User talk:Mathglot

My editing tips.

There is a dispute about

@Elinruby: Thanks, but per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan supremacism it looks like it had already been deleted before you got to to make your comment. Keep sending me Catalan stuff, though. Mathglot (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mathglot. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found your request and responses at the bad image list to use Divine's image to be a wonderful example of civility. Naraht (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot. The edit[1] by Foggymaize at Transgender people in sports was my fault. She is my wife and was asking me how to leave a note about her changes when I accidentally hit save on visual editor. I then told her the best option was to leave a note on the talk page explaining the editing, which she did here.[2] I have explained that it is better to do smaller edits with explanations, but she is new here and considering our relationship I am careful of how involved I get in her editing. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to stay out of this area, but after looking at a few articles there is definitely some work needed. If you have no objections on the edits themselves, as explained in the talk, I will reinstate them. AIRcorn (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mathglot. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to transphobia were sourced, were in line with requests in talk to provide copy which discussed the origin and common usages of the term, and are more even handed than the previous defamatory revisions by TaylanUB. Exclusionary feminism is a fringe belief, and the section if it is to be included should reflect the consensus on the matter. I'm not sure how reverting my edits for NPoV is constructive. The base content of the section as it stands, and certainly as it first appeared, already arguably violate NPoV. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BlackholeWA, and welcome back. (Logistics note: I prefer keeping conversations all in one place, and although this one started at your talk page, in this section, since you've replied to it on my talk page, let's just keep the discussion here, now.)

In response to your comment above, I actually don't disagree with you that the content of the section as it stands now and as it first appeared violate NPoV. The section should not remain as it is now, for that very reason. However, any changes made to that section should move in the direction of improving the article (that's what the

NPOV problem bigger than it was before, and that's why I undid them

.

You did the right thing by

discretionary sanctions. If you don't remember what that is from your previous Wiki-incarnation, I urge you to refresh your memory about it, but basically it means, step lightly and carefully, because admins are watching (not me, I'm not one) and are more liable to issue sanctions than with "regular" articles. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

edit summary

what was wrong with it, and encouraged you to try again. And this is your reaction?

This seems to be a pattern. You have been prickly before in your reaction to other edits at this article which were made in order to protect its integrity or prevent disruption. Your first reaction to someone altering an edit of yours often appears to be to assume that you are right, and that no one else could possibly be interested in improving the article but are merely standing in your way, or expressing "dominance". I'm not sure if this represents a sense of

article page

, and don't make baseless accusations about other users.

So, please cool your jets, no more temper tantrums, and let's just concentrate on improving the article and

assuming that others are trying to do the same

; okay?

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

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

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

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

Hello Mathglot,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Mathglot. It appears you might be working on a draft for a future article at

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

That's fine. Just for refernece, however, the non-free files I removed from that talk page per

WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

@

super-categories of the former; I've removed them. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The

this request for comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to

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

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

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

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Wikipedia Editor Retention Project )

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

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

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Mathglot

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

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

Recognized for

Friendliness

Submit a nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there is a

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

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

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

You recently participated in an AfD discussion for the

here if you'd care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply

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

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

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

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

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

Ethel D, I think you are overreacting. Mathglot merely pointed out that personal experience is not as good a reason for making a change as a

reliable source, or lack of. A solitary reversion is hardly harassment, whereas threatening to take a matter up with an administrator could be. Instead of seeking authority from a higher power, instead seek consensus from the community. I think the removal of unverified information from platform shoe has improved the page, but your whining has vexed me. Also, remember to sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). AJ2265 (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

@

WP:BRD

would be to wait. But I won't undo any change of yours until we see where the talk conversation ends up.

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

PPS Please read

WP:FOURTILDES. Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Mathglot,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@

edit summaries for each makes it easier for editors who come in after and only have a problem with one small part of it. I can add more detail in a few days, if you would like or have other concerns. Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

The

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, you recently participated in an AfD discussion for the

Didn't vote, but added

WT:RFC to clarify repetitive RM requests. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Mathglot. You recently undid an edit at

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

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

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

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

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

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

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

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

@

NPP maintainers. However, I am curious about one thing: I'm autopatrolled, so in that case, why did the article even show up in the NPP queue at all, if they thought I created it? Mathglot (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello!

