User talk:Mathglot/Archive 11

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:21 Savage. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Moot. Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts helping everyone play nice. In case you didn't know, the other ed filed at ANI. Just before it got archived I appended a boomerang request. Apparently when the bot does archiving, it doesn't look for new subsections, just tweaks to the main thread, because the whole thing went to archives with no action right after I added this. That's OK with me. The goal is prevention, and if trouble re-occurs its in the archives. If you are doing some coaching, see especially the two collapsed sections at the end of the boomerang, because they are about longterm behavior pattern. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for your kind comments. (And thanks for responding here, rather than on Serge's page.) I have to admit to being entirely unaware of that ANI thread. I've read it now, and was struck by a few things: the fact that you both have clean block records (I'm aware of Serge's situation at sv-wiki; not really relevant here), the length of the thread, and the number of heavy hitters and admins who weighed in. It was a little saddening, in a way, because so much effort was expended regarding two editors who I think have a lot of positive things to contribute; clearly, you are both here to improve the encyclopedia.

This doesn't mean I'm unaware of past issues; I've had run-ins with Serge before on a couple of unrelated issues, and he can be prickly, but I know his heart is in the right place, and AGF really is the right approach here, as it is almost always. Sure, I wish you two could get along, but not everybody gets along, and it doesn't always mean there's something seriously wrong with one of the people involved; sometimes, people just don't make great dance partners, and it's nobody's really at fault. The best thing if you bump into them at a party, is just smile and nod, and move away and dance with someone else. And vice versa, of course. If there's any way I can be of any assistance as a neutral broker here, or elsewhere, feel free to call on me. That's a serious offer. Sorry I couldn't have been of more help earlier in this case. Oh: your observation about archiving is interesting; I wasn't aware of the subsection wrinkle; so I learned something; thanks!

Serge, if you happen to be lurking here, please extend N&EG the same courtesy he just extended to you, by refraining from interacting directly with him in the same talk section as you. (He responded here, instead of at your page, is what I'm talking about.) But please feel free to create *another* section below this one, if you like. I'm kind of hoping you won't, because the more you each let some distance accumulate between the two of you, the better you both will like it, I think. But I'm here for you as well, any time you need it. Just not in the same section on my Talk page; okay? Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

My plan is.... to just edit. If the other ed wants to work on the same thing I'm working on, it's likely we will interact again, and the usual wikipedia expectations apply to everyone. Thanks again for all your work helping anyone. As for me, this issue may go back to sleep in the archives. Bye! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Walmart Canada Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bell Media Radio. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Bible and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, what do you mean about the citation. I am confused. Can you clarified of what you mean about the citation please. Thank you ContrerasLopez (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, ContrerasLopez, can you provide a link to a discussion, or if you don't know how to make a link, just explain in plain English below what article or discussion page you are talking about? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is about this article. Islam and gender segregation — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContrerasLopez (talk • contribs) 00:10, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, ContrerasLopez. Yes, I can see that you have been having some trouble at the article Islam and gender segregation, with your edits being undone by various editors. I also see several posts of yours at Shalor's talk page. Now, can you please restate your question about the citation? What citation, in what article? It sounds like you are questioning something I said earlier, but as I have never edited Islam and gender segregation or its Talk page, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Can you be more specific? Maybe Shalor can shed some light. Mathglot (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Mathglot! ContrerasLopez is editing the section on Islam and gender segregation in Islamic countries - it looks like they are specifically having issues when it comes to the Afghanistan and Iran sections. We ironed out the issues with the Saudi Arabia section, but they're running into issues when it comes to what they should add in the other sections and how to format sourcing. I think that they've more or less figured out the process for creating citations and I'm working with them on what would fall into the realm of segregation as opposed to the wider topic of treatment of women under Islam, but it looks like there's still some work to be done. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Canadian federal election. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I see your point of view. I agree with the change you made making the California map the primary map. My thinking was that perhaps the map points just to downtown and ignores the fact that a larger area around that pushpin is also San Francisco. Maybe an image map with the city highlighted within the Bay area would be more appropriate. IWI (chat) 22:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot!

Thank you for your friendly reaction to my second editing suggestion ever. This is the first time I write to an editor. Before, I couldn't find where to write. Yes, it's bewildering to me.

I knew that my incertion was unsupported by a source. I didn't know how to incert <source needed>. However, it's common sense what I wrote and should not be delete, I feel.

Why is there no spell corrector on this page? English is my second language and I'm a bit dyslectic.

