User talk:Mathglot

Adding categories that should only refer to known events, not mythical or speculative

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:User18

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)

English translation of some French movie reviews

Hi, I saw your name at WP:TRLA and thought you might be available for translation. Would you mind translating the following French reviews: Le Monde, Premiere fr, Le Parisien? They're for Infested, which I nominated and expanded for WP:DYK and was later approved; though I might be asked to expand on how the movie was received in France; guidelines recommend that I do so, anyway. I would really appreciate it, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legifrance/prefix

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legifrance/Path

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legifrance/CT

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Legifrance/path

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:They aren't

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)

Talk: page Moroccans

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)

Flesek, your arguments about what should appear in the article may, or may not be correct, I have not looked into that. What is certain, however, is that you may not make personal attacks against another editor, which is why your Talk page comment was removed from Talk:Moroccans. If you believe that an editor "has ravaged every wikipedia article about north-Africa by replacing amazigh history with fake narratives" then that is a serious matter, and a violation of various policies, notably No original research. The other problem with your Talk page comment, is that an article Talk page is about discussing improvements to the article, and is *not* to be used to discuss possible behavioral issues regarding another editor. For that, you may start at the User's talk page. In addition, if you suspect that an editor is adding their own opinion or original research to articles, then you should start a discussion at the Original research noticeboard, where other editors will examine your report and look into the situation. If you decide to do that, please write calmly, factually, and provide evidence (i.e., diffs) so that editors can see and evaluate your claims. Regardless of how emotional or offended you may feel now about the situation, avoid making another personal attack at all costs, as you risk having your editing privileges suspended if you do so. Stay calm, do not attack, and just report factually–with evidence. Please {{ping}} me from there, if you decide to create a report at the WP:ORNB.Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki

 Courtesy link: WP:Tea house § Giving up with wiki

Thanks it’s been a long winded discussion but interesting. I wanted to wrap up like this but you closed the thread before I could:

I quite agree - there has been too much time spent on this discussion and we aren’t going to agree around the way the reversion was done. It isn’t always easy to assume good intentions with a revert now and discuss later policy. I get that this is a wiki policy thing and I just wanted to discuss that it doesn’t feel like the nicest way to do it and some people could convey this better but I do understand the reasons for this policy and some people have taken the time to explain it. I now know there is support and I know who has offered to help and where to go for support if I’m wanting to contribute further.

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

Hi, SnarkyDragon, and welcome. Yes, I saw that the thread at the Tea house has been closed, which was the right call imho, as it had outlived its usefulness and had become repetitive. Just to be clear, we are talking about this thread, closed by Valereee in this edit. The "revert now and discuss later" method is not the only way to deal with content disagreements around here, but it has long been routine practice among Wikipedia editors, and many times it is, in fact, the best way forward in order to protect the integrity of an article and the encyclopedia. As long as the reverting editor is following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia in performing a revert and in particular, avoiding edit-warring, then there is no problem in reverting for just cause. It is good practice to also leave an 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 WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss) procedure can seem harsh for new users, but it is a standard way of doing things, and frankly, any kind of revert is liable to ruffle one's feathers—that's just human nature. Nobody likes it when it happens to you, but you have to 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)

B to GA status

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)

New message from Aaron Liu

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)

Concern regarding Draft:Recur-B

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Recur-B, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

General Precession

Hi there. I’m not experienced in adding stuff to wiki and don’t want to mess it up.

There seems to be new evidence from Göbekli Tepe to suggest knowledge of procession dating from 10,000 BCE

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 WP:Teahouse. Also, a general principle of Wikipedia is WP:BE BOLD, which means you don't have to know all the rules, and you don't have to worry about messing it up. Go ahead and make an edit if you think it is right. Sure, you will make mistakes—who doesn't?—but that's okay. Maybe someone will undo your edit five minutes after you make it; that's okay, too; part of editing here is not taking things personally, just trying to improve the article as best you can, while 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)

Uw-vandalism1/sandbox test

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)

Browsers

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, Polygnotus. Yah, I used FF (and before that Navigator, and 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)

Concern regarding Draft:3O-notice

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:3O-notice, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wondering about MOS:ORDER and the strictness of mainspace cite-rules for draft articles

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 own the page, of course, no matter that it is in an inchoate stage! But I thought to enquire whether all of them are necessary (at this juncture). You seem to have a good grasp of the MOS and similar guidelines and consensuses (consensēs?), so I thought I'd head over here and ask first, just if you happen to know off the top of your head. They're small quibbles and I'm not eager to sink time into in-depth research; especially if you aren't actually opposed to me changing them back, anyhow.

(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, bold choice of mine to put the notes section at the very end. My rationale is that readers are most likely to read notes in conjunction with the main text, by clicking/tapping the bracketed number/letter and having it pop up automatically – but quite unlikely to want to read them en masse after the main text. Therefore, they would ideally be maximally "deprioritized", so to speak, by being relegated to the very end of the page – minimizing scrolling effort to get to sections that are useful as sections per se, such as the handy list of full references, further reading, and external links. I don't recall the MOS layout guideline specifically mentioning that notes shouldn't be moved to the very end if they aren't in the same section as the full references. Is my style something you can countenance?

(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 The Pure Theory of Law. Much obliged. —§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 12:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

LegesFundamentales only a partial response for now, because it is all I have time for at the moment. To #1: no, you can leave refs wherever you want, and pretty much ignore all rules while you are still in Draft space. Wrt #3, it's a judgment call, however the {{Main}} template is intended for use at the top of sections, not the top of articles. For #4, the draft is stil in flux, and even if it shouldn't be in See also when released, having it there now serves as a reminder to stick it in somewhere as a link, and then remove it from See also per 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)

Concern regarding Draft:3O-decline

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:3O-decline, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and Talk:2024 United States presidential election on "Society, sports, and culture" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ships of ancient Rome‎‎

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 Module:Convert, Module:Convert/data and Module:Convert/text don't show any recent changes. Maybe inspiration will strike, but for now I'm stuck with cosmic rays really did eat our hamster. NebY (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

NebY, please see 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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sfnlinknb

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)

Your draft article, Draft:Impact of Gamergate

Hello, Mathglot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Impact of Gamergate".

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)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article length bar/L0

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article length bar/L1

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article length bar/L2

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Interpolated comment

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)

Experimental page views chart location

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1re

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)

Template:1re

I think that you are I are in violent agreement at the TFD. I think "subst only" may be what you are describing when you say "any instances should be substed by a bot". That's what the {{subst only}} template does when configured correctly, as you can see with {{Lien}} in this bot edit.

