My editing tips.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you could activate such improvements... Greetings, Fritz Fehling (currently indefinitely blocked for no justifiable reason...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.190.71 (talk • contribs) 01:10, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Great floors: Your comment is apparently in reference to this revert of your edit at Talk:German orthography reform of 1996 where you moved 38,000 bytes of archived, ten year-old discussions back to the main Talk page. As is clear by the diffs, I didn't "blindly archive threads" as you claim; I merely restored the status quo ante which you disturbed. Find a Wikipedia policy that says it is "disrespectful to editors" to keep old threads archived, and I will revert myself.

Yes, old discussions may have unanswered questions. That is the nature of Wikipedia Talk pages, and if no one responds after some time, the old discussions are archived. If you have an issue with how Archiving is done in general, try opening a discussion about it at WT:ARCHIVE. In the meantime, you can always add a new discussion to the current Talk page, along with links pointing to any archived discussion you feel is relevant.

As for the current archive-age setting of 45 days, I believe that's quite a generous number; but it can be set to any agreed-upon value. I think your setting of eight years for the archive-age param is wildly outside the mainstream, but if you wish to seek consensus for that value on the Talk page, then by all means go for it. Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For an additional note on this situation, please see this comment^[permalink] at your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page about talk pages or archiving only says that threads can be archived if they are "stale". Some or most of those threads are certainly not stale. They are relevant documents for why the article is how it is. An archive bot "blindly" archived everything. I undid the bot's mistake. What's to be gained by stuffing all those threads, that editors put work into, away in an archive? Great floors (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Great floors: A user talk page is not the place to argue for (or against) changes to existing policy. There is nothing further to be gained by continuing this fruitless discussion about established policy here. My suggestion to you, is to raise a new topic at WT:TALK referencing WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE, and try to gain consensus for your point of view. If you do, please ((ping)) me to that discussion. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

https://www.voanews.com/amp/in-haiti-slight-progress-for-lgbt-rights-is-seen-as-victory/4528161.html

http://www.whig.com/article/20180814/AP/308149903

http://agenciaaids.com.br/noticia/54575/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something i couldn't finish during the last edit, due to character limit. MGTOW is individualistic in nature as there are no rules or beliefs to adhere to but your own, thus any central authority to make the rules and "levels" system is absent. Because of this, the beliefs are made clear on various outlets, of which the /r/mgtow or mgtow.com are part. The beliefs of the members, by and large, is The force that is shaping the MGTOW; to allow one biased individual at Vice such power is incorrect. As the beliefs of the community are made known across these outlets, these are the places where they can be found. There are no known outlets which have endorsed this "level" belief. Being an isolationist is a person's personal choice, not a rule one must adhere to in order to belong. MGTOW members by and large do not make such choices, nor do they advocate for them, therefore, including it into the MGTOW description will only mislead people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.133.100 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Moved to User talk:Renathras § Re: Demographic Tables

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

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

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

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

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

While the reference is to a book, the link is to the galley proof of a single chapter from the book. On the assumption that the chapter was the relevant portion of the book, I attempted to verify the original sentence in the article and could not. I modified the article text so that it now accords with the linked chapter. After reading your comment, I also added a page number (roman numerals within the galley proof), but it is possible that I didn't put it in the right place, since I'm not a qualified Wikipedia editor. Being unfamiliar with the Wikipedia format is also the reason I didn't modify the citation so that it cites a book chapter rather than the whole book. If you know how to do that, I think it would be a good idea. Another option would be to remove the link (if in fact the chapter isn't the relevant portion). However, in that last case, it might be best to verify the original text again, this time against the entire book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.159.1 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Hi Mathglot! You created a thread called What's the best venue to seek an uninvolved editor to assist explaining policy to a new user? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance for your attention to the matter.