I'm a Wiki-It user. I'm asking some active users who can translate from Italian to English, if they're able to do a translation. The page to translate from Italian to English is

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

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

Sia (musician) is not a translation of the Italian one. The English one began in 2004, and by the time the Italian one was first created on 22 February 2009, the English article

was already 13,638 bytes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The

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

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

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Outlines

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

The

 Done Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The

Earlier this year I created a user script called SearchSuite, for enhancing Wikipedia's search results.

It has some list-friendly (outline-friendly) features, such as single-spaced single-line results, sort, exact match filter, list item wiki-formatting (for ease of copying/pasting), etc.

If you are inclined to give it a test drive, let me know what you think of it.

I'm open to feedback, as well as feature suggestions.     — The Transhumanist    01:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The

Moved to User talk:Sphinxmystery § I'm not sure hat you mean

I do not believe you are correct when you say that I was confusing trans women with transfeminism. I was referring to male to female transsexuals taking up a women space and claiming male entitlement (which is what feminism is all about). Cis women feel their choice in identity, a choice they do not have, shows they still claim power over them. Tell me how this is not referencing feminism. Kaitlin 121 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaitlin 121: Seems pretty clear to me you have been confusing them, and still are, per your comment above. To say that trans women^[a] "claim male entitlement" when in women's space shows a lack of understanding either of trans women, or of the term, "male entitlement": I'm not sure which. You are no doubt right about what cis women feel about trans women, and this has everything to do with those cis women's attitudes, so that pertains to (some) women's attitudes towards trans women, and there's an article (or section) for that. And if those cis women are feminists, then it pertains to (some) (cis) feminists' views towards trans women, and there's a section for that, too, somewhere. However, it has nothing to do with transfeminism, as transfeminists are decidedly *not* up in arms about trans women "taking up women's space" since they support it. So I think you are confused about the topic of the article, and where your updates would be most relevant.

The whole issue of trans women in women's spaces is treated elsewhere at Wikipedia with full relevance to the article topic: for example, in the article on Radical feminism, and in other articles. There's nothing wrong with your content per se, you're just trying to add it to the wrong article, imho. Your content might be more appropriate in one of the other ones. Where you say, "Tell me how this is not referencing feminism," you may be right; if you believe that, then put the material in the Feminism article, if you feel it fits there.

When you are involved in a content dispute, which this clearly is, please follow normal

disruptive

behavior.

You can also ask for help on your talk page, by adding a new section, asking a questions, and including {{Help me}} somewhere in the section. @Shalor (Wiki Ed): Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Mathglot - I replied to a request for help on my talk page, but I think I see your point with this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Sphinxmystery § If that's the way you are saying maybe I'm not comfortable copying references

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot! As suggested, I opened a discussion on which sidebar should be on the drag queen article. Please leave your thoughts! :) --Bleff (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mathglot (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mathglot (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of English monarchs. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post to this user, you are aware that the editor is a sockpuppet, and that there are many editors in that category. What you are saying is in line with what I know about this editor, and I would be interested if this persists in other incarnations of this editor. Would you mind to have a look? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

move the discussion there. If you can link the page listing Beatley's other incarnations, I'll have a look. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

True, not really to the user, indeed. Other users are in Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Slowking4, Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Slowking4 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Slowking4/Archive. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, Thanks. Will check in the coming days. (Ik woonde een jaar in de stad van Vermeer. Het is de enige stad waar ik heimwee heb, dat is niet mijn land.) Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

't Is toch een hele mooie stad... ik moet nog uitvinden waar ik heimwee heb, voel me eigenlijk beter in het buitenland ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, have started in on it; please have a look at this discussion (arguably should be a subpage and not a long section). Any help and/or suggestions would be welcome. I'm not married to that format, so if you want to make it a table or do some other format change, be my guest. Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin right? So you can't see the ones that I

