User talk:Mathglot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cancionero de Palacio[edit]

Hi, thanks for informing of the problems you found in the article; I tried to address them the best I could, although I'm not an expert in the subject and had just translated the article from the Spanish version "as is". regards, Capmo (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

pay per click[edit]

Because the article was deleted for Copyvio?? Béria Lima msg 09:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to self: Assuming Beria is responding to the following comment of mine about Pay per click on User_talk:Ripchip_Bot:
Just wondering why your bot removed an interwiki link to the it article (diff) from Pay per click.
as a look at his Talk page shows plenty of complaints about User:Ripchip Bot.

However, the article was not deleted, it's still there.
Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

should these articles be in WP?[edit]

In this section I'll list articles I've come across that I believe might not meet the criteria for inclusion, but I'm uncertain and need advice about guidelines from an Admin. If not relevant, then I assume they should then be nominated for deletion.

Lists of terms[edit]

Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I need some advice on whether to nominate an article for deletion, and secondly, whether I should modify a Help page to include a clarifying statement about glossaries/lists of terms.

First, are articles consisting solely of a glossary of related terms relevant for WP? I tend to think not.

articles about a single book[edit]

{{HelpMe}} Should articles about a single book be kept, when all references are to the book itself?

This seems to violate WP:PRIMARY. Example: The Solitaire Mystery. Seems to me this article should be nominated for deletion.

Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you have 3 choices, besides adding banners, as you said may not do much.
  1. Merge with the author WP:MERGE
  2. Proposed a deletion WP:PROD, if no one objects it goes 7 days later - although any editor can just object and remove the PROD
  3. Finally got for Articles for Deletion WP:AFD, where a discussion page will be used for editors to support or object. After a week an admin will decide if there is a consensus for deletion.
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Afd Added to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_January_27. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation of 95 year old philosophy.[edit]


I am trying to get a team together who would finally translate "Sistema di logica come teoria del conoscere" into English. I thought Wikipedia's list of Italian-to-English translators might be a good group to 'hit up' on this subject. If personal assistance cannot be provided, perhaps suggestions or helping point me in the right direction of who might be willing to help? Best regards & thank you. Nagelfar (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Auto-confirmed status - do I have it/why not[edit]


I tried to edit Pope Francis to make a one-word edit to one section, and was blocked by a banner saying the page was semi-protected, and I needed autoconfirmed status in order to edit it.

The description at User access levels, says:

A number of actions on the English Wikipedia are restricted to user accounts that pass certain thresholds of age (time passed since account creation) and edit count. Users who meet these requirements are considered part of the pseudo-group 'autoconfirmed'.

But I easily pass these criteria. Is there a 'special' or other place I can look to see if I have autoconfirmed status, and if not, why not? Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The red banner doesn't mean you can't edit, it is just notifying you of the protection reason. If that doesn't work, go to WP:PERM and request the "manual confirmation" permission, explaining why in the reason :) gwickwiretalkediting 22:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Quarteto Novo[edit]

Created the en topic from the pt on Pi day, 2013. Working on both to improve them. The pt one needs references in pt.

Mathglot (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Also created the fr one on March 13.


(consider redoing this section per the great tips section at fr:Utilisateur:Elnon

Standards and guidelines, style[edit]

Talk pages

  • pronouns to refer to user in TP comments: {{gender|PamD}} gives 'she', {{gender|Stephen}} gives 'he', {{gender|Mathglot}} gives 'he/she'. Likewise, {{they}}, {{their}}, {{theirs}}, {{them}}.
  • use {{tlx}} template to render templates as a link with args, e.g., {{tlx|Refimprove|section}} gives {{Refimprove|section}}
  • show/hide: {{collapse top}} / {{collapse bottom}} (or: {{cot}} / {{cob}})

Fr and other lang template equivalents[edit]

Citation Templates[edit]

