User talk:Mathglot/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mathglot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm referring to the Ancient seafaring category. There are other similar ones I've noticed. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently in connection to this revert at Phoenician Ship Expedition. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. I can't find Category:Ancient seafaring; is template {{Ancient seafaring}} populating it? What category are we talking about? Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Turns out it is the template. But it’s still wrong for that article.Ok for say Noah’s Ark. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. In order to allow others to weigh in if they wish, I have replied at the Talk page of the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Many apologies. I forgot to say I took this to rsn, better to respond there as it’s a more general issue. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Phoenician Ship Expedition § Ancient seafaring navbox

WP:FTN § Should categories such as "Ancient seafaring" "Transport in Phoenicia" , be used for non-historical voyages

Template:User18 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Kept; no consensus. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your name at

Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, I do sometimes do translations from French, but that applies mostly to articles on French Wikipedia destined for creation on English Wikipedia. I wouldn't normally translate an external source, such as any of the reviews you link. However, machine translation is now at a point where it's good enough, especially for certain languages like French, to do a good enough job that the meaning is clear in most cases.

So, I would suggest that you just try your favorite online translator, it's fast, easy, and you don't have to wait for some editor to respond to you. On the other hand, machine translations, although often very good, are not perfect, and they sometimes screw up rather badly, especially in areas where there just isn't a lot of discussion in English about some foreign topic. I ran into this recently regarding a

term from Brazilian law

which is almost always translated wrong, so you do have to watch for that sort of thing, but you are unlikely to run into that in a book review, unless the book is about some really arcane topic and the book review quotes some of the technical jargon.

So, go ahead and try online translation, and if there is anything that looks off, or just doesn't make sense to you, feel free to come back here and ask me about it. I don't mind translating a phrase or a particularly strange sentence if you run into a problem, it's just that it doesn't make sense to translate a whole external article anymore when automatic translation does such a good job on average these days. Out of curiosity, for what Wikipedia article do you need these book reviews? Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Legifrance/prefix has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

All of these moved to User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Legifrance/Path has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Legifrance/CT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Legifrance/path has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:They aren't has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nardog (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Deleted. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please check out all the undo versions by user:Skitash. Why is 1 user protected against an entire community? There is no point in using talk pages or make reports against the users if uninformed moderaters are keeping a hand above their head. Plenty of users have made the same complaints and plenty of sources are provided. If a user like skitash uses factual sources, only to create revisionist narratives about it, then thats a clear indicator that no single moderator actually checks out the sources when an article is written. Plenty of people already have raised their concerns about user: Skitash & M.Bitton about their revisionist history, and erasure of the native north-African Berber/Amazigh people from wikipedia history. I'll give it 5 years before this website will allow afrocentrists to write articles about Samurais being black, or white supremacists writing articles about ancient-Egypt being Nodric. Please fix yourself and this website!!!! Flesek (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ORNB.Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately people don’t always agree but discussion is important and can help. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

edit summary explaining one's reasoning when doing so. If the revert we are talking about is this one of 11:52, 15 July, undoing these 20 edits of yours at Skipness

, they did give their reasoning in the summary.

I understand that the

assume good faith

on the part of the reverting editor, take another look, a dispassionate look at the situation, maybe after 24 hours to let yourself cool down, and then decide if maybe their way was better. If not, no problem: next step is to discuss at the Talk page, and get other editors involved.

One important principle to really get on board with at Wikipedia is that of

consensus: it is the way pretty much everything is done around here, and has been successful in helping to build Wikipedia into the eight million article encyclopedia it is today. Another one is WP:Assume good faith, so if you ever feel some editor has done something wrong or toxic or is out to get you, take another look; there may be something else going on than what it appears on the surface. If you internalize those two principles, I think you can have a long, successful, and rewarding journey as a Wikipedia editor. That is my hope, anyway. I see you already have a Welcome message at your Talk page, so I won't duplicate that message but I just want to extend my welcome to you as well. Feel free to contact me again anytime, if you have questions or comments about Wikipedia. All the best to you, SnarkyDragon! Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what more can be done with Pinxton Castle except some work with the images. Do you? Doug Weller talk 15:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mathglot. You have new messages at Template talk:Archives.
Message added 16:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

https://studyfinds.org/worlds-oldest-calendar-temple/ Stephan Gyory (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Stephan Gyory, interesting, but the word 'may' in the title speaks loudly, i.e., so far, it is speculation. However, this is a source worth exposing at the talk page so other editors interested in the topic can find it, so I would urge you to raise your comment at Talk:Göbekli Tepe and see what kind of feedback you get there.

If you you have general questions about how to add stufff to Wikipedia, you are welcome to ask questions at the

learning the rules here. Feel free to hit me up anytime with questions, but the WP:Teahouse is a good place to start. And, welcome back! Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Test: {{subst:Uw-vandalism1/sandbox|France|n=one}}:
Hello, I'm Mathglot. I wanted to let you know that your recent contribution to France has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I know very little about browsers because I've been using FF since the late Devonian, but you seem passionate and I am willing to learn.

The people behind Opera are also behind Opera GX, right? That alone should be enough to disqualify it, right?

A quick websearch tells me Vivaldi is closed source and uses Chromium.[1]

Also, Firefox is a descendant of Netscape Navigator, and the chicks really dig that. What am I missing? Why is Vivaldi superior? Polygnotus (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And what about Arc? Polygnotus (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Amaya

, an early visual editor from Tim Berners-Lee). I became passionate about Opera after I discovered it (very fast with Javascript/ECMA, back when processors were slower, now probably everybody is fast enough, but I no longer follow those comparisons). I still love Opera, and I felt almost guilty moving away from it when I discovered Vivaldi, like I was jilting a former lover who was completely innocent. (I still use Opera mini on my phone.)

Clearly a bald statement like the one I made that "Vivaldi is better" is highly subjective, and wouldn't be true for everyone. For me, its powerful tab and session handling was the clincher. I may have six or seven browsers going, with a couple hundred tabs among them; so far, all the other browsers can match that. But it's the ease of use, "tab-stacking", and the ability to tile or stack tabs, or save them in "saved sessions" that can be closed and opened, that makes it highly useful for me to manage everything I'm working on that is the winner for me.

Vivaldi help menu might be a start if you prefer text, and here is a 6' video on tab management in Vivaldi (there are tons of tutorials; this is just the first one I found; the first two minutes are a bit plodding). For example, I'm currently working on Draft:French historiography (among several other projects) and just that one page involves a ton of research; each major topic section is like an article all on its own (and probably should be, eventually) and I have saved sessions on the historiography of the Renaissance, Republicanism, Laicité, French Revolution, Feudal transformation, Identity, and Vichy, each with many tabs. Trying to keep straight all my sources and supporting pages for each major topic would be almost unmanageable without Vivaldi's powerful tab handling.