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)

@Jonesey95:, thank you for this. I was unaware of that additional feature of {{subst only}}, thanks for cluing me in. And, I love that expression, in violent agreement; I'm going to have to steal that, at some point! Good tip about shared doc, I am already thinking about a doc template that might serve for multiple languages, but I may start with a few templates in French, and maybe German or Spanish, to pick out the best common verbiage for a doc template, and see if there are bits that can be isolated as typical variables to be parameterized. At first blush, I'm thinking three unnamed, and a named |additional= (or maybe, |pre= and |post=) to add additional stuff that may be unique to some xx-wiki template and not easily covered by params. The daughter templates of {{Expand language}} do something like that, and so do the 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)

Concern regarding Draft:Brazilian judicial codes

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Brazilian judicial codes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Interpolated comment

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

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Bot

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)

Polygnotus, that sounds like a really good idea, and I'd extend it to all Talk-space pages as well. Before I used the <pre>-tag, I had tried {{zwsp}}, but it didn't provide the intended effect, of course, because it was inside the <nowiki>'s. Nowiki does not disable embedded HTML entities like &shy; so that would be a good solution; probably they could be inserted every N characters (possibly small N for mobile?) and after all hyphens and that should work. If not, <pre> would also work. If you decide to make a 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

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)

Two articles - review

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)

User:Боки, I started to look at it, but I'm not sure I'll have time to do it properly before mid-November. Based on a brief glance, I think you can profitably do some self-assessment, by reading through 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 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Indentation etc

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)

Sweet6970, I don't know why either, but if you got this 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)

Ghana

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)

Anthere, no worries, I knew it was a 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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rfc demote note

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)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

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)

Cooldudeseven7, No, not even close, unfortunately, because that reference, while it is reliable, does not provide 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 completely unrelated to the first one. When you have three, independent, in-depth references, then you probably have an empirical demonstration of 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)

Question about Golden Edge

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)

Thanks

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)

Archiving

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)

thank you

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)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{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 Talk:Berbers on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:S-

I can see why you created a redirect at Template:S-, but unfortunately, it doesn't work. Since the redirect target is auto-substed, we get invalid substitutions like this one, where {{s-|18}}th was replaced by the #default {{CURRENTCENTURY}}th, i.e. "21th", which was wrong in two ways.

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

Archives

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

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

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

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)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Interlanguage link/doc/sandbox2

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)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Oka Userlinks

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oka Userlinks, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Following up with you

Hi, Mathglot. I picked up on your invitation to connect with you that you mentioned in a recent thread at the Help Desk. Since you seem to be on an instructional team that looks for ways to improve editors' experience, I'd like to share a few suggestions that you could pass along. They're based on an interesting combination: my own personal experience as a toddler editor on the one hand and an instructional designer on the other. It's often amusing or even hilarious to watch myself at the toddler stage while viewing said toddler from the vantage point of an instructional designer.

Perhaps some or all these suggestions have been thought of and considered at various times, but FWIW, here goes:

1- I think it would be very helpful to follow up with newbies at a few scheduled times after they come on board, rather than merely assigning them a mentor and assuming they're connected meaningfully. Not all of them will be. In fact, the mentor may not have followed through with his or her assigned mentees, though I understand each mentoring editor has a caseload of 600 — which would certainly make not spending much time with each mentee understandable.

The check-in could simply be online, but done on a regular basis, by sending a little rating sheet to ask about a few specific things, what's gone well and less well and why — with space to write about other things not addressed on the rating sheet. Something quick and simple to respond to, and conveying interest in the newbie. And if things weren't going so well, the newbie would have the option of asking for a one-on-one with a senior editor.

True, this idea isn't all that personal but a way to at least make newbies feel that Wikipedia does have some concern about them.

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 WP:User subpage. You can call the page whatever you want; the easiest way to create it, is to add a WP:Red link somewhere (for example, in your reply, your sandbox, or anywhere), and then after saving it, click the red link to create it. For example, if you wanted to call it User:Augnablik/Pain points and workarounds, that will show up as red when I save this, and if you click it, you will get an edit window (or 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 Wikipedia:Adventure, various "Wizards" like the New Article Wizard, and a complete set of training modules including videos, by the Wikipedia Education program. There is a soft 404 at Wikipedia:Training/For students that may get you there. I believe you might have to sign on as a "student" (which I did) in order to go through their training, but if you introduce yourself at 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 Wikipedia:Editor retention that you might want to look at. This is one of the many 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 WP:Userspace (your user page, talk page, sandbox, subpages, etc.), although it doesn't "belong" to you, is a place you can record stuff in relative peace and quiet (and obscurity, unless you draw attention to it). You could use your sandbox (linked at the top of this and every page at Wikipedia) as you wish; for example, as a place to create a tickler list full of red links of things you'd like to develop in more depth at some point. I urge you to start doing that, the simplest form being a bullet list of red links to future 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 ping you each time I respond. Please let me know if you were able to subscribe, because your subscription status is not visible to anyone else. (Everyone is automatically notified about messages on their own talk page, so you never have to ping me here, but if you want to attract my attention at any other page, then {{ping}} me, or use {{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)

Concern regarding Draft:CCI links

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:CCI links, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Peace

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)

A barnstar for you!

		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)

Talk page

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)

Happy Holidays

★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)

Concern regarding Draft:License compatibility/styles.css

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:License compatibility/styles.css, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

What's with your pro-gallery stance?

I saw that you reverted my removal of the gallery in Masturbation and Testicle with the rationale of WP:NOTCENSORED (which isn't the reason why I removed them) and the images being related to the topic (which does not excuse it from WP:GALLERY and WP:NOTGALLERY, in fact the policy is explicitly for on-topic galleries). Those galleries are not improving the articles because they do not provide a realistic encyclopaedic purpose by not showing new or useful information that is not shown in earlier pictures (with some being less useful than the ones not in the gallery) as well as the number of images being excessive to the point where images of similar appearance are repeated. If there are images that do not fall in the above, then they should be removed from the gallery and placed in a more appropriate section. Galleries should be encyclopaedic, but the ones in the two aforementioned articles aren't. _ZZ^Z'S 02:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Zzzs, thanks for your message. I disagree with the removal, and I don't have a pro-gallery stance (whatever that even means). The items you removed are available on Commons for the purpose of illustrating relevant topics at Wikipedia, and I most certainly find the removed images relevant to the topics, which is why I restored them. If images of testicles are not encyclopedically relevant at the Testicle article, then they are probably not encyclopedically relevant anywhere, and in that case, the images should be challenged at Commons and removed because Commons is 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)

Zzzs, I am not going to discuss an article content disagreement further at my Talk page; that is not what User talk pages are for, and it is precisely what 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 WP:BRD, though I will admit that I should not have reverted your edit the second time before starting this discussion. One is allowed to take something to a user talk if it is appropriate to do so (which is in this case per WP:UP). If you're not going to engage in discussing this matter with me from now on, then I will 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)

Zzzs, I tell you now for the third time, that I am most happy to discuss this with you at the appropriate venue, which is the Talk page of the article. You are free to take this to 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 misanthropist. I find a thing that is violating 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)

Zzzs, I'm sorry to hear the process has been getting to you. There is no rush on this; we can take it up later, whenever you feel ready, and I won't press for a resolution before you are. So do take it easy in the meanwhile. It's a minor thing, really, nothing to get too exercised about. With any luck, after discussion begins, you may find that other editors will agree with you, and then you'll have 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

	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)

Happy Holidays

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)

Concern regarding Draft:License compatibility

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:License compatibility, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

A goat for you!