handled with a flamethrower? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Dirk, I can see them, I think, in the deletion log, maybe not presented the same way you see it. I've created the following to monitor progress: Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Slowking4#Machine translations. So far, I've been looking at the MTs by Beatley (talk · contribs) and fixed some of them; see the new maintentance templates at xxx, yyy, zzz and corresponding Talk page discussions. The other major offender is Duckduckstop (talk · contribs) who has 68 CXT translations, and possibly other cut-paste ones. I'll only be working on this sporadically, so anyone else who can help would be appreciated. Note that in the case of machine translations that were subsequently patched up so that the grammar and style is now fine, this doesn't mean we're out of the woods; the original MT could have introduced errors of fact, now papered over by grammar fixes; the template {{Hidden translation}} is available for that. Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have adapted my detection mechanism further. He is difficult to catch - although he has a lot of typical behaviour, many others share a trait or two, resulting in false positives.

I am nowadays nuking his contributions, deny any trophies. There may be copright violations and NFCC type problems with the articles as well.

Don’t make it a priority task, I merely asked it for future detection reasons. It is better his material geta deleted and rewritten from scratch. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MT aspect? Can show you one editor with several hundred MT articles that haven't been removed; have warned him, and he stops for a while, then starts up again. Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Horst-Wessel-Lied. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that. I didn't mean to remove information worded in any crucial way in the sources. It'll take a long time to begin going through them all for verification to match what it actually says in the text of the page. Anywhere, if there's any part of the edits I made that you especially liked that, or anything else you'd like to see or that you'd recommend, please let me know. Thank you. Wolfdog (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC) [Wow. My grammar was a mess all around yesterday. Wolfdog (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)][reply]

@Wolfdog: I know what you mean, and I reverted with a sigh, because clearly your grammar and stylistic changes were pretty much all for the better, and yet, I didn't think it was fair to put the onus on me to have to be the one to go through everything in the sources either, but it sounds like you already sussed that out, so thank you for that. What I usually try to do in situations like this, is just edit incrementally. I'd rather see ten different edits one after the other, where if something is wrong, I can just revert (if I have to) just the one, leaving the other nine. This was kind of a case like that; I knew there was good stuff there, but I couldn't be bothered (was too lazy?) to do it myself. So, apologies for the revert, but I'm sure if you break it up into several edits, even changing nothing at all, nearly all will survive, and if you check the sources and adjust, then they all will. Thanks for taking the time to write, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your pleasant response. I'll give it another shot soon. Wolfdog (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you. Das Grab ist leer, der Held erwacht, another of the hymns about which I wrote, is on the Main page right now. It has secondary sources because it's a bit older ;) - The new ones will become history eventually, just wait. Another deletion discussion I watched with interest was Catherine Lynch. My first article was speedily deleted, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jacques Goulet. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Jullian Drews § Feedback on the National Theatre of the Deaf article

Hi, Machine translations serve no purpose in the encyclopedia mainspace. There are a few things we can do about these: If they are from socks they can be deleted

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anatolia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)  Done. A heck of a lot more than I bargained for, and involved creation of a maps tester subpage, the initiation of a discussion at mw:Help talk:Extension:Kartographer (Permalink), and implementation of a workaround to successfully demo my map. Fun, though. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing multiple sections of the same work in an article is currently cumbersome. Details at VPP. Feedback requested here. Mathglot (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mathglot. With regard to the changes to United States section in the same-sex marriage article, the changes were made in order to make the section more condense and therefore more readable, while at the same time including a broad overview of the topic's history going all the way back to the 1970s. With regard to the changes to the Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States article, the minor change in question was to clarify that the support in question is national support as opposed to state-level support (which the article covers extensively). Hope you have a nice day! --

The reply above is not pertinent to the other discussion. --

talk) 02:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Justthefacts9 Okay, my bad. I moved the comment above to Talk:Same-sex marriage#Lead changes and disruption

because it seemed to be what you were talking about. But you say that your reply above is not pertinent to that discussion, so I must have been mistaken. In that case, can you please provide a link, because now I have no idea what discussion you are referring to.

While we're at it, you might need to refresh your memory about some of the Talk page guidelines concerning user Talk pages. Any user can delete comments on their own user page per

WP:OWNTALK, even warnings by administrators (except for a few exceptions like block notices). So, if a user removes a comment of yours from their own talk page, you shouldn't add it back again. If you feel there's a need for your comment to be put back after it was removed, you could, I suppose, add another comment to ask the user to restore it, and giving your reasons for it. But I'd do that sparingly, and in any case, you shouldn't put it back yourself, like you just did. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Periodically, on the last Wednesday evening of the month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon 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! Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. This months focus is images!