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

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

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

— kwami (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

Hi Mathglot, Here is I think Lodi Gyari :

Lodi Gyari arriving at Zurich airport in 1973.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FeRDNYC Thanks. I'm not crazy about the current system of accept notices; imho, they all ought to go into the article itself, as a dummy edit with a full edit summary. Sometimes, there's some thing to say even in an accept that needs to be exposed at article level; and the current system, as you pointed out, doesn't do that. Anyway, your kind words are appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: they all ought to go into the article itself, as a dummy edit with a full edit summary *nod* Or even just tacked on to the accepted edit. I mean, if the history can show "[accepted by FeRDNYC]", surely it can show "[accepted by FeRDNYC with message Accept message]" or whatever. ...But, there are a lot of things I would change about how PC protection operates, and I suspect that's true for most reviewers. Hopefully it'll evolve and improve over time. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, @Smeat75:, Thanks for your comments here and at Talk:Roman diocese. The whole situation is kind of depressing, because I can see the guy is smart, and probably does know a lot about the topic since he seems capable of writing details and dates off the cuff without consulting sources, but he's really damaged a lot of articles. I was hoping to keep him from getting blocked because I was afraid he'd get blocked permanently, and like you, I think he is capable of contributing productively. But an indefinite block is not the only possibility, right, and maybe a short one would wake him up as you say. I keep getting to the point where I'm about ready to go to ANI and request a block, and then he backs off a little bit, like today; and since blocks are supposed to be "preventative, not punitive" if he's not up to his old tricks, there's no reason to block him, so I step back again and wait and see. I just wish he'd respond on his Talk page, and on article talk pages. I was looking around to see if there was any policy support for that, and I found Wikipedia:Communication is required. Looks like it's a case of WP:RADAR, possibly mixed with borderline WP:CIR. Anyway, I'll try to see the current situation at Roman diocese through to some kind of conclusion, and then I really need a change of pace. If a couple more people add comments and feel the same way as you and T8612 do, I'll go ahead and flip the switch. Oh, and if you can help with any of the other articles in the list, that would be great. Most of them are only a handful of edits or a few dozen at most, nothing like this one. Anyway, thanks for the kind words and encouragement! Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not thinking of an indefinite block, a short one to get his attention and make him realise he has to listen to others, this is a collaboration, and yes communication is definitely required. Apart from the OR and CIR issues, he goes on wild editing sprees, bloating articles to ridiculous length with no sources, for instance Anglican eucharistic theology, he has turned that article into the length of a pamphlet. It is unreadable. I and others, I am sure, will support you if you want to take him to ANI and ask for a short block, I would be inclined to do it myself, but since you have been dealing with this for some time, I will let you decide.Smeat75 (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not particular about who takes him to ANI or when, I just want to be mindful of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE and since he hasn't done anything like that today, in theory this could be day one of his abandoning that behaviory, in which case there would no reason to take him there. If he starts up again of course, then it's a different story. Thanks for all the support and encouragement. And, I see you have been helping at the list of articles worksheet, thanks very much for that. Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75 Well, now I don't know where we are with this. Since your message, he's been on a tear at Roman diocese, but this time in a good way, just adding <ref> tags, and doing it right. In theory, that's all to the good, but it could make it harder to remove the bloat, so it might end up being a huge, inscrutable, referenced bloat. Also, not entirely sure if he's just throwing in references he knows, or whether they really support the content, and I don't have the energy to try and track them all down one by one. So I'm really not sure where to go from here, now. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that he is doing that, he seems to have absorbed your patient tutelage in that regard, but that does not really change the fact that he has expanded that article to be an unreadable bloat and that he refuses to communicate on talk pages including his own. There are also possible issues with copyvio and he definitely needs to slow down so I still think this should be raised at ANI.Smeat75 (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75 Have you done that before, ANI, I mean? If he hadn't gone on this latest jag of adding refs, I wouldn't have had any qualms about taking him to ANI, even though it would be my first. Now that he's adding refs, I'm feeling less certain, since he's doing what we asked. Still, I totally agree with the rest of what you say (poss copyvio, slow down, communicate) but is that enough to raise at ANI? Is this bad timing because he's in the middle of sourcing? We don't want to block him adding ref tags, right, or is that a completely separate issue? If you're still comfortable with raising it at ANI, either now, or after he stops, you don't need to defer to me; I don't need "credit" or anything like that, I just want what's best for the encyclopedia. Naturally, if you do raise it there, I'll jump right in as well. I'm just not sure what to say at this point. Plus, I know that diffs have to be prepared for them, and not sure what the best set of diffs would be. Most of DuckeggAlex's edits at Roman diocese have already been rolled back; the run of 864 edits still in the article are by Alexander Domanda (talk · contribs), and there's no proof they're the same, and since Domanda hasn't edited for months, there would be nobody to block on that score. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC) He seems to have stopped. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have started a few threads at ANI, not many, I don't really like doing it, but sometimes it is necessary. This is quite a complicated case, I do feel however that refusal to communicate is a very important issue and also that he is just creating terrible articles. I will put some thoughts together.Smeat75 (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75, I don't know if there's any such thing as bringing a case together, but I'm willing to do that, if it is. My main thoughts would be to do it by the book, so, there would have to be some current behavior we wanted to stop, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, and then we'd need some diffs. Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main current behavior we need to stop,imo, is refusal to communicate. I have seen short blocks issued to get the editor's attention. I have never seen a "joint" ANI filed, I wouldn't know how to do that, one of us has to start it I think and then the other can add their comments.I am about to start trying to put some stuff together.Smeat75 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75 Sounds good. One other thing I thought of, is that merely "creating terrible articles" might be seen as a content dispute and not in their jurisdiction, but if we could link it to repeated violation of some policy, then it would be actionable by whatever policy, or by WP:DISRUPT. I'll go quiet for a bit while you're thinking about it, but will respond when you do. If you want help finding specific diffs, let me know. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Smeat75 Yep, saw it; am just trying to add some links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathglot (talk • contribs) 07:45, December 2, 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75:, Well, if the point was to get him to use Talk pages, it worked. Sort of. See below. Mathglot (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Smeat75:, Wow, not only is he using User talk pages, he make a remarkable response to this: Talk:Roman diocese#Wikipedia article, or MA Honors Thesis, although he wrote his reply on the wrong page (here, on my user TP, below): #Roman Diocese 3). I copied his response to the Roman TP, so to see his response in context just go to Talk:Roman diocese#Wikipedia article, or MA Honors Thesis. I think this takes ANI action off the table, at least for now; do you agree? If so, you can withdraw it at ANI. I think he still merits watching, in case he goes on some other binge somewhere, but there doesn't appear to be any reason to block him right now that I can see. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Thank you for all your effort with this. I will leave a note at ANI.Smeat75 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