Greatly appreciated.

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User Robenceic on deftones page

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!

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)

Thanks and Happy New Year

		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)

Jawaid Iqbal (professor)

Hello, I saw that you just moved Jawaid Iqbal (professor) to draft Draft:Jawaid Iqbal (professor) - I agree that neither of the sources are especially WP:SIGCOV but there was a discussion yesterday in which Espresso Addict noted that the subject probably met WP:NPROF as Vice-Chancellor of the university in the edit summary Special:Diff/1267100111, an assessment that I concurred with; probably wasn't very clear in the talk page. Would you mind reverting your draftification? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) The article was also the subject of some vexed discussion with some COI editors, and a few people got a bit frustrated, so it would be good to avoid fanning the flames if possible.

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.

  Espresso Addict, regarding NPROF 6, I don't disagree that there's no reason to assume it wouldn't be notable per NPROF 6 (uh-oh, my triple-negative alarm just started beeping). My general feeling is, that all the Notability sub-guidelines (like NPROF) generally link 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, Espresso Addict, yes, that was basically my speculation. We can also search in foreign languages, either Hindi or Kashmiri, I am guessing, but honestly, at the level of higher education (or even generally) in India, English is considered more a prestige language, not so much a colonial language (even though it is) as French, say, is seen in Algeria (though millions speak it), so my guess is if it isn't mentioned in English, it isn't mentioned; but I could be wrong. I am actually surprised about the deletion on copyright grounds, that is rearely done, with the possible exception that since you have to 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)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:How to create a new page

Hello, Mathglot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:How to create a new page, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

A "Special Barnstar" for you

		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)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering the odds ...

(Following up on an exchange we had elsewhere, but I couldn't publish there any more. Perhaps threads can get only to a certain size and then the bar goes down on further additions.)

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)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Reply gremlins

@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)

Gender trolling

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)

Whoopsie

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)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello

¿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 Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/SPS RfC on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Is it me or should Effects of human sexual promiscuity really be merged into Promiscuity just as a "risks" type thing? The sources themselves seem to be associational studies, rather than any research on "effects" of promiscuity. The whole thing feels like WP:SYNTH and pov pushing. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz:, no and yes, and it's not just you. The article has all sorts of problems, and maybe never should have been created as a separate page in the first place, as it seems to be serving as a WP:COATRACK. The good news is, that it's an orphan, so damage is minimal, at least for the time being. Still, something should be done about it; either rewrite it keeping 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)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit request at Alison Weir

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)

Moving our discussion ...

@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)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This feels like edit warring by you to me

@Mathglot, in your last exchange with me you indicated that you were oversubscribed and could not spend much time on the Alison Weir (activist) page, and so couldn't respond to my edit requests in a timely manner, and indeed these continue to languish there. But it would appear, unless I am misunderstanding the HISTORY page, that you were indeed able to find time to visit the page to undo an edit that represented a consensus between @User:Scratchinghead and myself to resolve a conflict occasioned by his previous edit of the lede without preliminary discussion or consensus seeking, a consensus you should have been aware of as you were mentioned in it (and pinged), as I had tried to include your concern about the loss of P/I focus in the final wording. Now you are starting the process all over again by truncating that consensus version without the slightest discussion on the Weir talk page that I can find, or any effort to build consensus for it. This feels like the start of an edit war to me, though I may be missing something which is why I am writing you here before I take it anywhere else. I look forward to your soonest reply. Kenfree (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry you see it that way, Kenfree. Yes, I understand how you feel. Sorry I can't be more helpful right now on a schedule that is more in line with the urgency you evidently feel about this. But I won't be bullied into changing my own priorities by an assumption of bad faith on my part by you. You have given me fair warning now, and if you want to take it somewhere else, that is certainly your right. If it is a noticeboard, please {{ping}} me to it. Do be aware, though, that admin boards watch editor behavior to ensure smooth operation of the encyclopedia; they will neither adjudicate a content dispute, nor declare who has WP:CONSENSUS. For your own sake, please also be aware of WP:BOOMERANG: unlike chess, there is no advantage in making the first move. If you believe an edit-war is going on, the board concerned is WP:AN3. Other boards are listed here. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I answered your edit request for you, "out of sequence", as it were, but would appreciate more collegial interaction from you going forward, whether towards me or whomever. But looking at your comment above about undoing some consensus you had, honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. If you meant my reversion of Sh's use of Salem-News, that is an unreliable source that nearly was blacklisted. Whatever it was about, if you wish to discuss it further, please do so at the Talk page, where others will see it and can weigh in, not here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Scratchinghead's unilateral truncation of a lede I had worked very diligently on editing led to a conflict, which we happily resolved on his talkpage after some discourse and compromise. I explicitly included wording to satisfy your stated concern that P/I issue was getting lost in the shuffle, and I pinged you to draw your attention to the discussion. It is possible that my coding of the ping is incorrect, but I thought I had the process right. Please review this discussion here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kenfree&action=edit&section=19 And thanks for completing the edit request. Kenfree (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Kenfree, I will get to it eventually, but this is exactly why user talk pages should not be used for discussing content issues, because other users won't be aware of it. (And even if third parties are pinged, that is still an exclusive club and still the wrong venue for it.) Plus, any compromise on article content reached on a user talk page is pretty much by definition, an agreement between two people (or an invited club) and in no way represents consensus about article content, and therefore nobody else is bound by it. It's unfortunate that that discussion was not held on the article Talk page. Please read WP:TALK for guidance about what goes where, but in a nutshell: discuss article content on article Talk pages; discuss user behavior on user talk pages. It goes beyond that, of course, but that is the essential distinction to keep in mind. If someone tries to discuss article content with you on your User talk page, you should guide them to the article Talk page instead. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, point taken...but my talk page is where Scratchinghead initiated his good faith conflict resolution effort. Next time I shall insist that we move the discussion to the article talk page. You make a good point. Kenfree (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Please let me know after you've found the time to review this conflict resolution dialogue, because you will understand why I feel the need to request a reversion of your edit, but I will await your acquaintance with the precipitating discourse before I request it. Kenfree (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Kenfree, yeah, I get it; Sh shouldn't have started there either, but they did it in good faith, so no criticism, just advice for them not to start there next time. Your willingness to wait is appreciated, but I think you should just go ahead and initiate whatever dialog you wish to in order to revert some edit of mine (which I still don't know which it is, but it really doesn't matter, either, and you don't have to waste time trying to find it). If you think the article would be improved by reverting whatever-it-is, go find someone to do it, or better, start a discussion (or continue one that exists, hopefully with new people); no need to wait on my account. Plus, the exercise of finding more people to engage in a discussion would be good practice, because that sort of thing comes up all the time. And finally, because I am just one editor, and when I say I will "eventually" get back to it, that is probably true, but I will also eventually get back to my historiography draft which I started in 2022, so, you see my point. It's not "my" article by a long shot, and I am not even that interested in it, so getting others involved would be ideal. The article is still on my watchlist, so I will probably see new activity on the Talk page, and anyway, if it's about reverting some edit of mine, a courtesy ping is good practice. Best, Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Well I wish it were that simple, but as I reported earler, my effort to raise interest in the WP:TEAHOUSE was futile. It is your edit to the lede I wish to see reverted, as it obviates the part of the consensus Scratchinghead and I reached that includes both Weir's critism of media bias and her provision of countervailing factual information as the two sides of her activism. Both of these points were substantiated in the privided citations, but it is possible that Scratchinghead wrongly assigned them in his revision...Kenfree (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Anything is possible, and I hope you find a better solution than waiting around for me to have another look at it. I mean, you could wait like a patient angel for a long time, and then I go look at it, and think, 'Yes, looks good as is,' and then you wouldn't have anything to show for all that patient waiting. So I urge you not to wait, but engage; see WP:APPNOTE. I am only one of some hundred thousand active editors. Best, Mathglot (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Listed at WP:RSN. Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"T:ACDS/T" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect T:ACDS/T has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 13 § T:ACDS/T until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you like to help out on this topic?