Any tool with powerful features can be daunting at first, but if you're used to some other browser with tabs, like FF, then it's pretty intuitive to just get started with Vivaldi with what you already know, and then you just start adding features to your toolkit as you go. Give it a try, and let me know how you like it! Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. I have installed Vivaldi and I will give it a try. Perhaps old dogs can learn new tricks.

Arc doesn't even support Linux for unclear reasons.

Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, no hurry or anything, but if you've had a chance to try it out, I must admit to being curious about your reaction so far. (Feel free to ignore this, if you haven't had the time, yet.) Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, like all software I haven't written, its a mixed bag. As a Pop OS user I love stacking. Fat stacks all day baby! I like the ability to take notes, I like the reading list (bit like Pocket). I do not like Mastodon, certainly not integrated into the browser (got rid of that). I don't like Bing and Startpage.com as a default, I disabled mail/calendar/feeds. I have disabled quite a few of the special features for various reasons, e.g. gestures (I am not smart enough) and quick commands (not enough brain space to remember new information). I haven't really been able to test stability and performance yet because for that I need to keep the PC running for a month with hundreds of tabs open. I'd be suprised if its better in the privacy department than Firefox (neither have acceptable default settings).

I loved Amaya back in the day btw. Not as a browser but as an editor. I still remember having nothing to write about, but spending a lot of time on web1.0 pages. Polygnotus (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Trying to keep straight all my sources and supporting pages for each major topic would be almost unmanageable without Vivaldi's powerful tab handling. Have you tried combining Omnivore+Logseq? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc6DbBtOs14&t=194s hmmm youtube.com is not on the spam blacklist but when you share a link with a timestamp it uses the youtu.be domain and that is blacklisted for some reason. Polygnotus (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It takes a bit to set it up and it is not super intuitive the first time you use it (pro tip: you gotta restart Logseq before it starts syncing for the first time) but its very useful. You find an article on the web (or upload a PDF or whatever) and then you can save it by clicking on the plugin in Vivaldi, add notes, highlight passages you might use later and add labels and tags. It uses Zotero (or something similar) under the hood so it automatically gets the relevant details. Then, when writing, put Logseq on your second monitor and you have a database of sources with the most interesting parts highlighted. Polygnotus (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Because a picture says more than a thousands words: https://i.imgur.com/8QoDO02.png Polygnotus (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hi! Thanks for marking the draft article I started, Administrative law of Germany, as promising. While I do mean to continue its substantive development before the year is out, this gives me breathing room should my regular life preoccupy me.

I must admit, however, that I'm unsure whether I'm in favor of the other edits (this one and the two preceding ones). Not to say that you need my permission, naturally; I don't

(1) Do the references not cited in-line need to be moved to further reading if it is my intention to use them for citations or remove them as the article develops? I would find it convenient if I could keep them on the draft page for my (and other editors') future use without having to keep them in further reading. (I would want them in the article for verifiability and citation purposes, but wouldn't recommend them in particular as further reading to encyclopedia readers.) I would understand, of course, if the consensus says that the more important consideration is the risk of the article being graduated to article-space with references accidentally unused in inline citations.

(2) It was an intentional,

(3) Not to criticize, just curious: I wasn't really aware of the "broader" hatnote – is that a recommended feature for sub-articles? Wouldn't a see-main template be more logical?

(4) I'm not sure Administrative law#Germany really needs to be linked at see also. Though it admittedly isn't just now (does that make the difference?), the administrative law article will surely be linked in the lead before the draft is moved to article space. This would surely make a link under see also superfluous and not recommended?

Thanks for your valuable time and effort! Also, thank you for creating the article for

WP:NOTSEEALSO, so for me, it just serves as a tickler. If you don't need it/don't want it, feel free to remove it. Mathglot (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at

Curiously enough, if I look at the IP's version which first added that {{convert}}[2], it seems to load fine with no obvious cite errors. So yes, I suppose it could be a template error, a transcluded excerpt since corrected, or some weird server/delivery failure like not running convert's code correctly. Very odd. NebY (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

NebY, yes, after my tests failed to show the problem, I reloaded the IP's version and noticed the same thing. So, must be a template problem elsewhere, or as you say, something since corrected. I would actually like to know exactly what happened, an I'm tempted to run down every transcluded template's history, as I am not a fan of chalking up everything mysterious to cosmic rays ate my homework, but it would just take too long. (Great idea for a new Toolforge tool, there, though.) And I'd like to be on the watch for it if similar symptoms ever surface again. (Note to self: see these 6 edits at Ships of ancient Rome‎‎.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The only problem with the template theory, though, is I clicked previous revisions before IP 31's edit, and they all worked, only that rev failed. That's what really threw me, because if there were a transient template or module change somewhere, edits prior to IP's edit should have failed, but they did not. Any ideas? Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's very odd - good checking though. There were already lots of uses of convert - though not one to miles. The histories of

cosmic rays really did eat our hamster. NebY (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:VPT#Tool request: What changed recently?. I encourage you to comment if you have any ideas. Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Sfnlinknb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mathglot. It has been over six months since you last edited the

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

 Done. Dropped Rfc hdr, made the change. Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Article length bar/L0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Article length bar/L1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Article length bar/L2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Interpolated comment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This template provides interesting information, but not so interesting as to clutter up the top of the page (even more than it already is). Is there some way to make it appear at the bottom of the page? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow, It's not for me to say. But you've been around for many years, so surely you know that pageviews banners have always appeared along with other Talk page banners grouped at the top of the page. I only imitated what has always been done. That said, I already have a request in at Module talk:Message box about adding a class param, because if that is done, then you will be able to disable the {{Xreadership}} template from all articles as long as you are logged in. May I ask where you saw the graph? It is only on a few articles, so far. Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "so surely you know," I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't. If I ever did notice one, it did not leave a lasting impression. And now I generally either (a) don't land at the top of a talk page because I'm following a link to a particular section or (b) don't spend any time looking at all the cruft at the top (compare

wp:KUDZU

).