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

---

For further details and to RSVP, please see:

Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, May 2018

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

---

See you soon!

Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germanic peoples. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Our apologies, but we are rescheduling to Wednesday, June 6 at 6:00 p.m. due to a WMF host scheduling conflict.

---

For further details and to RSVP, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2018 (note: we are meeting at the new WMF HQ at 120 Kearny Street!)

---

See you soon!

Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

verifiability policy demands. In the worst case, if they respond and say, "XYZ is completely wrong," then if XYZ is completely unsourced, you could remove that section from the article (or you could tag it with {{dubious

}}, and add as the |reason= param, something like, "personal communication with museum director on mm/dd/yyyy disputes this"). However, if we have reliable sources for something, and the museum says it is wrong, you cannot remove it on that basis. In that case, you could, if you wanted, raise a Talk page section saying, "We have RS for 'XYZ', but the museum director told me this is wrong on <date>".

In the opposite case, if the museum provides you with missing information, you should really try to verify it independently with

better source

}}. If no independent source can be turned up subsequently, however, that info might have to be removed. Perhaps a better solution for any assertions suggested by the museum, would be to simply add them to the Talk page as is, and let the community decide what to do with them.

Thanks for your efforts with this. Btw, I sometimes translate from German, but my level is only intermediate, and I sometimes have questions about it; may I call on you for help if I do? I presume you are native or high-fluency German speaker. Also, you might consider adding the {{

your user page. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, one last thing: can you add something to the lead pointing out what the name means, and that it's not a museum about angry people? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, dear Mathglot, of course you can ask me if you have questions with german. I'm native german, but also do speak english and dutch. Thanks also for the very helpful advices on how to deal with reactions from the museum. As i send them an email already weeks ago, they might not even be interested, unfortunately. But if they give me info, i'll ask for independent sources to quote from, i find this very important! I didn't know anything about the museum, i just had written an article on Christiane Conrad, who has had an exhibition there and then i thought, okay, i translate the article but it really is a strange article :-). Anger is the name of a central place in Erfurt - Quote from the

talk) 23:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Gyanda, Have a look, I've already changed the lead a fair bit, following the German and the sources, and also the chronology, and already including the part about Begriff Anger... and everything you mentioned above, including already the interwiki links, before I even saw your message. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I really love wikipedia. That people can work together to make something better. Thanks very much for your help with the article! I'll keep you updated, as soon as i hear from the museum! Kind regards, --

talk) 00:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Kein Problem,

Gyanda; bis bald, hoffentlich... Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Mathglot, meanwhile i got an answer from the museum. First, they accepted my newly-written article, second, they will even give us 3 or 4 good pictures, where they have all the rights, to illustrate the article. When I get them and uploaded them and did all the rightholderissues - the article in fact can be updated, isn't this nice? Kind regards, --

talk) 16:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Gyanda, Looking forward to the pics, and good work! Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Mathglot, meanwhile i translated the german article, which i had rewritten, into english and would be very thankful, if you could look at it

talk) 13:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Mathglot, would you still be interested to proofread the article? It's in my namespace with "my new site". Kind regards, --

talk) 05:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, I replied to your invitation to register. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:190.173.175.155 190.173.193.85 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Mmm, yes. Hi, Mathglot, thanks for the ping and the kind words. The reason 190.173.175.155 doesn't like me is presumably that I've blocked the 190.173.192.0/18 range for two weeks for persistent disruption of HIV/AIDS denialism, see my notes here and here. A big range to block, but I address that on the article talk page. 190.173.175.155 and 190.173.193.85, above, are outside the range I blocked, but as long as they don't edit disruptively, I'll leave them be. However, 190.173.xx, creating an account and taking responsibility for your edits would be the honorable thing to do in a case like this. BTW, do you really think quoting my joke userbox (ostensibly added by someone else, hence the third person) strengthens your case? Bishonen | talk 03:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, Yep, I saw the range block. I didnt quote anything nor even look at your user page, but I'll do so, now, to figure out what you meant. Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I get it; the 'quoting' comment was directed at him, not me. Btw, @