(edit conflict) @DuckeggAlex: I've responded in two places:

1. at your User talk page, User talk:DuckeggAlex#User talk pages and Article talk pages, and at
2. at the article talk page, Talk:Roman diocese#Body text duplicates footnote content Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smeat75: moved your response to discussion below. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Roman diocese § Body text duplicates footnote content

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

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

Moved to Talk:Roman diocese § 19:41, 2 December

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

Moved to Talk:Roman diocese § 20:13, 2 December

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

I am new to wiki, not sure how this "talk" stuff works. I hope you get this message. PS: I do not have a talk page. Not sure how you will reply to me. Any how....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.96.130 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear @mathglot,

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

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

You are writing that these all edits done by me are unsourced. These all edits are not unsourced dear, I am doing this because I live here and for your confirmation , I give you the sources from where I am doing changes-
http://www.myneta.info/uttarpradesh2017/
http://www.elections.in/uttar-pradesh/parliamentary-constituencies/
http://www.elections.in/uttar-pradesh/
http://www.elections.in/uttar-pradesh/assembly-constituencies/

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

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

Sid54126, these sources fail WP:RS. Source the changes to Election Commission of India publications. Also see this thread. ∯WBG^converse 06:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mathlot,

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

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

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

Moved to Talk:Gender dysphoria § Irreversible changes

Join us in celebrating Wikipedia's 18th birthday at Stanford University!

I am delighted to invite you to the 2019 Wikipedia Day party at Stanford, which will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 5:00-8:30pm.

---

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

---

Details and RSVP here • register here

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reverting the photo edit, and being polite about it. I should have used "copy" instead of "cut" and got everything right before I deleted it. I usually just text edit, and am still learning the boxes and thumbs. Also just tired tonight. I still thing that the very famous photograph should be the lead photo. It would tie in perfectly with the last line of the lead, and it perfectly expresses the main significance of the battle. The current photo is good, but would be better, imho, beside the sections on disease and casualties. Anyways, thanks again. Ben 184.69.174.194 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

