User talk:Mathglot/Archive 8

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear @mathglot,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Mathlot,

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

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

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

Moved to Talk:Gender dysphoria § Irreversible changes

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

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

---

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

---

Details and RSVP here • register here

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the kind note on my talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Mathglot,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@MattLongCT: Sounds good, thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved to User talk:108.241.61.247 § Your rant was removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done

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

 Done

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mathglot,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

Moved to Talk:Allopathic and osteopathic § Allopathic/osteopathic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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