  • {{Cite web}}{{cite web |url= |title= |last1= |first1= |date= |website= |publisher= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= |quote= }}
    • fr {{lien web |langue= |format= |auteur1= |lien auteur1= |coauteurs= |url= |titre= |série= |jour= |mois= |année= |site= |éditeur= |isbn= |page= |citation= |consulté le={{1er}} juin 2015|id= |libellé= }}
    • es {{Lien web |langue= |auteur= |lien auteur= |coauteurs= |url= |titre= |série= |jour= |mois= |année= |site= |éditeur= |isbn= |page= |citation= |en ligne le= |consulté le= 17 juillet 2013 |id= }}
  • {{cite book}} {{cite book |last= |first= |date= |orig-year= |title= |trans-title= |url= |page= |language= |chapter= |trans-chapter= |location= |publisher= |isbn= |doi= |oclc= |access-date= |quote= }}
    • fr {{ouvrage|langue=|prénom1=|nom1=|lien auteur1=|titre=<!-- oblig -->|sous-titre=|lien titre=|numéro d'édition=|éditeur=|lien éditeur=|collection=|lieu=|année=|volume=|tome=|pages totales=|passage=|isbn=|consulté le=}}
  • {{cite journal}} {{cite journal |last= |first= |last2= |first2= |date= |title= |url= |journal= |publisher= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |access-date= }}
  • {{cite encyclopedia}} {{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia= |editor-last1= |editor-first1= |editor-link1= |title= |last1= |first1= |author-link1= |url= |date= |year= |publisher= |location= |edition= |series= |volume= |isbn= |oclc= |language= |trans-title= |pages= |access-date= |quote= }}

Interwiki linking[edit]

Looks like this is now being replaced by {{Interlanguage link}}, e.g. {{Interlanguage link|ja|Godzilla and The Tale of Genji|源氏物語}} gives Godzilla and The Tale of Genji (ja)-- stay tuned...

  • usage
    • {{Interlanguage link|no|Sigmund Jakobsen}} # article has same name in both languages
    • {{Interlanguage link|nl|Hooglede town hall|Gemeentehuis van Hooglede}} # different in 2 languages
    • {{Interlanguage link|de|Arno Schmidt (historian)|lt=Arno Schmidt|Arno Schmidt (Historiker)}} # different link text

Link from en to existing fr article which doesn't exist yet on (en) with {{link-interwiki}} :

  • {{link-interwiki|en=Haute Cour de Justice (France)|lang=fr|lang_title=Haute Cour (France)}} yields Haute Cour de Justice (France)(fr)

The other way (link from fr.wikipedia to an article existing only on en) using fr:Modèle:Lien :

  • {{Lien|Ordre Ouissam Alaouite|lang=en|trad=Order of Ouissam Alaouite}} yields Ordre Ouissam Alaouite (en)

Use {{Expand French|topic=geo|date=July 2013}} e.g., for articles in en wiki about Fr towns, or {{Expand French|date=June 2009|Ballade des pendus}} for a box including details of where to expand it from.


Ref help[edit]

  • WP:CITE Citing sources; H:FOOT
  • WP:REFGROUP - separate groups of refs, e.g. Refs, Notes, etc
    • <ref group=groupname>Content</ref>
    • {{reflist|group=groupname}}
  • Help:References and page numbers - different ways to cite same book, multiple page numbers
    • pg nbrs shown inline using {{rp}} after named ref: ...of cups<ref name=elk1972 />{{rp|5}}... and tips.<ref name=elk1972 />{{rp|6}} ...{{reflist|refs= <ref name=elk1972>{{cite... renders: ...of cups[1]5 and tips.[1]6 ... Refs: 1a b Elk full cite.
    • pg nbrs shown inline using List-defined references and {{r}}: {{r|elk1972|page1=6}} ... ==Refs=={{reflist|refs=<ref name=elk1972>{{cite ... renders: same as above.
    • fn nbrs inline, 'Auth (yyyy, pg)' in reflist, full cite after: See Shortened footnotes using {{harvtxt}} and {{harvnb}} or using {{sfn}}
    • hybrid, with full cite in ref 1, SRFs in subsequent: ...cups.<ref>{{cite book ... |year=1972a |ref=harv |page=5}}</ref> and tips.{{sfn|Elk|1972a|p=6}} ...{{reflist}} gives: ...cups[1] and tips[2]. ... 1^ Elk (full cite) ... 2^ Elk 1972a p6".
    • parenthetical (Harvard) short ref, pgnbr inline (no fn nbrs at all) using {{harv}}, {{refbegin}}, {{refend}}: ...cups{{harv|Elk|1972b|p=5}} and tips. {{harv|Elk|1972b|p=6}}. ...{{refbegin}} *{{cite ... |year=1972b |ref=harv}} {{refend}} gives: cups (Elk 1972b, p. 5) and tips. (Elk 1972b, p. 6). linked to bullet cite after.


Flamers etc.[edit]

Flame warrior types, courtesy Mike Reed.
Tim Campbell links:



Added this to List of multi-level marketing companies but it will get speedily deleted according to the instructions there:

Vemma is a premium liquid nutrition company founded in 2004 and receiving financial page attention on Bloomberg, WSJ, and elsewhere.

  • Vemma has been recognized with numerous industry awards[2]...

