you misunderstood, Mathglot is referring to instances where you have switched, for example, "Women who work" for "Women are prostituted", which does not allow for the free will of the women who have chosen sex work.

With reference to your above comments: Wikipedia is not a platform for editors to promote their political viewpoints. Whether or not one supports an issue is immaterial.

Briefly, and with an awareness that this is not my talk page, I think the other issues with your changes were:

1. A lengthy list of murdered sex workers just fills the page with noise and is not encyclopaedic.
2. There were many uses of narrative prose and passive tense. The page is intended just to state the facts - the reader can reach their own conclusions.
3. https://sexindustry-kills.de strikes me as a biased source.

I encourage you to raise on the talk page any issues you think that the page has that could be resolved - you clearly have some knowledge of the subject matter.

AJ2265 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to AJ2265 for stepping in and elucidating my position pretty well while I'm mobile for a few days.

@Elly Arrow: I didn't disagree with most of your edit but it was large and doing multiple, small edits with individual edit summaries for each makes it easier for editors who come in after and only have a problem with one small part of it. I can add more detail in a few days, if you would like or have other concerns. Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for getting back to me. I can see where you're coming from now. I will be making smaller changes in the future and using the term "prostitute" instead of "prostituted woman/man" (I looked on the talk page for violence against prostitutes and while some people suggested switching to "sex worker" for the entire page, others rightfully pointed out that that term isn't politically neutral, doesn't accurately describe the situation of all those who are not willing participants in the sex trade - nor is it used by the majority of English speakers). I will try to keep my tone as neutral as possible.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with your rejection of Sex Industry Kills as a source however. Yes, it was created by an abolitionist group, but it is the most complete list of individual murder cases of prostitutes which I could find anywhere online. Most of the content of the page is just listing cases, refering to news articles as sources and summarizing information from those sources. If you know of a politically neutral page which has a list as comprehensive I will link to that instead. If I cannot link to a listing page however, I would have to give dozens of sources if I e.g. want to share the publically known number of prostituted women murdered before and after legalization in Germany/Netherlands/elsewhere. If I can't link to a list page, then I'll have to link to hundreds of individual cases, which doesn't seem like a good idea.

For example: Currently the page states that there was one murder of a prostituted woman since legalization inside a legal brothel in Germany. That is incorrect - there were 13. The problem is that no news source I could find has reported this number, because the cases are usually reported individually and rarely does a journalist make reference to a similar case (or a case that took place in the same brothel). How do I provide sources in such a case? Thank you for any advise and input in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elly Arrow (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Elly Arrow: I responded on the talk page. AJ2265 (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Medri Bahri

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Medri Bahri. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

SFMOMA Edit-a-Thon in San Francisco, March 8

You're invited to an Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon at SFMOMA in San Francisco on Thursday March 8, 5-9 pm. It'll be at 151 Third Street, 2nd floor, free to the public. Everyone is welcome to participate in an evening of communal updating of Wikipedia entries on subjects related to gender, art, and feminism. (This message is from User:Dreamyshade. You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Created a draft of Andrée Le Coultre which will turn blue when moved to article space. Mathglot (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing Conflict with CLC Student re: Toxic Masculinity

Thanks for your recent message. Your suggestions were very helpful. GROOT (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(Apparently in response to my replies at Talk:Toxic masculinity#Edit conflict with CLC Student.) Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greek royal family

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek royal family. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done – Mathglot (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on requested move

Hi, you recently participated in an AfD discussion for the Anti-Orthodoxy article here. A renewed request to move (retitle) that article is currently under discussion here if you'd care to participate. Sorabino (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't vote, but added this question at WT:RFC to clarify repetitive RM requests. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being polite about my mistakes

Thanks for taking the time and pointing out my mistakes in piping politely. If I do changes that people disagree with, I usually get rants, even on subjective topics. Seems like you can always learn more about Wikipedia editing practices. I've been reading the pages you pointed out and can see they are better solutions. Cheers. Alaney2k (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

However, then you came back later with more criticism that was unclear and pointedly negative towards my editing. I felt I had to make this point here, because my experience with you was not all positive and I did not want to leave the above point as is. Alaney2k (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Polyandry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyandry. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kingdom of France

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kingdom of France. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of the busiest airports in Europe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the busiest airports in Europe. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Pending Mathglot (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Language and gender

Hello, Mathglot. You recently undid an edit at Language and gender. From your edit summary ("If you're going to add a new tag you can't keep a date from 5 years ago") I take it that you objected to adding a new maintenance tag. But I believe the edit you undid simply used a redirect to the same template — Template:Refimprove and Template:More citations needed are actually the same template.

I'm not sure why the redirect was applied, but I would guess some kind of semi-automated editing aid is involved.