Hey Mathglot, it’s been a while since we have chatted.

But there is this topic that might be of interest to you.

It’s this article, Michel Cadotte. I am currently working on adding more to it here. For context Cadotte was a fur-trader who is mixed between white and Native American.

It’s not perfect and I am currently citing a source written by a journalist, which I don’t personally like citing journalists that much. But I used this as a source because it clearly had reliability.

I also used the book as a source because it has a lot to say on the matter, which makes it likely there are also a lot more sources out there on the subject that have a lot to say on this. This also makes me think there is potential for a lot more articles on Cadottes family.

I know you have worked on articles related to French history including French Colonialism. This here is heavily related to those subjects.

I know a lot about history. My dad literally has a masters degree in history and I have access to a lot of sources on history here in Columbia, Missouri.

But the issue is that I am not too familiar with French related topics all that much. I know only 2 languages English being my first language and Spanish being a language I have a lot of familiarity in.

Another reason I come to you about this is because there is a good chance I may have a few biased on this topic.

My first potential bias is that I have Native American blood. My dad has it too and so does my family on his side. Many of my family members even live on reservations near the Great Lakes.

For most of my life my dad kept telling me I had Native American blood. But when I was in my teenage years I thought my dad was lying to me about this me having Native American ancestry. I thought this was one of those situations where a parent would lie to their kids to make them feel special.

But I recently found out he wasn’t lying when I found documents of his grandmother (found documents of his other relatives). I found out that she was living on a Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation in the early 20th century.

I lately talked to my dad about all of this. My dad shown me proof that he has visited reservations many times and that he does receives checks from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

He shown proof of deceased relatives and shown proof that he has meet them when he was young. He even shown proof that many living relatives of his live on reservations and are currently enrolled with tribes. So this isn’t one of those Elizabeth Warren claims.(Forgive me if some of these things I mentioned aren’t familiar to you, I don’t know you’re nationality.)

Also there is a possibility that me and my family are related or descendants of Michel Cadotte. My dad told me that I am a descendant of him. I can’t confirm how true this claim is too be honest, I know the whole Native American ancestry part is true thought.

I know the details about my dad’s family might seem confusing or odd. But keep in mind he was in the United States military for the vast majority of my childhood and many of his family were involved in the Army as well. I don’t have many memories of him or his side of the family.

Basically I am afraid my biases would probably have impact on the outcome of this article and potential future articles.

I just felt like I should work on this topic because there doesn’t seem to be many active contributors who wish to work on this topic.

What do you say? Any thought? Would this be a topic of interest to you?

Do forgive me if I made any mistakes in this comment, I am writing this to you before class starts.CycoMa2 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Basically I am concerned about being called out for WP:COI. When in all honesty this is a subject that I wasn’t too well informed about when I was in my youth.CycoMa2 (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

CycoMa2, I can't respond in detail right now, but I can tell you that it's great that you are aware of your own possible biases, but just because you are of the same ethnicity as someone doesn't constitute a conflict of interest per se, so feel free to edit the article. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Me being the same ethnicity as this guy isn’t too much of the problem. It’s more of the fact that I may be a descendant of this guy, that’s the problem.

My dad literally shown me a family tree, Michel Cadotte is literally on his family tree. My dad believes that he is a descendant of this guy. His family also believes that too.

Another thing you gotta remember is that in order to be a member of a tribe you have to show evidence that you have Native American ancestry. If my dad’s family can be accepted as members of a tribe, then they probably shown them something as evidence.

I have heard stories of contributors getting banned for trying to fabricate their lineage, trying to make say they are descended from royalty.CycoMa2 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

CycoMa2, I still don't think it's a problem, as it's not close enough to you, and because you appear to be hyperalert to the issue, but I am only one person. I highly recommend that you post a copy of your question at the COI noticeboard at WP:COIN. There, you will get the attention of a lot of editors who specialize in the ins and outs of COI. Feel free to link this discussion from the COI Noticeboard discussion, if you think it will help. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry.

I am sorry for wasting your time.

It’s just have a feeling this topic might be emotional for me for some reason. I don’t remember my dad’s family that much.

It’s all really complicated.CycoMa2 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

CycoMa2, no apology necessary, and you are not wasting my time. If you feel like tackling the topic, I think it's fine, and if you would be better avoiding it, then that's up to you. You can get further feedback, if you want it, at COI Noticeboard. You are welcome to contact me any time. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Revert

Hello, just wondering why you reverted my edit at Wikipedia:Glossary/Compact ToC, so my edits don't need to be reverted again. Thank you.