See Talk:List_of_multi-level_marketing_companies Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Vemma Nutrition Company". eReleases. May 2013. Retrieved 2013-04-25. 
  2. ^ "Vemma(R) Recognized With Eight Awards in Two Prestigious Competitions". Bloomberg. May 2013. Retrieved 2013-05-25. 


I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Vemma, Mathglot!

Wikipedia editor Falkirks just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have passed your page as reviewed although it could use some work filling sections and such. Great start!

To reply, leave a comment on Falkirks's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Consolidated disambiguation link notifications and bot edits[edit]


Hi Mathglot,
I saw you gave me a small quenelle on my talk page ;-)
Feel free to correct my mistakes. I'm struggling with the references...
The Figaro says that the quenelle means "you got it in the ass" (l'équivalent de tu l'as dans le cul"), which is very similar to the English expression "up yours". :This is not perfect, this is a translation, but I think it is an honnest description of what the Figaro wrote. Blaue Max (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Dear Mathglot, thank you for your kind comments on my talk page. In fact my mother tongues are English and Italian, but I have been living in a French-speaking area for 30 years, so indeed I probably mix things up at times. But the origin of the misuse of the term "important" in the bit you spotted was not me, it was that the original report was in French and I used the original word when I made the Wikipedia entry, which was of course a mistake. Thank you for having corrected it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi Mathglot,

Your version is very good. Congratulations. I don't edit wp:fr so I prefer reporting you some "mistakes" here on your talk page:

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello Mathglot. I wanted to ask you to take a look at the subsequent discussion on the talk page of this newly split article. Thank you for your participation. Invertzoo (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pectinidae[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Pectinidae, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. KDS4444Talk 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) KDS4444Talk 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not sure why you're stuck on this. I understand that the timing of the letter wasn't tied to the holiday, but referring to an event in an Episcopal seminary on "September 29" is like saying something happened on "December 25" - correct, but clunky and strange-sounding.

Carolynparrishfan (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Lou Fant Reply[edit]

I'm glad you were able to make those additions to the Lou Fant page. I wish I knew more about him. AlbertBickford (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Secreto a voces[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Secreto a voces has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not relevant to the English Wikipedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. KDDLB (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Would you please translate the entry "pt:Críticas à Rede Globo" for the wiki-en? Thankfully. (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No. You recently asked dozens or hundreds of users to translate the Portuguese Wikipedia article pt:Críticas à Rede Globo into English. Please stop, and read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Translation. For more details, see the discussion at pt:Discussão:Críticas à Rede Globo#Tradução para Inglês - atenção!. Cross-posted from User_talk: Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Otto von Sadovszky photo permission[edit]

Still waiting on OTRS for a word on the photo of Otto von Sadovszky. Mathglot (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Edited by Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Serge Guinchard[edit]

Discussing a rewrite proposal on the Talk Page. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

/* Notre-Dame de la Garde */ reply[edit]

Your help is welcome. Please see my answer on the translation project page. I have not done much with it in some time and realized, when I checked an old disambiguation message before deleting it, that I took it off the list when I started work on it, but then did not finish it. I therefore put it back on. As I mentioned over there, I will try to come back to it if you do not pick it up and nobody else does either but I have no particular personal interest in this landmark, although I can see its importance. I do have other unfinished translation projects I am more invested in though, a town I have lived in for example. Bottom line, have at it and do not worry about edit conflicts. Should be semi-ok as far as translation goes, just in need of re-write, up to Exteror:side wall but I have no particular pride of authorship. Feel free. Elinruby (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited André Rogerie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dax and Gypsies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability for articles about a single book[edit]