The edit you undid added PubMed identifiers to some of the existing citations. Therefore, I undid your undo, effectively 'redoing' the edit you objected to. If I overstepped, you can un-un-undo my edit.

Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Cnilep, Yes, I noticed your explanation, and you were quite right. I did see the pubmed thing, but figured if you agreed with the first part but not the second, you'd just restore the pubmed, otherwise all of it. In the end, your reasoning makes sense. Kind of you to leave an additional explanation here; thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Information centre hypothesis

Hi, I'm Elmidae. Mathglot, thanks for creating Information centre hypothesis!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Nice job! Can you rustle up some categories for the page?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I did not create Information centre hypothesis, the credit goes to student editor Js7581, I suggest you move this notice to their Talk page. Also,there are numerous suggestions for improvement of the article already, on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh, the NPP interface automatically puts that notice on the talkpage of the first editor in the history... as you say, the suggestions for improvement are there already, so I'll spare them this template message :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Elmidae: That probably works most of the time, but Js7581 created the article as a section in their sandbox, and asked for help in spinning it out into its own page, which I did. Not sure how common a use-case that is, but perhaps you could mention it to the NPP maintainers. However, I am curious about one thing: I'm autopatrolled, so in that case, why did the article even show up in the NPP queue at all, if they thought I created it? Mathglot (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

True, it's suboptimal in these cases. I don't see how the interface can be made to pick it up though - distinguishing between originator and mover is probably a bit too recherche. Also, the NPP wishlist is a sad and howling desert with dozens of unanswered change requests. That comes from it having been developed as a standalone extension rather than a script that editors could maintain :/ - As for why the article ended up in the queue, it appears that the actual move into mainspace was done by Js7581 here; not sure why, if you had already done that at the beginning? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see you moved it to a subpage of the sandbox only. It's the move into mainspace that triggers NPP, though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Elmidae: Ha, now it's starting to become clear: it appears NPP uses two different criteria in deciding (1) whether to autopatrol, and (2) whom to template:

1. Whether to add the article to the queue: does user who created/moved page to mainspace have autpatrolled bit?
2. Whose Talk page to template for the thank you: earliest user in article history

In this case, I split off the student editor's article out of a section of their sandbox, into a standalone sandbox article, so they could work on it. When they judged it was done, they moved it to main space, and since the new editor is not autopatrolled, per #1 it was added to the queue, but since I was tagged as earliest since I created the standalone draft, per #2 it templated me.

Seems inconsistent usage, though; they should pick one criterion, or the other, imho, and stick to it. Mathglot (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, nice interaction (and I spent all day chasing a model error caused by using Math.round() followed by Math.floor() instead of the former twice, so I am all receptive now to the charms of unintended interactions |p). OK, I'll make a note of it on the wishlist. Not holding my breath though! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Translation ita-eng

Hello!

I'm a Wiki-It user. I'm asking some active users who can translate from Italian to English, if they're able to do a translation. The page to translate from Italian to English is this. On Wiki-it this page measures over 108,000 bytes, compared to only 85,000 which measures the page in English. There are therefore approximately 25,000 bytes to be translated. Can you do this translation?

Thank you for your reply and I wish you a good day, greetings! --Samu204c (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: I'm sorry for any errors, but I can not speak English very well...

Samu204c, there are several problems with your request. First of all, the English article Sia (musician) is not a translation of the Italian one. The English one began in 2004, and by the time the Italian one was first created on 22 February 2009, the English article was already 13,638 bytes.

Secondly, even if one had been translated from the other, English is very efficient, and it's normal when you have two texts in English and Italian representing the same content, that the English one is somewhat shorter. So the number of bytes difference between the two, does not mean that anything is "missing" from the English article.

Thirdly, even if there was a much greater difference in size, the two articles have diverged, with different editors adding different material. Look at the two table of contents, for example; they are not the same.

So, the your translation request makes no sense, and I've removed the {{Expand Italian}} tag. Sorry I can't help further. Mathglot (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot I apologize. I probably did not understand the use of that template, which was recommended to me in the help desk. However I think it would be possible to add on Wiki-Eng the additional information of Wiki-it. The two page are not equal in content, as the Italian contains more information about the singer. Thanks for the help. --Samu204c (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Faith healing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faith healing. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In God We Trust- Star Spangled Banner connection

Hey-- there's about a 100% chance that the Times article stole that info about the Spangled Banner-motto connection from Wikipedia, and now we are using a Times article (which has and claims no expertise on In God We Trust) that was based on a sloppy unsourced Wikipedia assertion that In God We Trust comes from the Star Spangled Banner. circular logic Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative, That would be a content issue regarding the article Francis Scott Key at these edits, and should properly be taken up on the Talk page of the article, not here. Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for raising it at the talk page. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

ToC level and MOS:OUTLINE

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Outlines

Nice template. See you there.     — The Transhumanist    05:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)