P.S. I suspect that you are trying to make it more compact, but it would be nice to know for sure. APenguinThatIsSilly("talk") 19:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, APenguinThatIsSilly, thanks for asking. Your guess is right, and yes, basically that is the reason. It could probably be made even more compact, although I don't want to fiddle with it excessively in case there are habitual readers who go there and are used to it being a particular way. Specifically, there are only two entries for 'J' and one for 'K' and all three entries plus the 'J' and 'K' headers all fit on one page on a 15" laptop screen. (In mobile, there is no effect, as the templates are not shown.)

It may fall under MOS:VAR, which is kind of a "you say toh-MAY-toh, I say to-MAH-toh" kind of thing, that is, when there are two equally good ways of doing something that are both okay, then you should preserve whatever the choice of the original editor was. That's kind of weak reasoning, and if there are policy or guideline-based reasons to change it, then that would overcome MOS:VAR and it could be changed. It's a judgment call, and you can't really say the way you did it is "wrong" in any way, but the original way isn't wrong either. If you feel strongly that your version is better, you could start a discussion on the Talk page and try to achieve consensus to change it.

One other thing, though, is your original statement where you seem to be concerned about having your edits reverted. Don't be concerned—it is all part of the normal process at Wikipedia. For example: BE BOLD is an editing guideline that recommends bold action in editing, but part of being bold is that some of your edits are going to be reverted, so trying to avoid that is going to seriously crimp your style. I've been around for over ten years, and I got reverted yesterday, and it's no big deal. So I suggest you get used to the idea that people are going to have to have different opinions, disagreement is inevitable, and getting an edit reverted is not something to worry about, or to try to avoid. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Storrs, Connecticut

An article that you have been involved in editing—Storrs, Connecticut—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Newsjunkiect (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Proc closed; user is indeffed sock of User:Jonathanhusky. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Attribution?

 Courtesy link: Westend Synagogue

I learned to attribute in the first edit summary when translating text, and on the talk page. What can be done when the first was omitted? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, quite right, it should be attributed in the first edit summary, as you have been doing. If forgotten, it can always be added later (and must be added later, even if years have intervened) following the description given at WP:RIA. If you notice such issues at an article, you can flag the article with {{unattributed translation}}, and if you want to let a user know about the situation and how to fix it, you can use {{uw-translation}} on their Talk page. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

If I'd see a bare url, I'd fix it, rather than writing a tag (if it's still there, - often the link doesn't even work any more). Could I - the same way - go and write the recommended Note in some edit? Or should the one who made the edit do it (who may have left since). - Why tag when a "repair" seems almost simpler? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:, missed this comment somehow. Anyway, yes, you can certainly attribute someone else's translation, as long as you are certain what was translated, and from where. In that case, like the bareurl case, it may be easier just to fix it, and it's better or the encyclopedia to just fix it. If you have only partial information, or no information, it's better to place the template, so that it gets placed in a tracking category, rather than do nothing, or guess about information you don't know and do it wrong. By all means, follow WP:RIA and add the missing attribution when that is a feasible alternative. Thanks for asking. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for having moved the article back! - I think the "expansion" template - if even justified - is not part of the concerns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes; the Expand template is very much the least of the problems there, very much in last place. Not even a problem, really, just advice. (I wasn't the one who added it.) Mathglot (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I find it confusing that we now have an article in article space, and one in draft space (from the Robin move). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T25044

@Gerda Arendt:, that is unfortunately the confusing result of faulty behavior by Mediawiki. See WP:VPT#Corrupted history at Westend Synagogue for how it confused me, and the details. It is being tracked as a bug in Phabricator. The Draft should be deleted (and will be automatically in six months). I can try to G7 it, and it might get deleted sooner. Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Understand, thank you for explaining. For the time being, could you make a fat not in the draft that it is to be deleted, and should not be edited? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Graham87 is my expert for tricky article histories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:, I did something similar already; see Draft:Westend Synagogue round robin delete candidate. Feel free to change it however you like. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

All of the worthwhile and interesting history is at Westend Synagogue. The history at the draft is of no interest, and there is no reason to maintain the draft because of it. (I mentioned that in the draft as well.) Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this on the technical village pump. You could always just redirect the draft to the article namespace ... but that's as far as I want to get involved in this ... Graham87 (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a good idea.  Done Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Poincare

Perhaps you could drop me a line as to when it would be acceptable for me to make wikilinks and correct spelling mistakes? DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Awful short descriptions

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T390105

Re short descriptions: I think one (frustrating!) reason people so often write definitions, summaries and the like is probably that the Android app first describes adding short descriptions with "Summarize an article to help readers understand the subject at a glance". Then, if they tap for more information, it sends them to the wrong page, namely this Mediawiki page section. That then gives them the wrong advice. It does include a link to Short description, but right at the end, where they'll only see it after scrolling down. So most users of the suggested edits feature probably never even see the English Wikipedia guidance.

Short of the app linking to the correct page, the Wikimedia page needs to say as soon as people land on it that it's the wrong place for information about English Wikipedia SDs, and send them on to the right one. At some point I'm thinking of making an edit request there to that effect.

This is all particularly galling for me since I wrote the current opening paragraph of Short description a few weeks ago (after discussion, obviously) in an attempt to improve matters—even if I did then fall into one of the traps myself today, with that template description.

By the way, apologies in advance if I leave any reply here that's not threaded properly—I can't load this page in desktop view (with Convenient Discussions installed) because it freezes in my phone browser, so I'm having to use the app instead. This has happened a few times with big talk pages. Musiconeologist (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Musiconeologist, you're not wrong, and if you want to take it on and try to get things changed, that would be great, but I have too much on my plate, and as I mentioned at Template talk:Hr, I think it's probably hopeless. From what you've described, it's even worse than I thought. I have to pick my battles. However, if you take the lead and need a vote or word of support, you can certainly count on me for that. Please do {{ping}} me to any discussions you start. If you can make some headway, that would be excellent. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I started one, here. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Now tracked as Phab T390105. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Musiconeologist, above you said,

Then, if they tap for more information, it sends them to the wrong page, namely the Wikimedia one.