Template:HelpMe-helpedIdeally, I'm looking for a response from a "Guideline guru" or "Notability Nabob" about this question about notability of articles about a single book; if you don't feel that's your bailiwick, I'd love it if you could kick it to someone that you think fits the bill, but I'll gladly take any advice offered.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Mathglot (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You have realized what many other people have realized, and what people seeking to promote themselves/their boss/professor/company/etc. often deny when they point out other stuff exists; that is, that there are many articles that shouldn't exist on Wikipedia, and there is simply no way we can get to them all. There are simply too little volunteers versus millions of articles. So, in other words, yes, this problem is too big to tackle.
There is a specific notability guideline for books, Wikipedia:Notability (books). Also, you can also read about the common outcomes of AfDs, though that isn't a guideline. However, a common outcome of book AfDs is apparently that "Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not.". Hopefully, reading through the two wikilinks I've provided, and yes, maybe the AfD FAQ, should answer your question. I dream of horses (t) (c) @ 06:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I dream of horses for your thoughtful comments. I will look at the links and figure out what to do. Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem! I dream of horses (t) (c) If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. @ 06:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(Pinging I dream of horses as a courtesy for the additions below; not requesting feedback at this time, but feedback always welcome.)
Just assembling some notes for myself here, in preparation for possibly doing a Wikipedia:Deletion process for Denying History. According to WP:NBOOK, the book would be notable if it meets any of the criteria in the five bullet items listed. It seems to me it very likely fails 1, 2, 3 and 5, and very likely fails 4 but in any case, the burden of proof of finding the college courses would be on those voting for Keep. I will now try to do some additional research, to turn "very likely fails..." into a stronger statement, and ignore #4. If I get to that point, I will open a WP:DELPRO#Deletion_discussion. Initial thoughts:
  • 1 subject of 2 published works - very doubtful, from initial searches.
  • 2 major award - searches on shermer denying history award (or prize) fail to turn up anything.
  • 3 signif. contribution to movie, art, political or religious event - No.
  • 4 subject of instruction at 2 schools - prob. not; maybe Israel? who knows; leave burden on Keepers to find this.
  • 5 author is so notable he is a constant subject of study - No.
Looks like a good candidate for deletion. Mention in deletion discussion that some existing (and notable) articles (such as Holocaust denial) refer to this article in their references; those refs should be recast to refer to the book itself, not the WP article up for deletion (regardless whether it's a Keep or a Delete). Also request that voters follow guidelines for this one article, and not rely on other stuff exists (and WP:INN) as an argument. Further suggest a merge of any useful content from Denying History into Shermer article, but imho none of the content is deserving of being retained. Further investigation t.b.d. to tighten this up and increase likelihood of achieving consensus for a Delete. Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC) entry above edited to add WP:INN by Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I continue to believe in the validity of the case for deleting the article on the book Denying History, I am going to recuse myself from leading that effort, although I would still support someone else taking it up. The reason is, that this issue led me into looking at the article on Holocaust Denial, and soon after I did, I thought that it could be improved, and became involved with it as an editor. The Denial topic is sensitive enough that some editors there might misconstrue my involvement in recommending deletion of the Denying History article as a "position statement", even though it isn't. So I'll decline further involvement in this at this time, other than to add my own opinion on it if someone else decides to take it up. I believe many, if not most, articles about a single book on WP deserve to be deleted, except for the ones that are truly significant. The five-point list at WP:NBOOK is a good one which I support, and by those criteria, most single-book articles on WP would fall, in my opinion. So in that sense, deleting Denying History is only one among thousands, and there's no particular reason for me to concentrate on that one, especially if it touches on a controversial topic. (Having said that, I'm a bit uneasy about the fact that books about "controversial subjects" such as this one, may get a bit of a "free pass" among editors considering a delete process, just because they fear a pile-on by partisans. In reality, that is what has happened here, which is why I would welcome someone else stepping up to take this one on.) Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks to a chance encounter with a discussion about books by Hugh Walters at the merge templates page I have located a collection of 19 books that clearly do not merit individual articles under the Notability guidelines for books. A convenient list of these articles can be found in the Bibliography of the Hugh Walters article. According to my understanding of Book notability, not one of the 19 articles linked under the Bibliography should exist in Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Expand language template[edit]

Hi Mathglot,

Thanks for your contributions regarding the template:expand language. Your recent edits removing this template from the talk pages of articles that need translating are certainly bold, however, they are not constructive since you haven't moved the template to the article space, you've only deleted it. The template documentation does not specify placement, and if you read the template's talk page, you'll see that several attempts have been made in the past to gain consensus on where to place this template, and the suggestion to put it on the talk page since it's quite a large template and is distracting if placed within an article. I don't think that anyone would believe that a talk page needs to be translated, and the template specifically says that it's the article that needs to be translated. I would argue that the template is more for editors than for readers, so placing the template on the talk page is a good way of categorizing the page as needing additional translation without cluttering up the article. I won't revert your edit on the article Association Solidarité Féminine to avoid an edit war, but please refrain from removing the template from talk pages without placing it in the article, if that's what you think should be done. Perhaps you should start a new section on the template's talk page to gain consensus on the issue. Rystheguy (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rystheguy,
Thank you for your comment.
We're about on the same page about this, as I had likewise already decided prior to receiving your comment above not to revert again if you did but to write to you about it. But instead you wrote me first, so a hat tip for the good faith, which I acknowledge as well. I do take your point about the "not constructive" part and I thought about that, and there's a case to be made there, but in my initial understanding I didn't agree, as I've seen previous discussions on analogous sorts of things where a person attempting to make constructive edits is taken to task for not fixing things 100% rather than just fixing some portion of it, and I guess I decided at the time that not having the template in the wrong place was half the battle, and there was no need to do all of the work at once, nor does it need to be all done by a single editor, me, in this case. Perhaps I was mistaken, but that's how I thought about it at the time. Going forward at least, I'll go ahead and do both halves and move it to article space if I find more of them.
Regarding template placement: we're agreed that nobody would think we are talking about translating the talk page. So why the confusion with this Template historically, with a certain significant minority of pages having been marked on the Talk page instead? I think I know why. Two reasons: First, the template document actually does specify placement, but it does a fairly weak job of it, and secondly, there is another translation-related template that is supposed to go on the Talk page when used correctly. Regarding the first point on the poor instructions:

To mark an article, tag it with
{{Expand French |Frencharticletitle |date=April 2015}}
This template places articles in the category Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia.