My attention to the template at Talk:Rule of law was drawn because your addition appeared on the "View history" page. By the way, the template did not display as a graph for me. Instead, it shows "Pageviews summary: size=76, age=3, days=75, min=599, max=1559, latest=902." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: For the record, the graph does display with me when I press "[show]". Talk:Rule of law previously showed the now-invisible {{Annual readership}}, and its source code still contains that tag. {{Xreadership}} is a replacement for the defunct {{Annual readership}}. - Manifestation (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: I'm surprised you hadn't noticed the {{annual readership}} template; it is on 52,000+ Talk pages, including Talk:Rule of law, where it has been present for the past 2 1/2 years. It was only disabled and became invisible on the page last week. As Manifestation points out, the graph is collapsed unless you click show, which is exactly what the previous template did as well. The new one echoes the original behavior of that one, with the addition of summary info in the title bar to assist the user in deciding whether that info is enough and if expanding the graph is likely to be of interest.

Coming back to your point about "cruft at the top", as I mentioned, I am sympathetic to that point of view, and there is a solution, but it requires some engagement from others; I've provided the link the venue for you above; complaining about KUDZU here, where nobody will see it, is the wrong venue. Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't feel strongly enough about the cruft to complain to anyone about it. I mentioned it here only to explain why the annual readership template never registered on my personal radar.

Regarding the Xreadership template, perhaps I should have said "By the way, the template did not display as a graph for me. Instead, it shows 'Pageviews summary: size=76, age=3, days=75, min=599, max=1559, latest=902' on my browser." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure those stats are for testing purposes only (the box is in its beta phase).

If your browser is not showing the bar chart, then something strange is going on. I see you have the Twinkle script installed. Maybe it's messing up the graphs? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's all above my paygrade. I can live without the bar chart showing up. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow, wait a sec—are you saying the bar chart doesn't show up when you click [show] ? Do you even see the word [show] to the right of the word '(Experimental)' flush right within the bar? If you see the 'Pageviews summary' as you indicated, you should definitely see the '[show]'. Can you tell me please exactly what happens when you click '[show]'? This is important information to make sure the template is working, as I have not seen the behavior you are reporting before, and if you cannot show the bar chart, I have to figure out why not. Please let me know. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "show" shows up and pops in a bar chart. But "Pageviews summary: size=76, age=3, days=75, min=599, max=1559, latest=902" also shows up (and stay up when the bar chart pops in). I'm guessing that is supposed to display a bar chart in the box (without the necessity of clicking "show"). I may be guessing wrong.

Is the "show" bar chart different from the "Daily pageviews" bar chart? If not, why have both? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No, they don't differ.

I can understand that you see page views on talk pages as unnecessary filler data, especially since we have an external tool for it. But for what it's worth, a recent TfD showed that many Wikipedians actually do support {{Annual readership}}. So many people do believe that page views are important. Even on the talk page. - Manifestation (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow:, I'm having trouble getting a fix on what it is about the template that bothers you. At first, I thought you objected to the fact that it occupies about 2 cm of vertical space among the banners at the top of the page, because your first post mentioned "clutter" at the top of the page. Most recently, you said you guessed that the template is probably supposed to show a chart without clicking "show", but if it did that, it would take more than ten times as much vertical space, and people would scream bloody murder about clutter. So what is your concern with the template, because I still don't understand, and if I don't understand I can't fix it. As far as why have both, it's a convenience, and very few editors are aware of the toolforge tool. Annual readership was a popular tool, with over 50,000 transclusions, and the new, experimental template was created in an attempt to satisfy the 50,000 occasions where users found it useful to place the old template on a Talk page, before it was removed due to security flaws. Mathglot (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's review. First, I suggested that the template appear at the bottom of the page rather than the top. Later, I mentioned that there was a display error. I thought the error was wikitext displaying where a chart would be, but it turns out that it was just wikitext showing up. After I corrected that error thought I was told "If your browser is not showing the bar chart, then something strange is going on." That made me think that there was supposed to be a bar chart visible in the template display (without clicking anything). So I returned to the thought that the errant wikitext was meant to "show" a bar chart without any clicking. It is now clear to me that that is not the case.

Turning to your question, there are two things that 'bother" me about the template. First, its location. As I indicate above, this is not a hill that I am prepared to die on. It is just a personal preference that I expressed to someone who was dropping the template onto talk pages. Second, the template displays "Pageviews summary: size=76, age=3, days=75, min=599, max=1559, latest=902" on my browser. I'd think that would be something that the template authors would want to fix.

Thank you for the attention you've given to my concerns. However, I think we have all spent way too much time on them. No need to follow up on this post- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:1re has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Kept. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that you are I are in violent agreement at

I think that it would be useful to have a significant number of these templates, especially for French Wikipedia. For some reason, they like to use templates for trivial character combinations, and they show up at Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates quite frequently. Just today, this sandbox was generating a dozen links on that report. Let me know if you would like help getting the new templates set up. You may be able to use shared documentation for some of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@

user warning temiplates. I'll try and remember to ping you, when I set something up. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Those French are amazing. 1,165 templates to add a superscript to an ordinal number! We probably don't need all of them, but I see some of the low numbers quite frequently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The one I see a whole lot of, maybe because I look at a lot of historical articles, is the fr:Template:S for representing centuries in Roman numerals, and all of its variants. I'm not sure how many variants there are, but this fat Navbox exists just to list them. Mathglot (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy. Those templates need to be merged! There is no reason to have Template:s2- just to remove a link, when |lien=non would work just fine. But I'm not going to bust into their culture and mix things up. And we already have Template:S here, used in 3,000+ pages. Maybe we just stick to the easy ones for now, like 1re and IIIe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Moved. Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Interpolated comment § Improvement brainstorming

Your feedback is requested at

Not found. Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

 Done. Storrs. Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit. Would it be smart to have a bot that checks for long unbreakable strings on pages like the Refdesks and Helpdesk and adds ­? Polygnotus (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:Bot request, I'll support it. Mathglot (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again! Perhaps we can apply it retro-actively too (scan the dump for long unbreakable strings). There are many such tricks, I always forget what the best one is, but it is possibly <wbr>. They will know. I have to do some stuff when I get back I can try to scan the dump. Polygnotus (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Gnomingstuff, thank you for this notification. Btw, I think you meant, Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, in case you plan to place more notifications. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mathglot

Would you mind checking my sandbox and review two articles that I wrote and see what needs to be done in order for them to get approved for English Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Боки ☎ ✎ 19:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

H:YFA, and measuring your sandboxed drafts against the requirements of Notability and Sourcing as mentioned at that Help article. If you have very specific questions, like, How about this reference? I can probably answer those as I go, but a full review will probably have to wait. Best, Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

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

Your feedback is requested at

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Sorry if I caused trouble with the placing of my signature at [3]. I have never tried to use the ‘Reply’ function and I don’t know how it works.