Thank you. Be well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiepZeiDeMuis (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mathglot. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse.
Message added 02:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry for the confusion. I elaborated a bit here. Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 02:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constitution of Japan. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for talking with me in the move discussion for queer erasure. You noted that I transgressed a norm, advocating for a mis-match between Wikipedia's content and what reliable sources say, and I want to acknowledge rule breaking. We all are supposed to follow the rule and I know there is WP:IAR, but it is right of you to express anxiety about transgressions. I wanted to post here to say that speaking out as you did is the right response to anyone like me moving off the tracks and into what many would call an error. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lynching. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I wouldn't usually make a comment like this because I prefer to avoid conflict. But I feel like this is important. This is about your comment on the revision of my edit on Latinx. I am not arguing about the revision, but I would like you to think about your conduct in this matter. For reference, the comment you left was "Undid revision 926712233 by MalB404 (talk) That's unsourced, with a whiff of POV, and a big helping of misleading edit summary. Please don't do that.". So I am going to break this down:

• "That's unsourced". On WP:V it says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". I did not consider a grammar/spelling change would require a citation, and the original statement didn't have a citation either. I am unsure why this would need a citation in this context.
• "whiff of POV". As this was a simple change, I really don't understand how it would be considered not neutral.
• "big helping of misleading edit summary" I changed "among non-binary gender Latinos" to "among Latinx non-binary people". According to WP:SUMMARYNO, editors should make sure to mention all the changes they make. I am unsure what you think I left out in my edit summary.

I was trying to improve the article because the phrase "among non-binary gender Latinos" does not sound grammatically correct. I am not a grammar expert, so it's possible that I am wrong about this. If you had informed me what exactly I did wrong, that would have been more helpful. Additionally, this article is about a gender neutral version of Latino so it makes sense to use Latinx here. Plus, there is an abundance of uses of this term on Wikipedia that sets precedence for its usage here which would make it more accurate. I honestly did not think this would be something to contest for the reasons I gave above. I certainly did not think it would cause such hostility.

I don't know you and I don't think we have had any interactions in the past, so I am unsure why you reacted in this way. I am not looking for an apology or a response or anything like that, I just wanted you to know for the future that this edit summary felt inflammatory and nonsensical from my perspective. It may be helpful for you to consider your choice of words when you are faced with similar situations. MalB404 Ⓐ 🏴 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Coddling of the American Mind. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/Standard German. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Senate of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited When the going gets tough, the tough get going, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Canadian Senators Group. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Windows 98. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but it was necessary to tip you hat to the left rather than to the right to accommodate the usual location of the EotW Banner of Appreciation. I meant absolutely no political statement or bias by my action. (;~) Hope you understand. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

About the change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progesterone&oldid=928594236, although the original wording seems easier to understand, it actually could easily lead to an inexact interpretation which is that "Women are less competetive than men because they have progesterone", which is not the meaning of the reference. My wording is more exact, and I think it is much less misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermouthmjl (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Swaminarayan Sampraday. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're just interested in fun way-out proposals, this one is mostly unrelated to Hungarian, but maybe you'll get a chuckle out of it anyway — the other Cal-Uralic proposal from 2013 (with some very short comments by me here). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polish–Ukrainian War. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mottainai. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Romanian presidential election. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

When you're ready to address that matter on Wikipedia, I'll comment on it then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello there. I was wondering why you believe we should use an English translation of a legal surname, instead of the surname itself for the article? It appears that other users before me, on the article's talk page, agree. [1] -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: Thank you for raising this issue, however a user talk page is the wrong venue for a content discussion. Let's take it up at the article Talk page, where all interested editors can take part. Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at National Rifle Association shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your additions might be warranted, but please discuss them first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frotz (talk • contribs) 17:26, December 25, 2019 (UTC)

Moi? Edit warring? and receiving a {{uw-3rr}} Template for a single edit, to boot? My goodness gracious! C'est invraisemblable! No, wait; it's all right, actually. At least I'm in good company, with three other editors having had intemperate comments added to their user pages by you as well, for little or no provocation that I can see. Nevertheless, I've responded more in detail at your Talk page. Have a great day! Mathglot (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Violating {{tl|uw-3rr}} (Template:Uw-3rr) is not necessary to be warned against edit warring. See {{subst:Uw-1rr}} (Template:Uw-1rr). You can be legitimately warned if it looks like you're being disruptive. So, please lay off until the discussions are complete. By the way, I'm not clear on why you think my objection to deleting an article on the book "Don't Make the Black Kids Angry" is particularly relevant. Does it have anything to do with historical usage of gun control to oppress blacks? -- Frotz(talk) 06:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's start on a point of agreement. You said:

Violating {{tl|uw-3rr}} (Template:Uw-3rr) is not necessary to be warned against edit warring. See {{subst:Uw-1rr}} (Template:Uw-1rr).