@My Gussie: Thanks for the heads-up. Are you sure it was in that category before? I just checked revision 879406279 from before the changes, and it doesn’t seem to have been in that category then. Maybe you’re seeing something I’m not? It was, however, hidden-categorized into Category:Pages using infobox country with unknown parameters in the earlier version, but since the offending params were removed, it no longer is. I should’ve said in the edit summary that they are deprecated params and were throwing errors and generating diagnostic hidden cats in Preview. Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Looks like I made an invalid assumption based on what must be obsolete documentation, which still refers to the continent and region parameters that must have since been removed. Is the template documentation something any editor is encouraged to update or should it be updated by the same people who code the templates? As far the Italian Ethiopia article goes, I am going to add the category manually, to be consistent with the other articles that have it. My Gussie (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@My Gussie: Yes, adding the category manually is definitely the way to go. And the template doc is part of the Wiki, and updating it is definitely okay, and encouraged. Thanks for taking care of both of those, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rereverted. That's a primary source; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The orginal source was Aftonbladet: https://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/bokrecensioner/a/4dEE36/fuhrern-bokmalen In Swedish "Han läste med behållning bilfabrikören Henry Fords The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. " Translation "He read car idustralist Henry Ford's "The International Jew: The Worlds's Foremost Problem". This is a Swedish source so you cannot use the reference in Wikipedia EN edition but need to read the book by Timothy W. Ryback.

Some other sources: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/05/hitlers-forgotten-library/302727/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellarsson (talk • contribs) 09:26, January 26, 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the kind note on my talk page.

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

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genderism_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_29_January_2019

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_binary#Merger_proposal

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

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

Hey Mathglot,

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

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

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

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

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

@MattLongCT: Uh oh, that was not my intention, I heartily apologize. I can strike some of that or reword, let me think about how best to do that. I had thought about writing to you separately, but that seemed vaguely like "cheating" as an open discussion should have the benefit of transparency, so everyone can see what's going on. But I do acknowledge your feelings about this, so please accept my apology, and let me think of some better wording over there. Bbiab... Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MattLongCT:, please have anther glance; how's it looking now? I don't want to leave it in a state you're not happy with, so please feel free to suggest more changes. How does it sound, now? The impression I'm trying to leave, is strictly commentary on the data (which is strong, I admit, but that's how I feel about the data), but no commentary at all about the person posting the data. I don't doubt your good faith for a moment, and if what I wrote still isn't clear about that, then I need to revise it some more.

The fact is, the whole issue of search, search results, the "hit counts" ("Google found 20 zillion results"), and how you interpret it all, is a highly fraught subject, that few non-specialists understand very well. I worked for three search engines, so I have a better than average, though still imperfect, understanding of it. I keep meaning to write an essay about how to interpret search results, one of these days, I'm really going to have to do it. Google Trends data is a special sub-topic of this, and *can* be used, when what users are searching for, is the data one wants. But, as usually we are worrying about verifiability of something or other, that would exclude user searches, but lots of people, probably most, are really pretty hazy about how to interpret search results.

Anyway, once more, please accept my regret and apology of how I originally phrased it, and I hope that it's looking better now. If not, I will fix it some more. Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, please don't feel bad!! I'm fine, really! It's all good. That's a statement I am very comfortable with! Thank you so much for being apologetic, but I probably should apologize to you for making you worry! I think you have mapped out the best solution forward now, and I will await the procedural close as you intended. Thank you again! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MattLongCT: Sounds good, thanks.

Btw, just because someone requests a procedural close, doesn't mean that others will necessarily agree with that and stop posting; they may not even read my comment, or care; so the polling might just carry on as before; it's even possible someone may try to tally !votes and close it one way or another without regard to that discussion. That would be a shame, imho, but it may not go that route, so as you say, we can just wait and see what happens. Now I feel bad that you felt bad for making me feel bad , but all's well that ends well! Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was made by "122.56.100.98", not me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_feminism&diff=next&oldid=882914041 Thanks, A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A145GI15I95:. The edit summary wasn't clear enough, it seems. Nobody is blaming you for that IP edit that got reverted. The state of the article was reverted back to your last revision. I left off the word last before "revision" and included the revision number, which in retrospect, may have confused you; I'll be clearer next time. Sorry for any inconvenience. Mathglot (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now how you could've intended it differently than how I read it. To my first view, the number referred to one version, and the name referred to the other. To include name and number for one seemed redundant, and the invocation of a name inferred unnecessary credit or blame, rather than focus on content. Merely instead this seems a difference in phrasing style. I apologize for taking offense. Thanks for clarifying. A145GI15I95 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A145GI15I95: It was my fault for being unclear, but you're kind to say so. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are given in the page. What is your problem, you always undo my edits whether all the sources are given in page. If you can't find the source, it's your fault. See all the sources and check whether it is correct or not. I am giving you the links one more time-
Here you can see changes in judiciary monthly-
http://doj.gov.in/appointment-of-judges/list-high-court-judges
See recent changes in this page-
http://doj.gov.in/appointment-of-judges/latest-orders-appointment-transfer-etc