Can you link in your reply the wrong page that it sends them to? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot Added to the message, and here it is again for ease of reference: It's here. (Apologies for the external link—I don't know the correct prefix for an interwiki one.) Musiconeologist (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

A query from a newbie

Hello sir. I am a newbie and need to learn more about how Wikipedia works. I have decided to ask you after much contemplation. Sometime back I was reading the page on transman, and I left a note about what I thought was inconsistent with a similar entry on transwoman. I am not an expert in these kinds of subjects. Later when I checked up, the entry had indeed been corrected as I had indicated. I was happily surprised, because mine was an innocent comment. What I had indeed expected was some advice to me on the talk page itself, which could make me wiser on how Wikipedia works. However when I tried to trace the discussion on talk page, it said something like this "the talk topic could not be found; it may have been renamed or deleted or modified." I am a bit at a loss to understand what actually happened. Since I am keen to learn, I want to know what exactly happened. This will help me understand Wikipedia better. Many thanks for your time. Neotaruntius (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Neotaruntius. The only edit I can see by you on a related topic is this edit at Talk:Trans man yesterday at 10:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC). The fact that the article was changed in the way you hoped was a coincidence, and part of a major change to the lead prepared by a third party, and since undone. Later, when you looked for your message on the Talk page, you got the "renamed or deleted" message. The reason is, that your message was a reply to an old thread from ten months ago which started in a way that some might see as offensive; as long as that thread slept quietly, no one really noticed it, but when you replied to it, it brought the thread back to the attention of page watchers who have it on their watch list, and one of them deleted the entire thread, including your comment, because of the possibly offensive comment from ten months ago. Does that make sense, now?

Yes, Mathglot. It does make great sense to me. Less than 24 hours back, I was completely in the dark about it. I did suspect, I may have done something seriously wrong - otherwise, why would the entire thread go away. Today after much contemplation, I decided to write to you. Honestly, I did not expect such an encouraging/reassuring message. Now I do know -thanks to you- that certain subjects are extremely "touchy" and newbies like me should keep away from such topics. So naive was I, that I took it as rather a "sexual education" article, rather than something, which plays on many people's nerves. Thanks Mathglot for all the directions you gave me. I am surely not going to bother you too much. Only when I cannot have my problems solved, will I turn to you. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I have restored that thread so you can find it again: it is here: Talk:Trans man#Definition Error. I also responded to you there. However, it might be in danger of being deleted again by someone else, for the same reason as before, so I don't recommend replying to it there. Instead, if you still have questions or comments to make about the Trans man article, you can start a new discussion at the bottom of the page. Does this help? Lastly: no need to call me 'Sir'; just, plain, 'Mathglot' is good enough. And, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes Mathglot. I did notice that. Yes, it is indeed a great help to discuss anything on your own pages. I will do that. I believe "pinging" means alerting you immediately. So should I use those curly bracket messages {{}} that you gave at the top? I believe I do that only when I write something to you on MY talk page, right? Sorry, I sound so ignorant. But thanks a ton for being so friendly and educational. Neotaruntius (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much it; in particular, {{ping}} is a shortcut for the {{Reply to}} template, meaning, they both do the same thing, which is to leave me a little notification under the bell icon at the top of the page that someone, somewhere has pinged me. You can also ping, just by putting someone's username in brackets, like this: User:Neotaruntius, and that should send you another alert. This page is the only place on Wikipedia that you *don't* need to ping me, because every time someone writes on this page, it automatically pings me; but if you want to attract my attention from any other page, then ping me. (The same goes, of course, with any other editor.) No need to apologize when asking questions, that is how you learn. While you are always welcome here, you should also learn about the Wikipedia:Teahouse. That is a forum created specifically for newbies to ask questions about Wikipedia. A lot of experienced editors hang out there, and you are likely to get a faster response there, and also perhaps several responses from users with different perspectives on your question. It's a great place to ask questions, you should definitely try it out! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. This is indeed very helpful. Very clear. In fact, so that I have to trouble you least, I checked up the ping page on Wikipedia, so I could get basic information already. I ended up with this - Ping (networking utility). Thankfully I am aware of it. But even under "See also" section, I could not find the "ping" we are discussing. I do however understand a lot about ping now, thanks to your excellent explanatory powers. I will definitely visit teahouse that you suggested. However I love your "personalized" messages so much. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Neotaruntius, that 'ping' you read about has nothing to do with Wikipedia's {{ping}}, which is a redirect to {{Reply to}}; that's the one you should read up on. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Chilean colonization of the Strait of Magellan

Hello there. Chilean colonization of the Strait of Magellan is the original name of the article before Janitoalevic moved it without consensus on April 2024. The article describes a process of colonization, with expeditions, settlers and economic development. That it is just a "takeover" is least to say debatable. Therefore if you still think it should be renamed you should do it properly in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. It is not just to try to establish a controversial move as status quo as you appear to have done here [10] Declinómetro (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The original name of the article remained from its creattion in 2022 or earlier until user Janitoalevic moved it without consensus on April 2024. The article describes a process of colonization, with expeditions, settlers and economic development. That it is just a "takeover" as it has been cliamed in the edit summaries is least to say debatable. My original restgoriation was reverted in January, but I insist on this since is not fair play to try to establish a controversial move as status quo as it was done here. Regarding the argument of what Chilean sources usually call this I would take this with some distance given that each state has an interest in portraying its expansion in certain way, take note that we use here Occupation of Araucanía and not the classical Pacification of Araucanía, and there is also a difference of scope since this article covers the contruing arrival of settlers (colonization) while a "takeover" is to be understood as a temporarily limited event. The title of this article aligns with Spanish colonization attempt of the Strait of Magellan, German colonization of Valdivia, Osorno and Llanquihue an a future Colonization of Aysén article. I dont think anybody would call these "German takeover of Valdivia, Osorno and Llanquihue", "Takeover of Aysén" or "Spanish takeover attempt of the Strait of Magellan". Declinómetro (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Ratneshwar Mukherjee

Hello, Mathglot,

This article had already been draftified once and the draft creator moved it back to main space so it should not have been draftified a second time according to WP:DRAFTNO. Please follow the guidelines of WP:DRAFTIFY that state when draftifying an article is appropriate. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I understand what WP:DRAFTNO says and I have complied. I have undone my recent changes to the article (mostly to remove the Afc Draft header I had added) and moved it back to mainspace. (I briefly had it placed as a userspace draft, until I saw that WP:DRAFTOBJECT forbids this as well.) That said, it is not close to ready for mainspace, and I guess I will have to start a Talk page discussion on what to do with this woefully inadequate article.

I must say I find it very odd that the guideline appears to support even a newbie editor who objects to draftification of their page by two senior editors with a combined tenure of 23 years and 450,000 edits by the simple expedient of placing it in mainspace twice. This reading essentially gives a newbie whose article hasn't a prayer of passing Afc, the unilateral right to keep their page in mainspace (in whatever condition it may be in) by triggering the "controversial move" part of the guideline completely on their own accord. This seems to me a topsy-turvy world, and appears to make a mockery of WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability, not to mention WP:Afc who never got to weigh in. I understand the nature of controversial moves and have doled out advice about it umpteen times, and I suppose I will just have to start a discussion at the Talk page, if I can find the time. However my sense is that the scales are too heavily weighted in favor of newbies who don't know the basics pushing junk into the encyclopedia, and I am not quite sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Taking it to Afd is costly in human resources, and is another illustration of where things are out of balance.