We agree. You are absolutely, positively right! So now go find someone who violated WP:1RR, and go template them. You won't find anybody on this page who violated WP:1RR at the NRA article. (There's an asterisk on that; but let's continue for now.)

Let's go on to another point of agreement:

You can be legitimately warned if it looks like you're being disruptive.

Absolutely right, again! We agree! My first edit at that article in six weeks was this revert yesterday, with a generously complete edit summary pointing out the precise reason for it, including a mention of seven specific citations, and adding two new references on top of those, in order to respond to your objection of insufficient sourcing. Is *that* the one where "it looks like you're [i.e. I'm] being disruptive"?

Now, let's go on to something we might not agree on. You said,

So, please lay off until the discussions are complete.

I thought I'd translate a bit here. I think by this you mean, "Please leave lay off and leave my version in there until the discussions are complete." Finally, to your last point:

I'm not clear on why you think my objection to deleting an article on the book "Don't Make the Black Kids Angry" is particularly relevant.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never heard of that book, and I didn't know you objected to it. I'm afraid I can't help you with this one; sorry!

Oh, I almost forgot: the "asterisk" that I promised. I guess I wasn't telling the whole truth above, when I said, "You won't find anybody on this page, who violated WP:1RR at the NRA article." That wasn't completely accurate. Because there is someone, namely, you. You violated WP:1RR at the article. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by erroneously templating other editors for things they are innocent of, but that you are guilty of. But you should really knock it off for your own sake, because if you keep it up, at some point it will be seen as a disruptive time-suck, and someone may take you to WP:ANI about it. Not my call, but maybe this would be a good point for you to stop digging.

P.S. I can see you're having some trouble linking policy pages. Rather than coding: <nowiki>{{tl|uw-3rr}}</nowiki> ([[Template:Uw-3rr]]) as you did above, which kind of gives gobbledygook, and is a template and not the policy anyway, code it this way instead: [[WP:3RR]]. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, I mistakenly assumed that book had something to do with this and for that I apologize. Back to the topic at hand, this started with the addition of unverified material on December 24, 2019, which I reverted the day after with a polite note warning against addition of unverified material. Rather than discussing this, you chose to pile on. That and only that is my objection to your actions. In the meantime, the only person arguing in favor of keeping that label is DBalling, who pointed to a news article that didn't actually say what he claimed it said and then he started ranting about Donald Trump. That's not a particularly neutral way of behaving. You, however, aren't. Rather you're looking for something solid with which to go forward and then told off DBalling for trying to derail the discussion. We're both in agreement there. Given that, I'm confused as to why you took the reversion action that you did.PS, thanks for the coding advice.-- Frotz(talk) 09:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries about the book; I see now what you are talking about: it's an old discussion on your Talk page that dates back to 2015, that Sigma Bot never archived, because it was never signed, by the now indeffed author of the post. I added a sig to that old post for you, so sooner or later, you can expect it to be archived.

As for the content dispute: I try not to "pick sides" in a content dispute based on my own biases, but rather, I try to persuade by dint of Wikipedia policies, as best as I can interpret them. I reverted you based on my reading of existing sources in the body of the article, which I tried to explain in the long edit summary at the revert. It could be that I am wrong, and if persuaded, I will self-revert. But my talk page is the wrong place for that discussion, because anything concerning the content of the page should take place on the article Talk page, as no one else will see it here, and we won't get the benefit of the views and wisdom of other editors on the topic. Feel free, if you wish, to copy your comments, and my follow-up, to the Talk page, as long as you know how to do that cleanly. If you would like the comments moved over there, but are nervous about how to accomplish it, I can do it for you, but I can't move your comments without your explicit say-so, because it would violate WP:TPO. But if you tell me you want them moved, then I can do it; I just need to know exactly which posts (best would be to give the full, date-time timestamps of each post you want moved). Otherwise, we can just let this discussion go quiet, and you can pick it up again at the article in your own words, with, or without, copying the discussion from here to there. Are we good? Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)