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

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

Perhaps I missed something, but what I see, is that in this edit (13:01, Feb. 12) you added 60kb of text in section List of Judges by seniority (in cumulative), and I don't see as single reference in the very long table of judges in that section. The link you gave above seems fine, please use it in the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend, the reference in the table also (see in the heading) Sid54126 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sid54126: Oh, I see, you embedded it in the Section header. Please don't do that, that's an improper use of citations, per MOS:SECTIONS. For one thing, no one will ever be able to figure out what is covered by that reference in the header, and what is not. If ten more editors edit the article after you move on to other projects, and they each add ten more rows to the table which happen to contain false information, does your reference up in the section header still declare that everything in the table is verified by your reference? I think you can see the problem, here.

I have added a new section to the Talk page of the article to explain how to properly use section headers, and how to footnote the content you added properly, by adding brief, named references after the data you add to each row, and not before. Please see the discussion at that talk page Talk:List of sitting judges of High Courts of India#Proper use of citations, and respond there, rather than here so that other editors interested in this discussion may take part. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:List of sitting judges of High Courts of India § Proper use of citations

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.241.61.247 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:108.241.61.247 § Your rant was removed

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

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done

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

 Done

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mathglot,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucida Grandissima (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

Followup at Talk:Radical feminism. Mathglot (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi, thanks for your warning about copyright but site itself says it is free for use as long as its attributed, which it is. https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2016/16/matecconf_spbwosce2016_02004.pdf - This is an open access article, permits unrestricted use etc. First page.Sourcerery (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think issue is solved, if there are still some problems delete entire architecture section, thank you.Sourcerery (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sourcerery: As I said in reverting the removal of the ((copypaste)) template, it's not for us to decide. Let's let the copyvio gnomes have a look at it first, and they'll make the call. In the meantime, it doesn't hurt to have the tag there. I've already noted your concerns at the Talk page section about it; you're of course welcome to comment there. Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

Moved to Talk:Allopathic and osteopathic § Allopathic/osteopathic

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

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

Wondering if you had any thoughts about this: Talk:Genderqueer#The issue is scope not COMMONNAME. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Responded at the appropriate venue. Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commented in nearby articles. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mathglot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of African-American music styles".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/Phase 2
• Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Leslie Feinberg/pronouns. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – English personal pronouns. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at English personal pronouns. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — Smjg (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smjg, Has nothing to do with English personal pronouns at all. Also, WP:Don't template the regulars. Mathglot (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your comment on Talk:Leslie Feinberg/pronouns. As for your concern about templating the regulars, you'll need to talk to the maintainers of Twinkle. — Smjg (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: this was moved to User talk:Mathglot/Leslie Feinberg/pronouns. Mathglot (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Check Wikipedia has defined errors which should be cleaned, e.g. ID 104 Unbalanced quotes in ref name or illegal character. If you don't agree with that definition talk with the responsible people of WP:CHECKWIKI about a change of that definition before reverting edits according to that error lists. --GünniX (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GünniX: Thanks for raising this here, but the proper venue is the article talk page. I really don’t care what your project has decided; that is not binding on articles over Wikipedia’s policies. When you get reverted, discuss, don’t re-revert. And please use edit summaries to describe the intent of your edits. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the fix made by GünniX at Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy added a missing opening quotation mark to the reference named "GDA-2018", per the technical explanation of how reference names work given at WP:REFNAME. I'm not sure what policies Mathglot is referring to; the fix was a technical one, not a policy-based or guideline-based fix, as far as I can tell.

It appears that since GünniX was using AWB, some of that tool's "general fixes" were applied at the same time, which can make the actual purpose of the edit more difficult to discern. I recommend a significantly improved edit summary, such as "Fixing WikiProject Check Wikipedia error 104, Unbalanced quotes or illegal character in ref name". – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the fix to the unbalanced quote fix, and responded on the article talk page to the rest. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was a bit confused by the wording of this sentence, sending a DM since it's under edit-lock currently

"The Equality Act would lead to nationwide anti-LGBT discrimination laws." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States)#cite_note-hrc-1

For me since "anti-" and "discrimination" are both negation modifiers, it reads a bit like "this would lead to laws discriminating against LGBT people" (I don't think that's the intent)

A more concise description is present later in the article:

"The Equality Act seeks to incorporate protections against LGBT discrimination into federal Civil Rights law."