If you miss the fact that an article is the antecedent of it in the first sentence, you might not realize they meant the article itself, although that is what it says. Secondly, the doc mentions that the template automatically places the article into a specific category behind the scenes. The implication here, weakly stated again to be sure, is that wherever you put the {{Expand French}} template will end up in that category--and that is in fact, the case; if you tag the Talk page, then it is the Talk page, and only the Talk page, that is placed into that category. And since we all know that that's clearly not the intent, either the doc should be changed to match current behavior in a clearer manner, or the template code should be changed (and the instructions, to match) so that marking the talk page causes the article category to be affected, and not the talk page itself.
The second reason that there's been some confusion up to now, imho, is not due to the Expand French template itself, but rather due to confusion with the proper usage of another template by WP translators, namely {{Translated page}}. The Wikipedia:Translation essay specifies rules about crediting the foreign WP source of an article to avoid copyright violation, and recommends usage of the {{Translated page}} Template on the article talk page (emphasis added). This template is currently in use on many thousands of article Talk pages, establishing copyright source of the corresponding article. I myself have used this template a number of times and am familiar with it, and am aware that it goes on the talk page. Translator-editors of WP articles would be forgiven for not remembering which page what template is supposed to go on, especially when some templates belong in one namespace, and some in the other.
I think that this situation can be remedied by having clearer instructions, especially on {{Expand French}}, and I've made a small contribution in an initial attempt to do that. Further clarification might help if it were added to the translation essay as well, and I may take a stab at that.
Regarding discussion of placement on the template talk page, I did read it, but Talk page comments by an editor about their recollection about what may have happened in past Rfc's are hardly a guideline, and the fact is that currently, the template adds the page on which it appears to the translation category--that is the current reality, and the template is in use on thousands of article-space pages (per 'what links here') in exactly that way. If an Rfc has decided to the contrary, they will have a big job ahead of them to fix a lot of legacy pages, but I don't believe that is the case. However, I don't really have a dog in this race, I'm just trying to apply the rules, and the documentation of the rules, as they now exist, and if they change them, then so be it, those will be the new rules and then we'll apply those rules (though I hope they don't flip them back and forth too often, to keep us all sane).
In the meantime, I'm more concerned about the general case than I am about any given page. I've reverted my last change to Talk:Association Solidarité Féminine, however I believe the template should probably be moved to article space, as you have suggested.
To further improve the situation, I'm thinking about a clarification on the Wikipedia:Translation page. Given that the proper usage of some Translation-related templates requires they be placed in article space, and others in Talk page space, the essay might avoid confusion in Template usage by including a short sub-section listing the most popular templates used by translators, and what page they belong on. When listing them, they should be quoted using the {{tl}} template (rather than <code><nowiki>Template name</nowiki></code>) for easy access. Mathglot (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mathglot,
Thank you for your thorough reply. I guess I don't feel too strongly about where the template is placed, and I agree that it's probably best to keep things consistent, so I've moved the template to the article space in Association Solidarité Féminine. My original concern was more that, if the template was deleted from talk pages rather than moved to the corresponding articles, then there would be no way for someone else to do the rest of the work since the pages would no longer be categorized as needing expansion, so it would be impossible to keep track of what needs to be done. Anyways, it's no longer a problem. Thanks for all of your edits on Wikipedia, you've done a lot of good stuff. Take care, Rystheguy (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Rystheguy, I've moved all the others into article space. (A handful were already there, not of recent date, meaning they were in both talk and article space for some time.)
Also, thanks to the edit on "List of F authors" that de-orphaned Andre Rogerie; you beat me to it by a hair, as he is now linked in from a couple of solid articles. (His status as "author" being technically correct, but a bit of a stretch. ;-) ) Mathglot (talk)

Bold edit to Holocaust denial[edit]