Flyer. Mathglot (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen: He is now registered: (EzequielBelaus (talk · contribs)), so that's at least one small measure of progress. I believe there were some personal circumstances informing the behavior which got him blocked (if curious, see User talk:190.173.175.155#Registering an account; post of 14:49, 1 June) which doesn't excuse it, but helps explain it. I believe this editor can be a valuable addition to the project if he can avoid his TBAN area, and just needs some nurturance and mentoring in the early stages. I'm trying to provide that, but I could use assistance from mentor-willing editors. Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: You know what, that "joke" userbox really seemed to describe you. You blocked me because I asked a moderator to watch the dispute. It was low. It was a power-hungry type of move. I told Mathglot that my father has been diagnosed with HIV and that's the reason I'm so headstrong with it. But then there is this host of editors who will claim to abide by the Guidelines, but completely forget the guidelines when they want to apply censorship. EzequielBelaus (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

"Because you asked a moderator to watch the dispute"? Nonsense. You know very well why I blocked you: for persistent disruption at

personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC).[reply

]

@Bishonen: Okay... just to clarify this: you hadn't seen my dispute resolution request before you blocked me? All you had watched were my edits to the HIV denialism article? If that's the case, I might believe that the request had nothing to do with it.

And threatening me with blocks... you are just proving my points, Bishonen EzequielBelaus (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Uh-oh, just saw this, which must have gone on while I was responding to you at your talk page. Ezequiel, please read what I wrote at User talk:EzequielBelaus#HIV denialism, and please stop baiting Bishonen. You're just going to get yourself blocked, and I don't want to see that happen! Can we please just cool it, and go back to editing articles about Argentine history? You were doing so well with that. Sincerely, Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gee. Okay. Let's hope that no "less tolerant admin(istrator)" will see this. EzequielBelaus (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Upper Kotmale Dam. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)  Not done[reply]

The

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

When: Wednesday, June 6 at 6:00 p.m.

---

For details and to RSVP, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2018 (note: we are meeting at the new WMF HQ at 120 Kearny Street!)

---

See you soon!

Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd like to touch again the topic of HIV denialism, and of the things that happened in the Talk Page. Go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HIV/AIDS_denialism/Archive_12#Neutralism_Laxness:_Critical_New_Information_Ignored_or_Deleted. To sum it up: User Milikguay tried to create a section with Luc Montagnier's claim that HIV isn't the only cause of AIDS and that co-factors are needed. Other editors, prominently MastCell, opposed him. They told him that the sources weren't reliable, they told him to read the Guidelines, they accused him of being repetitive, and threatened him with shunning. They never, in the whole discussion, refered to Luc Montagnier. Milikguay tried again and again to draw attention to that source, who is the scientist who discovered HIV. But the opposing editors never acknowledged it. This totally confirms that Wikipedia is biased. Now: I intend to edit the HIV Denialism page with a link to a documentary. In this documentary, Luc Montagnier is featured saying that HIV is cleaned out of the body if you have a good immune system. I'm wondering what arguments will be presented to not include this in the article. EzequielBelaus (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

@EzequielBelaus: I've responded to this on your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The

 Done Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

for that. I'll add it to my ever-growing arsenal. This came up somewhere else, but it was years ago and I don't remember what article. I wish I'd known then what I know now! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the page 2017 in LGBT rights can you mention that Botswana legalized transgender rights because it says so on wikipedia's LGBT rights in Botswana page? Also can you answer a questionbecuase I would like to know where people in Botswana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphinxmystery (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, for the purpose of referencing. It looks like you might have had another question, but it got cut off in the middle. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As I've said before, I'm not computer savy and I have a disability. Perhaps you can help me. By the way, is it Ok if I ask what pronoun you prefer? She/he/they/other? I go by she. Sphinxmystery (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There has been a edit war again about Hong Kong as it's own country. When I put it under China it gets reverted. You were in the page before on this topic at List of Air New Zealand Destinations so I thought I would contact you for help with this matter. Thankyou CHCBOY (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm able to edit Wikipedia again. However, I insist in what I said before: providing sources is what's wrong with this site. It gives authoritarian people a reason to keep certain things silent. I would be willing to translate articles in Spanish to English if that's needed. EzequielBelaus (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC) HIV doesn't exist.[reply]