Maybe removing the first sentence I pointed out would make it clearer? (IMO it currently doesn't add much to the intro besides confusion) 71.198.252.58 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)  Already done Mathglot (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I decided to contact you due one of your edits on Dalida where I noticed that you undid some user's work because he just changed some "invisible" thing g in article that left it completely same. As explination you wrote "good faith edit (..) if aint broke, don't fix it). Well, last week one editor just changed Dalida's lead from actress to actor, later explaining me that the genderless noums are more preferable and that actress is oldfashioned etc. I reverted it immediately because the editor didn't discuss it on talk page before the edit, and the actress ic completely fine (why to fix if it aint broke?). Even on my talk page where he started the discussion, the third party view invited by him used example of other actresses and agreed with me. Following that, some other completely editor made the change back to actor, providing simmilar explainations on wiki talk page of Dalida. I got a little bit pissed off but I didn't insult anyone. I am scared that I will again have the same revert problem as on wiki fr. I just don't understand how can even someone report me for reverts, or act like I should first stop reverting, while I just want to keep the article in original shape until the discussion is over. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me}' 05:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DalidaEditor, Responded at Talk:Dalida#Actor/actress. You were right to revert immediately. I'll respond more at your Talk page, when I get some time.

Yes, I'm not a fan of white space and underscore edits that change nothing for the viewer, and don't make the wikicode cleaner for the editor. Since it doesn't really do any damage, either, one might argue that there's as little point to removing an edit like that, as there is in making it in the first place. But I don't agree, because if it's on my Watchlist, I might spend time checking out the edit, only to find after looking at it that I'm wasting my time. If it seems like a one-off, I'll probably just ignore it; but if it's run through a bot or semi-automated editing assistance program like Twinkle or AWB, then I'm more likely to challenge it, because they can tie up a lot more editors' time, than just mine, when they make useless programmatic edits. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well my watchlist is constantly filling so I haven't even thought about that, you have a point. Your "method" might help me in future to sort what is important and what not. Thank you alot, cordially Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me}' 12:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot, thank you for carrying out the move request on the above article, it's much appreciated. One question though: can the move notification tag now be removed from the top of this article, or will it happen automatically at some point? I don't want to remove a tag that may still be active. Richard3120 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please, I hadn't removed any sourced content. I'd just "rearranged it in the right order." Now again the whole article is messed up!!! Please take a look. Also, I made the edit with apt citations. A user is determined to remove it. He seems to think that the page can only contain info that he approves of. Request your urgent attention. Destroyer27 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Destroyer27:, Your comment appears to be in response to my revert of this edit of yours, where you removed 2274b of material. At least some of your edit seems to be an appropriate removal of a couple of phrases that are duplicated, such as "The Proceedings of the First Annual Conference of South Indian History Congress also notes: The word Tondai means a creeper", and another brief section. By removing the duplication, and rearranging at the same time, it made it hard for the diff utility to show what had changed. I'd recommend you try your edit again, but in (at least) two separate edits, to separate the removal of duplicate content, which is less likely to have opposition, from the rearrangement edit. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help? I already am exhausted. Also please visit my talk page. Despite offering him several explanations behind my recent edits, he's determined to remove them.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroyer27 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, he's removed them entirely! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroyer27 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the description you provided within this edit, please read Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thanks for your comment. We’re in general agreement about the goals of the (non-binding) essay you linked to about vandals. If you read my comments at the article and at ANI, you will see that I made the same point myself about not feeding the trolls.

The part of the essay that deals with well-meaning newbies and people not aware of the rules, however, is not applicable here. If you looked at my contribs you would notice plenty of Wikipedia Welcome messages left by me to people who have inadvertently vandalized an article, welcoming them and offering them tips. This is not that case.

This editor is a liar and an intimidating bully, who knows precisely what they are doing in issuing legal threats against a new editor trying to improve an article. There is no reason to be nice to an editor like that. Letting them know that you see them for what they are, namely, a lying, bullying troll is not a personal attack because it is true, and is a helpful comment to leave because it benefits the encyclopedia in numerous ways including editor retention of the good editors who we would like to keep around, so they don’t get intimidated and scared off by these malefactors, because it makes other good editors realize that there are people who will have their backs if they do the right thing and try to improve an article in the face of bullying opposition, as well as making the bully realize the jig is up and that they will face opposition if they try that sort of thing again.