Sooner or later a newbie will hook up a pipeline of junk foreign articles to machine translation, and spit them into mainspace several per hour, a hundred or more per day, unnotable, and sans citations. (This is already in progress in a preliminary form, and as someone who attempts to track translations I know multiple editors who have translated from over 20 languages, much faster than I can translate an article, although not yet at bot speed.) Some of them may get Draftified, and then they will just move them back to main per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Then we can send them all to Afd, and see what happens. The current imbalance in favor of keeping things in mainspace will either pollute the quality of the encyclopedia or will break Afd. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The guideline is the guideline, even if I myself draftified the article, I agree that we should not be re-draftifying in most cases. You're always welcome to propose new guidelines, or tweaks to existing ones, but until such time, we should typically follow best practices. We can reasonably disagree on what belongs in main space, I often do, but, unfortunately, that means we simply must send things to AfD sometimes. AFC is not the authority on the matter either, they/we are simply a group of folks who help try to guide and help people with creating and assessing their article. For the time being, I've sent the article to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, thanks for the comment. If we are talking about in most cases, I don't necessarily disagree; my point about the imbalance is that this is not "most cases". The other thing, is that if there were a guideline to tweak, maybe I would propose that, but in looking into that just now, I noticed that WP:DRAFTNO is part of an explanatory essay, and not a guideline at all, as it states very clearly right up there in the nutshell box, so what are we doing deferring to it, especially in a case that is not one of most cases? This seems seriously wrong. If, on the other hand, deferring to that essay has become standard practice, then the essay status should be readjusted and be named as a guideline. Had I noticed this earlier, I possibly would have ignored the advice to follow it, because following the advice in an essay is of the lowest level of compulsion that exists at Wikipedia, and you don't need to invoke IAR to ignore it, you just ignore it and do what's right for the encyclopedia.

But, I didn't notice it before, and now it's at Afd, where it probably belonged in the first place, so now we'll follow that path. I honestly thought I was being kind to the author by draftifying it; the point was, to give them more time to come up with citations and establish WP:Notability. Putting it back in mainspace is lose-lose, and over-deference to essays is WP:BURO, to put it kindly. Thanks for listening. Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok so what's the solution? When does it become move warring? When should we stop and what should we demand? It's one of the "rules to get along" which isn't the strictest of "rules". As for being kind by draftifying, I completely agree. It's much kinder to say "this needs work", as opposed to "what you wrote should be deleted". I'm probably the biggest advocate of utilizing draft space, but the problem we repeatedly run into is that some people will just continually move the draft back to main space, and notability can be subjective. It's a problem I run into and feel strongly about, and I've draftified, I think, over a thousand articles in the past year. I don't have the answers but I am always open to input. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, move warring is a problem, and not sure what the solution is yet, but I am thinking about it. But it cannot be that we are hamstrung by the rules into making things worse for a newbie, i.e., now his article is at Afd (which I support as the only viable choice under the circumstances) and he has seven days to fix it or convince people it is fixable, vs. a latitude of six months minimum, in Draft (and probably similar in User space, or until someone notices; possibly never). WP:DONTBITE and WP:Editor retention must trump WP:DRAFTNO somehow; currently Afd seems the only way, but the net effect on the project is negative. Maybe a carve-out at WP:DRAFTS, not sure; will continue to think about it. Mathglot (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Unsolicited commentary alert: if an editor moves his drafts back into mainspace and ends up at AfD (with the impact of getting 6 months reduced to 7 days) maybe he'll learn the next time. As for your example with editors peppering Wikipedia with articles, the remedy isn't to change our guidelines, but to block such editors. I truly urge you to step back and try to see this from another angle, Mathglot - to me as an uninvolved editor this does not seem to be the problem you think it is. This is offered purely in the interest of trying to help out a fellow editor that might be stuck in a too-narrow POV, it happens to all of us. If you don't appreciate this comment just delete it and I won't bother you again. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Good points, and you are always welcome to comment here. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Advice sought from a newbie

Hello Mathoglot. I seek your help again for a matter. I have been reading a page on Theriogenology, when I suddenly realized that there exists a prominent journal on this subject. There is no mention of this in the page and I thought it was worth adding this information. However I simply do not know how to cite it. The information pages, which confirm the existence of this journal are (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?sort=pubdate&size=200&show_snippets=off&term=%22Theriogenology%22%5BTitle+Abbreviation%5D (2)https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/theriogenology. Can you please advise? Thanks. I think specific and pointed queries like this can only be solved by you. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Neotaruntius, you flatter me too much. Please do me a favor, and post this question at the WP:Teahouse. I guarantee you that there are many editors who will be able and happy to help you there, and that is a better starting point for this type of question. If you do not get a satisfactory answer, I promise to help you, but I am only one editor, and there are many who can help you with this, and it's almost always better to get a sampling of advice from several. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. I will do that right way. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. I did exactly as you told, and would you believe it, I got two replies within a few hours. Good lead. I did not realize that by asking you again and again, I might be putting too much pressure on you. The praise was quite genuine and innocent. Neotaruntius (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Neotaruntius, I am glad you got quick responses at the Teahouse. Just to be clear: you are always welcome to post your questions here; I just think you would profit more by starting at the Teahouse, and it looks like that worked out on this occasion. Don't hesitate to come here if you don't get satisfaction there. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. I did receive two replies, but as you can see for yourself by going to Query from a Newbie, none helped. I would have believed, you might have given a sharper, quicker answer [no flattery implied]. But this still is not a veiled request to you for a quick answer. I need to learn via normal channels. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

"On second thought, I don't care to prolong this."

Maybe you prefer the approach of my reply, Mathglot? Regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

CapnZapp, agreed with you pretty much right down the line, but just figured nothing was going to come of any of these multiple discussions on the topic, so why throw good time after bad? Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I read your (now deleted) comments, and let me just say I understand where you're coming from. My best (honest but perhaps rough) advice is to add another step to your Wikipedia efforts: "Did anyone actually ask for this?" I merely mean that I totally understand how one might want to use one's knowledge and ideas for good, but holding off until someone actually asks for it can do wonders when it comes to actually getting any satisfaction (if not recognition) out of it. Anyway, here's an award that might or might not reflect your feelings right now (hopefully taken the right way):

• 
  The Mouldy Sandwich is awarded to those who tirelessly work on bettering Wikipedia.