No answer? Are you tired of me already? EzequielBelaus (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC) HIV/AIDS doesn't exist and it's science-fiction.[reply]

@EzequielBelaus: Welcome back. I'm away from home and can only make relatively short or easy edits for a while. I would still be interested in collaborating with you, but I don't want to have all my efforts with you go to waste if you continue to violate your T-ban and get yourself permanently blocked. If you are serious about contributing to the encyclopedia then great, let's get to it; I will help. But if you pretend not to hear what you don't want to hear from admins, then I'm wasting my time. So, which is it? Are we serious about doing some good here, or do you insist on talking about HIV?

By the way: if the latter, there are places you can do that; just not here at Wikipedia. Would you like me to help you find a place where your thoughts on that topic would be welcome? Maybe Wikipedia just isn't a good fit for you, and you'd feel better where your concerns and efforts are appreciated. I will help you find such a place if you wish. But they're not welcome here and if you continue in this vein you will soon be indefinitely blocked. I hope that's not what's will happen, but I fear that it will happen if you don't change your approach.

Bottom line: can you assure me that you will never raise the issue of HIV or AIDS again at Wikipedia? Because if you can't, then I'm wasting my time. Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? All I'm saying in my messages is that I want to translate articles from Spanish to English. EzequielBelaus (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC) HIV/AIDS is a fraud.[reply]

@EzequielBelaus: I'm talking about this:

• 21:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC) HIV/AIDS doesn't exist and it's science-fiction.

and this:

• 13:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC) HIV/AIDS is a fraud.

Are you playing me for some kind of fool? If you continue breaking your t-ban, then I feel I'm wasting my time with you. If you are serious about translating articles then please stop such comments immediately. That's what I am talking about. Can you promise me that? Mathglot (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not so tolerant. Those comments above just got him blocked (again). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The

I was right about to do exactly that, but you beat me to it. Considering that nothing could have possibly come out responding to that comment, except possibly more intense, pointless arguing over irrelevant fringe theories, I think that putting it in a collapse section was probably the best solution. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Katolophyromai: Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 1947 martial law in Mandatory Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Afsharid dynasty. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 July 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 reliable sources!

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

---

For further details and to RSVP, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, July 2018 (note: we are meeting at the new WMF HQ at 120 Kearny Street!)

---

See you soon!

Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)  Not done Mathglot (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quneitra Governorate. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Already closed. Mathglot (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of military occupations. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jordan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Neighborhoods of Tel Aviv. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. self-invite for completeness Mathglot (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly doing sterling work on keeping everything organised and on track! Awien (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you for making sure the previous RfC participants were made aware of the revisit of the issue. I'm sure that you must have been aware that a majority of the participants of the first RfC were opposed to any major changes to the pronoun, which makes your decision to insist that they be notified (despite the fact that they might !vote against your new proposal, which was otherwise getting a lot of support) a principled one, and worth noting. I spend a lot of time answering random RfCs and I have to tell you that in the last two years I have noticed a rise in antagonism and gamesmanship as regards talk discussions on controversial topics. So it's nice to see when someone puts the consensus process before other considerations. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, your comments are much appreciated. Yes, as you surmised, I was aware of the trend in the first Rfc. I believe in upholding the process, and think that it's worth fighting for. I'm sorry about the discussion trend you've noticed in the last couple of years; perhaps in another venue at another time we can return to that topic and see if there's some way to address it.

I never stop learning from other editors, and the fact that you took the time to elucidate your thoughts at length even in the face of what at this point might seem to be insurmountable odds, is also much appreciated and only makes the process better. For me personally, there are several points you made I will have to reread, so I can question my own opinion and see how it might change or evolve based on what you've said. Regardless where this Rfc may end up, and on what "side" of future discussions we may end up on, you can count on me for support of the process for improving the encyclopedia. Once again, thanks for taking the time to comment at the Rfc, and for the follow up here. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 18:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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)[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]

@

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]

@

ping}} me to that discussion. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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]