In brief: yes, by all means be kind to inadvertent vandals, and welcome them if they are new or don’t know the rules. If you meet up with a bully or a troll or someone issuing legal threats, stop them cold in their tracks, and let them know you see them for exactly what they are. ANI has achieved this by blocking them for three months, which will hopefully make them realize the jig is up. If they try this again, they’ll either get blocked for a year, or more likely indefinitely. Thanks again for helping out at the article. Mathglot (talk)|

Well, OK, maybe. Except that it's not a matter of courtesy (I now notice that I grievously mistitled this thread) but of refusing to take the bait. (Also, blocking is unlikely to work.) ¶ As you may have noticed, I actually found evidence for claims that two people went through this place (decades ago). As for the other listed names I've looked at, they're mostly rather obscure 19th-century worthies whose hazily sourced (or unsourced) articles often fail even to mention the place. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I agree with you in refusing to take the bait, and when it involves only myself, I don’t. But this case was different, and involved someone else, who was afraid, as a direct result of the troll’s comments. My response was not about “taking the bait” in this case, but of defending the editor under attack and shoring up their resolve, as well as reassuring them that a) they had nothing to worry about, and b) I would come to their aid if they needed it. Yes, you’re right in a sense that the troll might take some pleasure in seeing the brouhaha they stirred up, but I judged it more important to assist this new editor and make them feel welcome, than to worry about any satisfaction the puerile little jerk lying, bullying troll might enjoy from my attempts to assist the new editor. A judgment call, certainly, but I believe I made the right call. If you disagree, I’d like to hear your perspective on it. Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do like your new description ("lying, bullying troll"); it seems accurate. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But as for courtesy, or biteyness, or whatever, can I invite you to Talk:Foreign policy of the administration of Shinzō Abe? It's clear that I've rubbed up a contributor the wrong way. I regret that, but from my PoV some things are important and have to be said. Your suggestions as an uninvolved third party would be welcome (as would your criticism of me). One thing I can't do is commit myself to checking the veracity of the contents: RL just doesn't leave me enough time. I might assist in a group effort, however. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I'll have a look, and help if I'm able. Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I've moved "Foreign policy of the administration of Shinzō Abe" to Draft:Foreign policy of the administration of Shinzō Abe. Normally when one moves a page one leaves a redirect, but doing this is of course inappropriate for moves from article space to draft space. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing it up at Discusión:Política_externa_del_gobierno_de_Shinzō_Abe, and for pinging me. I understand what you both say pretty well, or perhaps I just delude myself that I do. However, I can't contribute in Spanish, and I don't want to do so in English. I don't know either the policies, guidelines, etc of es:WP or its non-codified customs and etiquette, but it might be good to make a clear proposal. Depending on such factors as how much time and energy you can spend on this, it might be something like "I am about to go through this article, assertion by assertion, [x] every assertion that isn't explicitly backed up by its reference. I invite others to help me with this." (Where x could be "removing the bogus reference from, and marking as 'Cita requerida'", or simply "deleting", or something else again.) Or a proposal to move to draftspace. I'd also ping Usuario:Taichi, as somebody who's already edited the article, who knows the languages involved, and who's an admin. These are all the mildest of suggestions; feel very free to ignore the lot. ¶ Incidentally, the article puzzles me in another way, too. Why is an article for es:WP that's about a rather general matter so dependent on (dodgy) appeals to English-language sources? -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of French marquisates. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to tell you that if I sounded rude it wasn't meant to you. I was simply frustrated at idiots who add words which are not supported by sources and really don't feel the need to further edit on that draft which I profusely regret of creating. Kindest regards. --LLcentury (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LLcentury: thank you for your comment. Don't worry, it's all good; I didn't think you were rude, just frustrated. It's all about improving the encyclopedia, and keeping the articles verifiable and accurate, which is what you were trying to do, so I appreciate your work. I also do translations, you know, from Spanish, and even from Catalan sometimes. The Spanish Abe article on es-wiki needs some attention, too, because of the problematic editing by Jeddah (talk · contribs); I may start a discussion on the Talk page there, and I could use your help in the comments, if you feel like replying there. Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Ahnentafel. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:POV check. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting (manually) a change by a now blocked user. I really really wish people were not so quick and would investigate a bit more. WP:ENGVAR is rather a hot button for me, and I checked that Canadian English was marked, and that 'travelled' is and was correct. Please revert yourself. Shenme (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shenme: This really should have been raised at Talk:Feminism, but since you raised it here, I’ll respond here.