You should have at least have waited for other comments on the relevant talk page. You appear to be saying that the list is superfluous, as some individuals are covered in the article and in a seperate dedicated article, and that is worthy of debate. It would be very good to hear the opinions of others. We are now at the discussion stage of WP:BRD. I accept that your edit was done in good faith, and I retract my POV claim in the summary. Regards Irondome (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome:, thank you for your comment about the change to Holocaust denial. If you look at WP:BRD, it's an ordered sequence of 1. Bold, 2. Revert, 3. Discuss. I did part 1, and since I realized it might be debatable, I provided a very detailed justification for it. I also asked in the summary, and in the Talk, for a justification of any revert. But you did not provide one :-( . Therefore, I do not agree that we are in the Discussion step, rather we're in the proper application of the Revert step. The guideline does not say Revert willy-nilly, it gives specific suggestions about it:
Note that WP:BRD has this to say about Revert:

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.

I have trouble understanding the explanation of the edit summary as given in the revert: "no consensus, just a pov wall of text". In what way was any of my explanation POV? What was my point of view, in your opinion? I don't see any point of view one way or the other, I'm not sure what you are talking about, I was just trying to explain duplicate content and justifying it with links and diffs. Is there a POV in there, somewhere, and if so, what is it?
The WP:BRD doesn't say to Revert without reason. I grant your good faith in Reverting and I believe you have some reason for it, but I'd like to know what it is. I gave very detailed reasons for my edit, and I would hope that you could respond in kind. I would ask you to substantiate your Revert with your reasons according to the guideline. I assume you believe that this change (the deletion) was not an improvement. Given my talk page discussion, what was the problem with it?
As your Revert seems arbitrary and unbstantiated, I may revert it back again in time. I will not revert you a 2nd time however, although I would be annoyed by an additional unsubstantiated revert. However I would like to give you (or anyone) a reason to support your revert, before I do anything further. I look forward to your comments. Further discussion probably belongs on the article talk page, but feel free to respond where it seems most helpful. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have created a discussion space on the relevant talk page, which you neglected to do, perhaps due to enthusiasm. My reasoning for reversion was simple. You did not allow due time for comment before going ahead with such an ambitious edit. The forum is now open for consensus to be reached, based on your closely argued text, as it appears to be. However, we must reach agreement there. We appear to be mutually AGF, which is excellent, but I would sugget you do not delete the section again, without community input. Remember, an edit is not a fait d'accompli, but is subject to reversion and discussion. I think you appear to be missing that aspect of BRD. The onus is on you to justify your edit, through establishing consensus. I look forward to an interesting discussion. Regards Irondome (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
On 00:51, 23 April 2015 @Irondome: said,

I have created a discussion space on the relevant talk page, which you neglected to do, perhaps due to enthusiasm.

Huh, what? You seriously did not see the quite lengthy Talk entry just above yours, entitled Deleted section Notable Holocaust deniers with eight subsections? It was hard to miss, considering that the Edit summary for the original change also linked to it. How could you possibly miss that? I truly don't know what to say.
Irondome said,

My reasoning for reversion was simple. You did not allow due time for comment before going ahead with such an ambitious edit.

Please read WP:BRD again. There is no requirement to discuss before an edit, otherwise it wouldn't be Bold would it? The guideline says, Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! If that was your only reason, then your revert was improper. You could still have other, valid reasons for the revert, the guideline says what they are in the next section. So, I would still like to know if you have a valid reason, since so far, I don't see one.
Irondome said,

The forum is now open for consensus to be reached, based on your closely argued text, as it appears to be.

Um, this sounds a bit preachy and WP:OWN. The article is open to be improved by anyone, and is not owned by anyone. You don't get to decide when things go to discussion about changes you apparently don't approve of. Please cite a guideline, or stop making policy on the fly.
Irondome said,

However, we must reach agreement there. We appear to be mutually AGF, which is excellent, but I would sugget you do not delete the section again, without community input.