Take care, CapnZapp (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@CapnZapp:, lol; that's a stress-reliever, and I needed it; thanks! Hopefully things will turn out all right at the template, which is to say, no worse than they are now, because it's just a logjam and clearly nothing is going to happen to the code as a result of it. In which case, there is no point in discussing. I am backed up on so many other things, I should topic-ban myself from even reading that page. Anyway, thanks again for the encouragement. If something really, really dire comes up (on the order of nominating the template for deletion) then ping me, but otherwise, if the house isn't on fire, I need to move on to other things. Happy trails, Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Retract your aspersions

I am giving you the opportunity to retract your aspersions cast on Talk:Free play accusing me (not even questioning if it was made with AI, outright saying "it is LLM generated" in multiple places). This is not supported by any evidence (no, GPTZero scores are not evidence per consensus) and the suggestion that because I made a bot that involves different AI models unrelated to generating articles than my articles and FL/GA reviews must be AI generate too is absurd. It does not require knowledge of AI or AI training to use AI to generate articles, and had I actually used AI (using my knowledge of it used to create the bot) it would not have had the issues you describe - neutrality, sometimes sources don't exactly say it - these are human mistakes I made. Your accusations are deeply upsetting to me because I worked very hard to create that article and I hope you understand that they are not based in evidence and that I did make the article. I hope this is just a misunderstanding and we can move forward together. :) MolecularPilot^Talk 02:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

(talk page jaguar) If you're talking about this remark, it's pretty clear you are going out of your way to read Mathglot's remarks in the worst possible light. They have legitimate concerns about the article and per talk are clearly not alone in that regard. They could be wrong in their suspicions about LLM generation—but I doubt it given the empirical evidence in the article history, sorry. Assuming you didn't, you still have every reason to address the root of their concerns (the state of the article) instead of demanding penace for what were polite, good-faith comments you frankly have not convinced me aren't founded. Remsense ‥ 论 03:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

MolecularPilot, Thank you for your message. You may be right that "This is not supported by any evidence", as it is virtually impossible to prove LLM usage one way or another. Though I wonder if your message is partly an indirect or preemptive response to something else you have seen at the Talk page, namely the possible major article cutbacks that may be in the offing due to massive problems with verifiability throughout that you were previously informed about more than once, but did not fix. So let's talk about that for a moment.

As you have seen, several editors, including me, are in the process of examining your article Free play and checking the WP:Verifiability of the sources and so far at least, it is looking pretty grim. Your Good Article nomination failed in a big way due to major referencing issues, even though the reviewers gave you extra time beyond what is normal. You never fixed them; those major problems still exist. But that doesn't mean that the article gets to remain in its unverified state forever. Every time I check one of the assertions in the article against the citation, it fails verifiability. The assertion I happened to check shortly before your message landed here on my Talk page was the first part of section § Physical at the article, which reads:

The impact of free play on a child's development is multifaceted as it cultivates both gross and fine motor skills through movement, manipulation of objects, and experimentation with physical capabilities.^[5]

That is cited to Clay-2023, but I just tagged it as {{failed verification}}, giving as a reason that "the terms 'gross', 'fine', 'motor', 'movement', 'manipulation', 'object', 'experimentation', 'physical', and 'capabilit-y/-ies' do not occur in this source." That is, it is not even close to being supported by the source.

Going through the article and examining citations one by one takes time, and adding tags and explanations takes time. I will keep doing it for a short while more, but I must tell you that there is a strong likelihood that your article will not survive in its current form, and it is not impossible it will end up as a single well-sourced paragraph, as already mentioned at Talk. It is absolutely essential that you grasp the core Wikipedia concept of WP:Verifiability; please note the following excerpt from the verifiability policy (bold in the original):

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.   . . .
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Note in particular, the words "directly supports" which have additional explanatory notes. Very little in the Free play article meets this standard.

Now, coming back to your initial complaint: I am very sorry if you are upset, it was not my intention, and for that, I apologize. However, my priority is the integrity of the encyclopedia, even it it ruffles some feathers in the process. Unless there are major improvements to verifiability in *very* short order, I am very much afraid that you will be far more upset when the article content you worked so hard to create is removed on policy grounds, possibly on a grand scale. But I cannot help that; my prime allegiance is to the encyclopedia, not to you. I was not the first (or the second) to believe your article was LLM-generated, and my opinion about the use of LLM is my opinion. The best I can do in response to your message is to affirm that it is never my intention to hurt anyone, and it pains me to know your reaction, and for that I am sorry. I have done a fair bit of work observing LLMs, including here at Wikipedia, and am the prime author of one of the project pages about it, so I have seen LLM usage all over the encyclopedia, and in multiple languages. Still, even with all that, it is just an opinion, nothing more. You say you didn't use an LLM, and I have no way of knowing for sure. It remains my opinion, however wrong I may be; that is the best I can do. I cannot very well retract an opinion if it is something I actually believe in, without dissembling, can I?

But keep in mind what's really important here, which is the article. Its poor state of verifiability is not just an opinion, but something that I know for sure. It is something multiple editors have observed, and it is something that can be demonstrated, such as with that tag I added. Given more than ample opportunity, you haven't acted to support verifiability, for whatever reason; maybe no one explained it to you properly, I don't know. But the article will soon be in a 100% verified state, one way or another. I'm sorry you were upset by things I said or did, and I hope this refocuses your attention on what is really at stake here. Verifiability, verifiability, verifiability. All the best, (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your very eloquent and kind reply. I am sorry for sending you such a snarky message above, when I read your messages (not the diff that Remsense provided, it was a, b, in fact the message at the diff Remsense linked was very considerate and I apologise for not thanking for your assisting with verifying everything), I was quite upset and treated the as a comment on me as a person. Now, reflecting back, I understand these were not directed at me but were directed at the content of the article - I can understand why the way I wrote it can seem suspicious and your suscipsion is very reasonable. I know that I wrote it myself, not an AI, in my own memory - and that is enough for me. You can, and should, think whatever you want. It was just a little saddening to see so many people, and now Remsense too above, accuse me of using an AI, but, having processed it, knowing in my own heart that I made it is enough, and I do see where the suspicions came from due to the WP:BACKWARDS way I made it as it was a topic covered in psych class, and I understand your perspective. I do not mind if any of it is removed, rather, I am simply grateful to you for taking the time to help with the verification of it. I thank you so much for all the time you have put in, and would be more than happy to assist in any way (I already have a re-write locally that I've been working on since I stated that in the GA review, I have just had a lot of bad luck and stuff on my plate IRL so it is not ready yet). Thank you again! :) MolecularPilot^Talk 06:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

MolecularPilot, no worries. It sounds like we are both focused on the important thing, which is improving the encyclopedia, by improving an article. Glad we are on the same team! Take care, Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)