I see no evidence that the article actually is in Canadian English, and I see no particular reason it should be, as MOS:TIES does not apply. Given that, MOS:RETAIN applies.

I’m aware that a single editor placed a language variety template in 2016 without discussion, but this carries no particular weight on what editors after him decided to do. There are articles all over Wikipedia with "Use <variety-A> English" templates that are in conflict with the actual variety used in the article, and afaic, it’s the template that should be changed in those cases, not the entire article. I see no reason to follow the mandate of an English variety template that everyone editing the article currently ignores, especially when the rationale for using "Canadian English" for "Feminism" is so weak, and it was never discussed.

If interested, I suggest you open a discussion in the Talk page arguing in favor of the use of Canadian English, and see if you can get consensus for it.

If the main issue here for you is that you reverted an edit of a blocked sock per WP:DENY which I undid appearing to support a sock, then I get that; in that case please use that in your edit summary instead of the engvar guideline and I wouldn’t have reverted; if the change still needed to be made I would do it manually, without reference to anything the blocked user did. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone way back to before the 'me' epoch (2004) and verified that there were a perfect mishmash of editors contributing to the article, and with no particular English variant. (That was perhaps b/c US-centric to begin with? 2001!)

That said, it seems strange to point out to me that the language variety template was placed wrongly in 2016, without having yourself called this out to others, and previously. Even more strange, is that what drew your attention to the edit was my invocation of the WP:ENGVAR religion. It seems at cross-purposes to good editing.

One of the things I do is spend time trying to prevent wasted editing, e.g. Playing with your food? If we can head off future problems on a page, we should. Don't you agree? Shenme (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. And, not strange: I never noticed it was marked "Canadian" until you pointed it out above. I doubt many other editors noticed it, either, but whether they did or didn't doesn’t really change anything. And it isn’t strange your edit drew me there, the article is on my watchlist. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a major c/e of that article. On talk, I've noticed you where one of the most active reviewers of it. I'd like to invite you to take a look at this; I wonder if it would have a chance at WP:GAN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goop (company). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Left a canvassing reminder, since there seemed to be some misconception about that; but didn't comment on the issue itself. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Silente. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Waskom, Texas. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archived already. Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stott. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apostles. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Cancelled Indeffed sock. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)  No comment Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of your local knowledge about western australia - but if you cannot glean from the article that in fact the periphery of the south west region - there is no overlap when it comes to IBRA regions, thanks. JarrahTree 01:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Wasn't claiming overlap of IBRA regions, but of the articles. After all, the ecoregion does contain the savannah, which is (lazily) an 'overlap' but a better word would've been 'contains'. Probably just adding the See also link without comment would've been even better. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you get it - regions in western australia are one thing - IBRA regions are quite different. JarrahTree 01:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do get it; they are orthogonal, as one is more political, and the other is more in the purview of ecologists and it would be weird to legislate its boundaries, although there is an overlap in the topic they both seek to address. Is there a problem with the article you'd like to discuss, or are we just quizzing me about IBRAs for fun and giggles? Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm involved in an unpleasant edit war with User:AhmadF.Cheema on the talk page of Alexander the Great in the Quran. In May you were involved in a discussion on the future of thast article and said you saw the consensus as being to merge with Dhul-Qarnayn, presumably taking whatever was worthwhile in the Alexander article and deleting the remainder. (The same should presumably be done with Cyrus the Great in the Quran - both look like pov forks from the Dhul article, of very old standing).

Anyway, to help extricate myself from this situation with Cheema, I've asked User:Doug Weller]] if he would action that recommendation to merge and redirect. I've also suggested that he and you get in contact over it. Cheema will no doubt object, but I think his objections can be overcome - he can pursue his editing on Dhul-Qarnayn if the topic fascinated him so much.

And can I please retire now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your message and will help if I can, but I seem to be stretched pretty thin right now. Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks also for the invitation to open an account, but I'm trying to quit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]