It looks like you were intending to ping me? I never received any notification. I have no idea why. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

notification, then all is well. No trouble at all regarding the signature; there are a million niggly little things like that, you just have to learn as you go. Honestly, I don't know how Reply works either, I don't use it. Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I got your latest notification. So it looks like all is well. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

About [4]. Sorry, my entire fault. I was not trying to replace one source by another, I was in fact updating the figure/year to put 2024 data instead of 2023, but I forgot to change the year... oops. It certainly was confusing. I felt only the latest source was necessary, but if you feel that the older sources would better stick there, we can obviously keep them there as well... Anthere (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

good-faith edit, and one *never* has to apologize for a good-faith edit; we all make mistakes. The only need is to fix it, which you already did. Sometimes I add an "Oops" in the edit summary of my fix, and you did the equivalent, so you have covered all the bases. Thanks for your updates to Ghana, and for your contributions, and Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Anthere (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Rfc demote note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

moved to sandbox/Templates/*. Mathglot (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Is Draft:Golden Edge good for moving back to the mainspace? A contributer placed a single reference (a majority however is still unreferenced). Can I just add the more citations needed maintenance tag? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

significant coverage, and the draft in its current state fails to demonstrate a threshold of WP:Notability

, which is the minimum bar for an article in mainspace.

To remedy this, search for a magazine-length article, book chapter, or serious online treatment of Golden Edge which is all about Golden Edge: for example, an article/chapter that talks about its founding, how it survived various difficulties, names all the people involved in its creation, talks about the path it took to being recognized and distributed as an available network, gives demographic figures, advertising revenue, ranking among networks, and so on in significant detail. In other words, an in-depth report, all about Golden Edge (or comparing it to a small number of other networks). After you find that one, now go out and find two more like that, but that are

notability

, and then it would be reasonable to move it to mainspace.

What I recommend is two things:

1. Read Help:Your first article, especially the sections on Gathering sources, and Notability.
2. Use Wikipedia's
   Articles for creation
   process. This is a group of volunteer editors who will monitor your draft when you submit it for review, and will either release it to mainspace or give you feedback if it is not ready yet.

To facilitate the second point, I have added an Afc header to the article. When you think it is ready, just hit the big, blue, SUBMIT button, but if it doesn't have three independent references demonstrating significant coverage, it is likely to be declined. If it is, you can just keep working on it, and get it ready to submit again.

Finally, it would be better to ask any further questions at Draft talk:Golden Edge, and not here, so that other users can participate in the discussion as well. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to move the page into the article mainspace (even if risking deletion) thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Cooldudeseven7, I replied at Draft talk:Golden Edge. Please discuss there. Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Draft talk:Golden Edge#Referencing and Notability

Note: draft deleted 12 Nov. 2024. Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. A reference was added to the page, however I also noticed some references here on the spanish wikipedia- [[5]] Do you think these sources can be incorporated in some way. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe you tried to reach me earlier and told me about Teahouse reference desk. [6]Just wanted to let you know that I read it and thank you for that info. However Teahouse hosts say that- me asking why there are no articles on AIPAC’s influence in recent U.S. elections, and trying to gain understanding of Wikipedia's approach if there is a reason. - is prohibited because I don't have 500 + edits recorded on me. They didn't tell me it was off topic but said it was a restricted topic for people like me without Extended confirmed status. If I were to ask the very same thing at Wikipedia reference desk despite not having 500+ edits, - ("Is there a reason why there’s no dedicated Wikipedia article on AIPAC’s influence in U.S. 2024 elections, given its role as a major lobbying organization?") - won't I get instantly blocked for disruptive editing? Maybe much longer than 72 hours as it may be a repeat offence. I am confused and not motivated to go through a surprising bureaucratic minefield like last time. 49.181.199.18 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation § Page size and tab format

Moved discussion so that involved editors can see it. CNC (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You were extremely patient, supportive, and informative a few years ago when I was an inexperienced editor. (Should it matter, you helped a few of us split off US v. Flynn from Michael Flynn's article and answered lots of questions along the way.) I'm still not that experienced, as I only edit intermittently, but your helpfulness still stands out for me, and I figured I'd stop by to thank you again. I hope that all is well with you, FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, your kind words are very much appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Removed the Rfc header. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the

2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2024 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Would you like to take a take a crack at fixing this problem? We might need to just copy over the template code from fr.WP and make it auto-substable, as a translation assistance template. There are also three more articles using {{CURRENTCENTURY}} that need some fixing by looking at the original article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Jonesey95, oh, thanks for letting me know; yeah, I should definitely look at that. At first blush, I think your instincts about how to proceed sound like the logical way to do it. Do you have a sense of the negative impact? Because I can't promise I'll get to this right away, being snowed under on various things. If you have time to take it on, feel free. Otherwise, would it be better to just move it to Draft for a while, so it remains as a red-linked template call obviously in need of attention? At least that won't make articles worse, and is basically the equivalent of what we had before. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

After letting it stew in my brain for a bit I think I have fixed {{Nth century}}. Now to fix the remaining erroneous transclusions. If you are happy with my change, please restore the subst only template to the /doc page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Followed up at the Template talk page. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:Nth century § Substing, and cat or hidden self-ident tag

I've noticed that the archives aren't in chronological order (I'm referring to the messages inside); could you please put them in this order? JacktheBrown (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Remsense § Archives

JacktheBrown, they appear to be in chrono order to me. Can you be more specific about what looks off to you? Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

In February of 2018 Editor Mathglot received the Eddy Award for Civility and Helpfulness. It takes a concerted effort to remain calm and focused in discussions with editors that have article concerns; they feel they have been wronged and deserve their "Day in Court". Mathglot always maintains a constantly positive and congenial conversation while educating the usually new editor and, at the same time, giving attention to their concerns. One can only guess at the number of editors that have been retained by his ability to create a friendly, forwarding dialogue (over his 85000 edits). He was instrumental in the rewrite of Help:Your first article and is one of the veteran Wikipedians who program conditional templates. Seconded by User:HouseBlaster

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}}

Civility Barnstar

Mathglot

Editor of the Week for the week beginning December 1, 2024

It takes a concerted effort to remain calm and focused in discussions with editors that have article concerns. They feel they deserve their "Day in Court". Mathglot always maintains a constantly positive and congenial conversation while educating the usually new editor and, at the same time, giving attention to their concerns. One can only guess at the number of editors that have been retained by his ability to create a friendly, forwarding dialogue (over his 85000 edits). He was instrumental in the rewrite of Help:Your first article and is one of the veteran Wikipedians who program conditional templates.