Based on what guideline? Neither you, nor anybody else, gets to decide arbitrarily when things go to discussion other than by following a policy or guideline. To me, it sounds like you are preemptively blocking a bold edit, based on a claim that prior agreement is necessary for such a claim. If that is the case, please quote the guideline to me. Your comment to wait for prior agreement before making a change goes against WP:BOLD and sounds like the Wiki equivalent of censorship to me. If there is a policy that supports prior agreement, I will of course follow it, otherwise I plan to revert your reversion, unless you can give a reason for it. As I have previously said, I will not revert a second time, even if you, or someone else, reverts again, even if against policy or unsubstantiated. Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You appear to have an unfortunate battleground mentality. The onus is on you mate to gain consensus. You did not mention in your lengthy justification for your edit anywhere the possibility of community discussion. You basically attempted to push it through. And stop WP:WIKILAWYERING. It gets tedious. The bizarre claim of ownership is remarkable. I merely did what you should have done and created space for debate. I have assumed good faith, but your pointy attacks concern me regarding your attitude. Now we await the judgement of the community on your edit. Its a community. I hope you grasp that. Message ends Irondome (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Irondome:, The onus is on you mate to gain consensus. Although I've linked and quoted guidelines to you to support my position, you make statements like this without any support. I think I've already said this, but if you read WP:BRD you will see that the first step does not require consensus. As far as community discussion that's a core principle of WP and always holds; it's not necessary to repeat every guideline in the justification for a particular edit. But if you want a direct statement about it: yes of course I agree that community discussion is core to the principle of Wikipedia, no one ever said the contrary, so I don't know why you mentioned this, except perhaps if you think consensus is required before making any change, but that is incorrect.
Battleground mentality? I leave that up to others to judge. I've made a change in line with WP policy, which I think is a definite improvement to the article. (Did you notice that there were ancillary edits to over a dozen other articles on individuals who were Holocaust deniers, in order to bring the category content in line with the list in the article, in those cases where the bullet list and the category content were out of sync? The reason for that was to discover any "missing" entries in the category list, that might be lost if the article section was deleted without comparing them; it turned out there were 19 such "missing" entries, they were examined, and a bunch of articles were edited in order to bring the two in line. All this was done to ensure that deleting the deniers section was "safe" in the sense of not losing any information that was previously there. If you allow the delete to go through, no information about any single Holocaust denier would be lost because every single one of them is listed on the Category page. All of that was done before deleting the section, so you cannot say I didn't due my due diligence in preparation for the delete. Read the discussion above, links and data are provided showing exactly what was done here.) I initiated a detailed discussion on the Talk page in support of my change. To date, I haven't heard any specific criticism of it based on the content from you (or anyone else to date) except for your complaint that I didn't discuss it beforehand, for which "reason" you reverted it. I reject that criticism as invalid and not supported by policy, and ask that you self-revert, or provide a reason. Whether you do or don't choose to do so, doesn't of course prevent a discussion from happening on the talk page to achieve consensus, or for any other reason, and I'm happy to see that go on, but not as a precondition to a change. Indeed, some other editor might even restore the section if you self-revert, for reasons of their own, which I am happy to discuss if/when that happens. But I do wish you would provide a reason for your revert, or else undo it.
You basically attempted to push it through. And stop WP:WIKILAWYERING. It gets tedious. I don't know what to say to this, other than it seems like a good thing for someone to say if they can't really find anything in the guidelines or don't wish to. Look at the four main bullet points at WP:WL and you will see that none of them apply. A charge of Wikilawyering can be made when someone is actually Wikilawyering, and it can also be made when someone is attempting to avoid basic WP guidelines by preemptively making such an accusation. If it comes to it, others can make up their own minds about that. I have but one purpose with respect to this (or any) article on Wikipedia, which is to improve the article. As I've said before, I think removing the list of 65 names in section Holocaust deniers is an improvement for the reasons noted, and I even tried to deal with some alternatives to deletion in the Talk page discussion. I haven't seen where you have criticized any specific, individual point in the long discussion I made to support it. All I see, is a Revert from you, a failure to provide any justification for your revert, and now, accusations such as WikiLawyering and Battlegrounding. Seriously? This all feels rather over-the-top to me. What's so troublesome or annoying about just justifying the revert? I don't get it. I'm HAPPY to see my change reverted, if that will improve the article. I have no wish to argue, or wikilawyer with you or whatever, but you can't just keep saying "we do it this way, just because" without regard to WP policies and guidelines. That's just not the way it works. I don't even really understand where the disagreement is between us, really, as I don't know your position, other than you just don't wish to see the delete happen for some reason.
I have assumed good faith, but your pointy attacks concern me regarding your attitude. I have trouble understanding what you mean. I think you meant to say 1. that I'm attacking you (I'm not, I'm just trying to improve the article) and 2. that I have some sort of "concerning" attitude--does that mean, bad attitude? I wish you would come out and say so, if you think I have a bad attitude, then at least if it were true I would wish to correct it. (I apologize if I misunderstood you, that was my reading of that statment; please let me know if I was wrong about that.) Somehow by requesting that you provide a revert reason I seem to be annoying you. That is not my intent. I believe deleting the Denier list improves the article for the reasons stated, and as you say, consensus will ultimately be the decider on this point. But I wish you would adhere to Wiki policies to explain your action as it very much feels to me like you're doing whatever you want by demanding consensus before I change anything. It just doesn't work that way. Everybody gets to contribute to the article, nobody owns it, and no one person gets to decide which edits of other people belong, and which ones don't. Your revert wasn't proper, but I haven't reverted back, so far, even though that would be appropriate. Even so, and in the face of an improper revert, I see no reason not to hear from other editors before I consider reverting back, so let's have a go at that approach and see what happens. It's very unlikely that I would revert you in the face of any well-argued, cogent discussion of why keeping the list of Holocaust deniers in the article is a good idea. Let's see what happens in the next few days or week or so. One of the WP recommendations when things seem to heat up is to back off and take a breather, so I plan to do that, and recommend you consider it as well. If you still assume good faith, then you must agree that the point here is to improve the article, and it doesn't matter who "wins", right? I am happy to cede the last word here to you. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no animus to you whatsoever, and I hope we can work productively in the future. My principal objection, as I have stated several times now, is that you did not wait for consensus from other colleagues before removing a large and well established section. You wrote a well argued defence, and then proceeded with the edit. I have not encountered this before, without it leading to some initial misunderstandings. I am defending my reversion on that basis. In fact I find your argument compelling, and would be inclined to support. But it does need discussion first. We need to establish whether the section removal is a net loss or gain to the article, and we can only do that through discussion. I hope you understand my position. I, like you, am only here to improve the project. Now, I hope we can go forward together on this in a positive and collaborative fashion. I have a busy and stressful remainder of the day, but will be available this evening. Regards Irondome (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please can you help with the page Arab slave trade[edit]