Recognized for

civility and helpfulness

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree - good job!!!!Moxy🍁 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What a User said above, a few weeks ago, speaks volumes. "You were extremely patient, supportive, and informative a few years ago when I was an inexperienced editor....your helpfulness still stands out for me...." Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 15:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Buster7, HouseBlaster, and Moxy: Feeling humbled and grateful. This is encouraging, and will spur me on to continue my efforts to help editors get on-board and remain here. It doesn't always work out, and sometimes they don't stay or are blocked despite my best efforts, but I still think the effort is worth it, and this helps. Many thanks; I will strive to live up to it! Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to second (fourth?) the above congratulations. Keep up the great work! QuicoleJR (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Template:Interlanguage link/doc/sandbox2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Moved to uspace. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

 Done Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Moved. Mathglot (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

2- Lastly, I think some sort of ongoing "canned" instructional program with periodic testing would help newbies. I know there'd be people who'd balk at the idea, for various reasons, of making this sort of thing mandatory, and so it would probably have to be voluntary. To "sell" the idea to newbies, the promotions could focus on how the program would help newbies get on top of things and avoid pitfalls much faster than just leaving it to them to choose how to proceed. Although a tutorial and maybe a few other learning tools are offered at the newbie's arrival, there's no way Wikipedia knows who took it ... and there's just so much that newbies don't know that they don't know, which could get them in trouble as they start moving onward. If there really were a good solid ongoing instructional program with periodic testing, the promotions team could make a strong case to draw the newbies into it by helping them see the advantages of going through it, enhanced by personal testimonies from other editors. Augnablik (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I'm not on an instructional team in any formal way, I just volunteer on things that interest me and that I think may be helpful. For example, I often send welcome messages to new users, and I intermittently volunteer at the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, improving the tools (welcome templates) that are used to send such welcome messages.

I like the ideas in your message. Before I respond to them, there is one other point: your being both a toddler editor here and an instructional designer at the same time is a unique opportunity that Wikipedia should take advantage of, by harnessing your abilities to help us improve our documentation. But this periodd won't last long. You (and all newbies) inevitably encounter pain points and difficulties during on-boarding, some part of which is due to inadequate, unclear, or incorrect documentation. I occasionally ask newbies to help us improve by listing and reporting these, but that rarely happens. Although I try to ferret out such difficulties and report them myself, I am often unable to see the problem areas as clearly as a new user, because I have been around so long so I avoid the problem areas or use my experience or muscle-memory workaround without realizing I am doing it.

This is were you come in: when you hit these problems, as you inevitably will, can you please list them, along with whatever is necessary to identify them to someone like me who may not see at first, and ideally, the steps to reproduce an issue, if it is procedural? Such a list would be extremely valuable in improving our documentation for new users.

A good place to write these down, would be in a

VE

start page, depending on your editor) where you can start that page and save it. (Feel free to click just to see what happens with a red link; you can abandon without saving.)

This brief period when you are still new is a golden opportunity to do this, because with your background, you will probably learn faster than average, and soon lose the ability to see all of the difficulties. So if you can help out with this at this time, that would be very much appreciated.

To your questions:

1. I like the intermittent check-ins idea. I had no idea each mentor had hundreds of mentees, is that really true? That seems entirely unworkable. Otoh, I'm guessing a pretty big percentage of them either drift away after a handful of edits, and of the rest, I wonder how many ever take advantage of their mentor. So, maybe it can work after all? There may be something interesting about this at Wikipedia:Growth Team features.
2. Canned instructional program –

   a) There are some. They include the

   Wiki Education Noticeboard

   , I'm sure they will explain the best way to proceed. They will no doubt also be aware of other training materials.

   b) Periodic testing – yes, it would have to be voluntary, because the whole project is, and "sold" to newbies. There is a team (voluntary, of course) called

   WP:WikiProjects at Wikipedia, kind of like User Groups collecting users of like interest; if the project system itself becomes of interest to you, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Council

   that organizes that.

I think you are going to become an idea factory (I see myself in that group), and I urge you to keep as much of your thoughts as possible here on the wiki for transparency. Your

subpages in your sandbox

, as your ideas may come too fast to work on the detail versions all at once; at least, that's what happened to me, and then I start forgetting what it was I wanted to say. As one or another of your subpage ideas matures and you wish to attract attention and feedback, there are various locations you can move the page to; we can talk about that later.

As far as glimpsing some of the ideas and goings-on in Wikipedia's backrooms, you might want to occasionally lurk at the WP:Village pump. I suspect a lot of it will seem very murky and mysterious, but it will expose you to some of the things volunteers here think about, and slowly get you used to some of the specialized vocabulary. Oh, that reminds me: see Wikipedia:Glossary. (I bet you are someone who reads dictionaries; guess who else does that?  )

I hope this has given you some things to think about. I welcome your questions and ideas, and I look forward to further interaction with you. Finally, if you hit 'Subscribe' in the top line of this section, I won't have to

Reply}}—as I did at the top of this message—which does the same thing.) Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, just found a page called Template:Training modules invitation that I have never seen before. (I arrived at that page from User:HostBot, where the Training program is marked, 'on indef hold'.) The Training invitation page has six buttons on it. I tried a couple of buttons out, and at first, they didn't seem to work properly. Eventually, some of the pages did come up, but took over a minute to load, and when they did, some of them are problematic. The Editing Basics page did come up eventually, and seems to work: the Start button on that page took me to the Editing Basics Welcome page, and if you keep hitting Next page button, you will get a slideshow with PowerPoint-like presentations, and some video tutorials that work as well. There is a 'Documentation' link at the top of the page, that takes you to meta:Programs & Events Dashboard, and I don't at first glance see what the connection is between that page, and any of the tutorial slides. I don't plan to look into these training modules further, but I wanted to pass the links on to you, in case you are interested. Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, Lord, you've put temptation in my way. Thanks a ton, @Mathglot, I don't know how long I can hold out against what you told me about. 😱 Augnablik (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Mathglot ... much as I'd love to do exactly what you suggested, I held out from the temptation to pick up on it for awhile because I knew what a commitment that would be timewise. I’d thought of it from time to time earlier, but I wanted to focus first on several editing priorities that I knew would take time. But in retrospect, I actually have been following up on your suggestion — right in the trenches:

—   In the Teahouse and at the Help Desk and Village Pump, where I've often gone to request help, many of my help requests were definitely “pain-related,” either from the start or else as I’d begin to find confusion or complication in the documentation I was being advised by staff members to follow.

—   At those same venues, I've also, on occasion, entered conversations in connection with others’ help requests when I saw they involved issues I too had faced or wondered about.

—   And, of course, I’ve reached out to my mentor Mike  as well as now in addition to SCMcCandlish, who another editor had recommended I might turn for help with some style issues.

I’ve begun to go back through those “pain-related” messages and make a compilation of them. If you’re interested to see what I've come up with, I’ll be happy to share when it's done. Meanwhile, one of the exchanges that I already know will be among my all-time most unforgettable in that collection is preserved in a thread archived at the Help Desk as Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2025 January 25#Using the "sfn template" in citation work. Several days after that exchange began, another editor who'd taken part in it wrote me on my Talk page to share his empathy for less-than-great documentation or advice given to Wiki editors. That's led in turn to a delightful new Wiki friendship across the miles. With your similar thoughts and concerns about instructional design, Mathglot, I think I should introduce the two of you as well! Augnablik (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Come to think of it, perhaps you've already met my new editor friend, as you stalk my Talk page — or at least used to! Augnablik (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Augnablik, Yes, I have, on one of the help forums, I think. And please do make a compilation of the pain points, and ping me to the page when you are ready to link it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you and the pain-point plans, Mathglot, but "some real life" intervened for awhile, although I did a little editing here and there. As either Cullen or Colin Fine once said with refined tongue-in-cheek humor to someone in the Teahouse awhile back: "Some of us have lives outside Wikipedia."

You're not in a rush for this, are you? Augnablik (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Augnablik, No rush, whatever works for you. More time means you may accumulate more of them. Enjoy! Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

😅 More time to accumulate more pain — good one, even if it sounds sort of morbid! Augnablik (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Rfc removed. Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

• Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 22:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you very much for recently helping me out with article translation attributions. Hereby you have a little token of gratitude. Regards! JeyReydar97 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for solving that problem regarding my archives. I would like to ask: why are threads no longer automatically archived? JacktheBrown (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

JacktheBrown, Your archiving is currently set to 45 days (in the bot config code on your page as |age=1080, expressed in hours), and currently, the oldest conversation is § Latte art gallery, with the last message being from 22 November. With the current archiving config, that section will be eligible for archiving by the bot on 6 January. If you wish to change the archiving period, feel free, just remember that it is dominated in hours, so two weeks, for example would be |age=336 and a month is |age=720. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Yesterday I set 5 days (120 hours), but the open threads were not archived. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

JacktheBrown, you just have to be patient. The bot may be busy elsewhere, but will get to your page eventually. You can monitor what it is doing at Special:Contributions/ClueBot_III. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for your reply. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

★Trekker (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I saw that you reverted my removal of the gallery in

not some kind of private image web hosting service, and images that are predestined never to be used should be deleted. I have no objection whatever of your raising a discussion at Commons to that end (if you do, kindly ping me to it). Exactly the same reasoning applies to both topics. Obviously, you don't agree, and I encourage you to raise the topic at the article Talk pages in question so that other interested editors can participate in discussion; nobody is going to notice it here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying. I am only discussing it here because you are the first (and as of now, only) person to contest the removal. As I said earlier, a gallery's relevance to a topic does not prevent deletion; the case especially applies to galleries of said rule. Its images not being suitable for inclusion in an article does not mean they can't be included elsewhere. For example, the article Cat does have a gallery here, but it is shown in an encyclopaedic way, something the images in Masturbation and Testicle do not do. Also, there are thousands of cat images on Commons which are not included in the Cat article. This doesn't mean they are not suitable elsewhere and should be deleted. For example, there are images in Feral cat, Kitten, Cat anatomy, and others that aren't used in the Cat article. Should they still be deleted? _ZZ^Z'S 02:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, please do NOT revert my revision as this discussion is going on. Thank you. _ZZ^Z'S 02:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

article Talk pages are for. Please, if you wish to carry on with discussion of this, let's do so at the article Talk page. Thank you. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw that you went ahead and reverted my edits without my approval. Sigh. Anyway, what I am doing is called following

fidn another way to resolve a dispute. I do not believe I should waste my time engaging in content dispute with a person who is refusing to communicate because the disputed matter is not being discussed on the article talk page. Next time, refrain from this behaviour so in the future, people who have to deal with situations like this don't have to take matters into their own hands. Good bye. _ZZ^Z'S 03:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:DRN if you wish, but nothing is likely to happen there, because the first thing they are going to ask you is, "Have you discussed this at the article Talk page?" and when you tell them "No", that will be the end of it. So, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, please raise this at the article Talk page. That is the appropriate place to resolve a content dispute. Thanks, (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is the least dispute resolving page I've ever seen. The options either do not solve the problem, encourage your unreasonable demand, or the dispute does not meet the requirements. This is why I am an

WP:MOS guidelines, violating Wikipedia policies, and basic common sense, 'Oh, an indiscriminate collection of unencyclopaedic images that looks really ugly, decreases the article's quality and chance of a successful FAC, and takes up a quarter of the article. It would be logical to remove it from the article to reduce the workload of a user who wants to make it a featured article.' But someone who believes opinions override Wikipedia policies that are required to be followed except in certain occasions which do not apply to the situation revert it. I fear that there are too many people like that on Wikipedia and are causing more problems and worsen the credibility and quality of the encyclopaedia rather than improve it. I do not understand the thought process behind it. It drives me mad. Anyway, I have no choice but to follow your demand, despite it only concerning two editors. I'm going to take a break. Wikipedia is pushing my buttons. _ZZ^Z'S 04:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

consensus and the resolution you wish for. Until then, all the best. Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'll take it up right now. I just hope that consensus is aware of Wikipedia policies trumping opinions, no matter how detailed the opinion is. _ZZ^Z'S 16:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025
	Hello Mathglot, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creepTalk 12:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Mathglot, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated.

Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

 Done Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this user is messing up the deftones page: Robenceic - they're putting weird unverified/uncreditable remarks about ties to nazis. You recently coached the user on their talk page about something similar, I'm hoping you can get this addressed too please, as a favor. Thank you. Take care. MuEmpireX (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@MuEmpireX:, thanks for the message. I went over to take a look, but by the time I got there, they were already indefinitely blocked. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Robenceic (talk · contribs) ^[noping]

Happy New Year!

Mathglot,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Happy New Year! I was reflecting recently on some of the folks that were welcoming when I first started here and am just taking a moment to say thanks. I think I first talked to you over a year ago at Help talk:Shortened footnotes and have consistently appreciated your feedback in other places.[7] I hope 2025 is a good year Rjjiii (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you just moved

Hi, SunloungerFrog, and thank you for raising this. It is a fair request, and I will definitely consider it. I also will not move it back to draft if it is moved to mainspace in good faith with a clear-cut, reasonable justification by a third party with no COI or some kind of non-independent reason to do so. I'm aware of NPROF, but it seems like anyone meeting this bar will have some significant coverage somewhere. (It doesn't have to be in English.) If they don't, what are we to conclude? I also looked at

WP:NPROF again, which has three bullets at the top summarizing the most important points, and Draft:Jawaid Iqbal (professor) doesn't appear to meet any of them. I left the creator a message at the talk page, focusing on how best to increase the likelihood of Afc acceptance, and we will see what, if anything, the reaction will be. If none, one has to wonder what their motivation is, in trying to ram through an article with zero independent sources. Is there truly no coverage anywhere, outside the university itself? Then I would say it does not meet the notability threshold. And if there is such coverage, what could possibly be the reason for not providing it? I am willing to change my stance and revert the move, but there should be some policy- or guideline-based reason to do so. Mathglot (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me just add that Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, currently red-linked in the first sentence, should be converted to an {{interlanguage link}}, so we can see what other Wikipedias have an article on it; that might help. I see it is linked from List of engineering colleges in Jammu and Kashmir#Rajouri district. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Turns out, Nepali Wikipedia is the only one: ne:बाबा गुलाम शाह बादशाह विश्वविद्यालय, however it is a one-liner, with no refs, so not helpful. Mathglot (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops, didn't ping: SunloungerFrog. Mathglot (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The contention yesterday is that the subject meets

WP:NPROF#6

The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution. Of course, that then brings into question whether the institution in question can be considered to be a "major academic institution", and, naturally, the fact that Wikipedia does not currently have an article about it does not help here!

I will say that I tried to find better sources without a good deal of success, and from reading through his CV [8] and Google Scholar profile [9] there doesn't appear to be anything immensely notable on the academic front, his longstanding career as a hardworking educator notwithstanding. I couldn't find any scholarly reviews of his books, and none of his scholarly articles have been heavily cited.

So I can quite understand your decision to move the article to draftspace! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've independently raised this over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Having looked at the subject's Google Scholar page, I agree that Iqbal is only notable if the Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University vice chancellorship meets PROF #6. I see no reason to believe it obviously wouldn't (the university article is longstanding and claimed it to be state rather than private) but admit I know next to nothing about the Indian university system. I don't have any prior connection with either the academic or the university (came into this via declining an A7). I fear the editors/IPs who have been concerned with Iqbal's article don't have sufficient English-language competence to understand what we are trying to say to them. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Gosh I had entirely not twigged that between yesterday and today the university article had been deleted. That is a pity. I vaguely recall some discussion on its talk page about notability, so it's unfortunate that we can't now draw on that. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've just looked at the deleted talk page of Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University. Danish Iqbal Raina asserts that it is a "public university" but there doesn't seem to be much else that speaks to the university's notability or otherwise, just some talk about a state-of-the-art football field. As Mathglot did not delete the university article, perhaps we should move this discussion off their talk page -- I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I found the discussion about the institute's notability - was actually the AfD for the previous vice-chancellor, so somewhat pertinent in this case (the consensus was keep BTW) - but I have put it in the thread on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) and let's carry on the conversation there. I will 🤐 here! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  SunloungerFrog, I didn't realize the univ. article ever existed, but since it did, clicking through the red link gives you the reason for the deletion (copyvio) and the source it copied from, so in reality, we do have the content, it's just the university page itself. I would assume a legit university would be notable, and it ought to be possible to recreate it.

  WP:GNG

  , and quote or footnote the "presumed notable" language from GNG (A topic is presumed notable if...). I think this is a crucial point, because it says "presumed notable", not "is notable"; i.e., "is very probably notable" is the starting point (to deter speedy and so on) but it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and therefore the standard requirements of notability still apply (three indep. 2ary RSes, say) and so we still need to demonstrate that. If, after presuming notability for Iqbal, a thorough search by several editors cannot find independent corroboration, then we must find our initial presumption to be incorrect, and consider that the topic is in fact, not notable. That is my understanding of the guideline. Having the article in draft space doesn't absolve us of the requirement to find sourcing, rather, for those editors who believe he is notable, it puts deletion activities on hold, and allows pretty much all the time required to find appropriate sourcing. In main space, anybody could take it to Afd, but that won't happen now.

  Finally, I wonder if there are

  systemic bias

  issues involved in the university notability issue (apart from the copyvio, which has nothing to do with notability), as I'm guessing 2nd or 3rd tier universities in India (if that is the case, I know nothing about it) likely get less independent coverage than 1st world universities do; so maybe are more likely to "fall off" the edge of notability requirements. This is speculation on my part, and I wouldn't not know how to address such a question; perhaps worth raising?

  I do not object to hosting this discussion here, but you will probably get more/better participation if the discussion were moved to a more appropriate venue, so feel free to move it. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not good with understanding triple negatives but my understanding of WP:PROF is that it is older than GNG, and is one of the few (only?) guidelines that actually "trump" GNG, rather than essentially guessing whether or not GNG is likely to be met. There again, for most academics who pass PROF under #1, the citations can be considered a form of condensed coverage.

  I do think there's a potential problem with systemic bias occurring here; I can't think of a British university, however low tier, that would not have newspaper/book coverage in spades if anyone were to challenge notability. There's also the problem with doing English-language searches in Google, and with the Wikipedia Library coverage to a large extent prioritising English-language sources. I also can't imagine the storm that would result if someone were to delete an article on any British or American university, even on copyright grounds. Anyway, per other discussion, I think SunloungerFrog is drafting a new article on the university at the moment. Once that's back in mainspace, perhaps Iqbal could also be returned to mainspace? I just don't see the point of it languishing in draft when the COI editors have been made to feel sufficiently unwelcome that they won't improve it. Tbh, I think the COI editing has been a bit overblown; there's nothing in the current article that seems to me to be a particular problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hi,

  WP:REVDEL

  copied content in order to go back to a previous, untainted version, if copyvio goes back to the initial creation version, then there is no untainted version to go back to, and the article must be deleted. Perhaps that is what occurred here.

  Iqbal is a different story; David Eppstein made a good point at the guideline talk page, and I am still looking into it, but I think he is right. However, even under that reading, C6 doesn't confer notability on a chancellor unless they are from a "major academic institution", so the next step, even if BGSBU is notable (which it very likely is), in order for Iqbal to benefit from C6, we would have to establish that BGSBU is major—perhaps it is, and if you can establish that, then that should clear the decks for moving Iqbal back to mainspace (assuming David is right, which it looks like he is). Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Moved to user space. Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

d/c ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Mathglot, it's my special pleasure to present you with this token of appreciation, described as being "for a specific reason, when there is no other barnstar that would feel appropriate." It seems the best one available to say thank you for quite a few "swoop-ins" to (1) suggest useful, or better, ways of doing Wiki stuff than I was aware of and (2) to connect me with others sharing similar Wiki interests. I'm all the more grateful because you volunteered your help, unasked. Augnablik (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

You know, Mathglot ... considering the odds of misunderstanding, I think the miracle of human communication is that people understand each other as well as they do! 😂 Augnablik (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree! (and also with the follow-up, which just disappeared... ) Mathglot (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The follow-up disappeared because it was an earlier version of "Considering all odds" — because I thought it hadn't succeeded in getting published and that I'd need to write a new version. I've been having some real technical challenges off and on.

Which reminds me to ask: are you a Wiki tekkie, whether officially or otherwise? Augnablik (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I know that word. How would you define it? Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Tekkie? It's a short form of "technical expert," and (I think) usually connotes that the person is also in that line of work, not just knowledgeable about it. Augnablik (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, TEKKIE is how I think I've always written the word. But I looked it up just now in the Oxford online dictionary and found it's an alternate noun for TECHIE. At any rate, I'm curious if you self-identify with either noun, because I have several maddening technical challenges that occur only when I'm working in Wikipedia and only on my computer (not my phone). Something you once said — can't recall what or where — seemed to indicate that you might have technical skills and be using them in Wiki work.

Speaking of technical weirdities, you'll notice that I'm not replying to you with this message where you'd normally expect it to appear. That's because although I saw your reply, I didn't see [ reply ] next to the date of your post, as it always appears. Interesting coincidence that this is going on in a message mentioning some technical challenges I've been having ... Augnablik (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I think you are mixing "Trekkie" (a Star Trek fan) with "techie". Or, maybe you think I'm a Wiki Wookiee? Woo-hoo! Mathglot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

@Mathglot, if you look up your Talk page a little, you'll find the last conversation we had ("Considering the odds ..."). I was unable to reply to your last message because there was no [ reply ] option after your name attached to it — which I tried to explain in a message I had to attach to another one earlier in our thread. Perhaps you didn't notice it because it wasn't in the normal place you'd expect it. So I started a new conversation here.

I had asked you if you were a "tekkie" and we got talking about that word. You championed techie. Are you either, in Wikidom?Augnablik (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for shutting this down. There is a great temptation to tell good people that we told them so, but we are better than that. Trolling is for Facebook. ;-) Bearian (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yvw! (Regarding this edit at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner#Pronouns.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like I was going too fast while fixing archive bots, as I set the archive counter back to one. I think SigmaBot is probably smarter than me and knows what to do in that case, anyways.

One thing tho: I think the target of 100k per archive is closer to the average for past archives on that page. Depends on how active you see the page being in the future. Up to you. Cheers. Wizmut (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Wizmut, feel free to set it back to 100k if that is normal for that page. And thanks for writing! Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Converted to discussion. Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

¿why do you say my editing was semi-incoherent? 190.109.1.202 (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Because it was (diff):

Greenland may become warm enough by 2100 to begin an almost complete, it would take up to this long to melt completely.

That was your wording at Timeline of the far future. You obviously did not check your edit before publishing it, but I'm surprised you did not check it before posting here. But don't worry, it's a wiki, so you can just fix it. Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

add the same content again but without this summary:

Greenland may become warm enough by 2100 to begin an almost complete 190.109.1.202 (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

the summary:

"it would take up to this long to melt completely" is to refer to the fact that it takes another 3,000 years for the Greenland ice sheet to melt completely 190.109.1.202 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry, but I reverted you again. Your words at the article are simply not clear enough to understand what is meant. May I suggest that you make an

Edit request at Talk:Timeline of the far future, explaining the change you wish to make, and request that another editor make the change for you? Another possibility, would be for you to make the change directly to Anexo:Cronología hipotética del futuro lejano, which I suspect may be easier for you, and when you are done, either ask at the Talk page for someone to translate your edit into the English article, or add another comment below and I will translate it for you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

 Done. Keep. Mathglot (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

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

Your feedback is requested at

Disabled it. Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

@

WP:NPOV in mind (not to mention the issues you raised), or merge, as you suggested. (But what of the current content even deserves a merge?) So, yeah, something needs to be done, eventually, and I don't have the bandwidth to do it, but you can count on me for support if you want to take it on, now or later. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think anything on it really deserves a merge, but merging is much easier to achieve than AFD. Then you can trim the 'merge' and I guess copy a paragraph about STIs. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I got your back. Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

 Done. Support removal of Rfc header. Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

 Done (keep). Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Mathglot, I have entered a first deletion request on the WP:Alison Weir (activist) talkpage, under a new subsection of Re iewing Sources entitled "The Tablet." I thought I pinged you when I posted it, but in any case would you please take a look at it and take whatever action you deem appropriate? Thanks Kenfree (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Kenfree, you probably did but I am so oversubscribed, I often delay before I get back to something on my list. If I haven't looked at it in say, 4-7 days, please ping me a reminder. Don't forget that any EC editor can do it if they have the time and are willing, so you could try various routes to attract attention, although the Edit request template itself is supposed to do that, as long as it is not marked "Answered". Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I wonder if we should take our now rather lengthy discussion from the Saccidananda Ashram article's Talk page and move it here. I know we started out there for good reason; now, though, our thread seems a bit more like the kind of discussion between a mentor or helpful senior guide and a lower-level editor, even though still connected with the article. It's not that I mind "going public" in that way ... it's just that I think other editors going over our discussion on the article's Talk page may find it "a bit much."

In any event, I have something else related to our discussion that I'd like to ask you over here. Augnablik (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I am working on these 2 biographies below:

Draft:Athanasie Cadot

Draft:Equaysayway

These 2 women married 2 Métis fur traders that are extremely easy to confirm are notable. But I believe these 2 women are also notable or have evidence show they are. Both women helped their husbands in the fur trade, both women are related to influential and power chiefs, both women gave birth to some notable children, one of these women had an island named after her, and another women saved the life of Alexander Henry the elder. There is a lot more information out there about both of these women I just haven’t seen it yet.

I currently joined the Women in Red WikiProject, they pointed out some issues that I agreed with. But I know there is information about both of these women that shows they are notable.

I believe their notability could possibly be similar to Sacagawea.

Do you have any tips and advice on this? I don’t do biographies that often. CycoMa2 (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I know I keep bugging you about this it’s just I know these 2 women are notable. I just haven’t added everything in about them yet.

I am not entirely what information I should add to prove to y’all that they are notable for their own articles. CycoMa2 (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)