Hi, sorry to bother you but I see that you like edit controversial articles. If you don't mind would you help improving Arab slave trade's page, and maybe comment in the talk page. Thanks in advance. Rupert loup (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: I actually don't like to edit controversial articles very much, at least not the controversial parts. I'll have a look at it, but probably won't contribute, beyond relatively uncontroversial style, grammar, or organizational changes. Mathglot (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I was just asking, thank you for taking the time to see it. Regards. Rupert loup (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Schneersohn[edit]

Thanks for the thanks, though that has now been removed from WP:PNTCU as closed. As for the {{cite book|imprint=}} attribute, I didn't think this was valid but deliberately left it there, not knowing the best way to deal with it. I should really put the external links into cite templates as well. I did reword some of the quotes a bit, but I assumed these were Wikipedian translations rather than being quoted from some sourced translation (usually I would give both the original and the translated text, in those cases, and perhaps we should re-introduce the original French there too.) Si Trew (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Marcel Kittel[edit]

Could you please tell me what was not proper English with "He did ride the Ster ZLM Toer, but could not finish in the top-10 of a stage. At the end of June, it was announced that Kittel would not participate to the Tour de France, since his fitness level was not good enough." ??? Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mattsnow81:, nothing too serious in that sentence, except for the preposition to (en anglais, participate veut la préposition in et non pas to; voir discussion). I know that it's participer à in French, but it's participate in in English, as strange as that may seem to French ears. By the way--be very cautious when using search engine hit counts to try to justify conclusions about grammar and spelling: despite millions of hits for "participate to", it is incorrect. (If you're not convinced, check the hit count for seperate and then look up the proper spelling in a dictionary.) English is spoken widely as a second language, and examples of "participate to" are errors written by non-native speakers, often French speakers. A more minor issue in this sentence was the use of hyphen, the rules are subtle and even native speakers often get this wrong, and in many cases it's more of a stylistic issue than one of proper grammar anyway so I wouldn't worry about it. Remaining issues were less about "incorrect" grammar, than the fact that the sentence sounded translated rather than written by a native speaker, so I made minor revisions for that reason, even though the original grammar was not incorrect. Your English ability is advanced, and the problems are fairly minor. Watch out for faux amis (dispute a race), prepositions (...on in the race), and transitivity, e.g. abandon is transitive in English and requires a direct object (C.O.D.) e.g., abandoned the race , whereas dropped out does not).
HTH, et bonne continuation! Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I learned something Face-grin.svg Mattsnow81 (Talk) 12:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


yes i'm the historian who set up H-Net back in 1990s.  :) Rjensen (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Wow, cool! I don't hang there as much as I used to--the internet kind of exploded since then (WP included!) and there are lots of claims on one's attention now, but it was and is a great idea and great site. Thank you for creating it. I wonder if Linguist-list was inspired by it. Mathglot (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


I'm not sure that you understand how Template:Current is meant to be used. It is added in the early stages of a new event, when the article is being edited by many editors, and is subject to frequent change. That is no longer the case with Death of Sandra Bland, and the template is no longer appropriate. WWGB (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments @WWGB:. Template:Current is meant to be used when Information about an event is still changing rapidly, and where the last updates to the article may not reflect the most current information. With dozens of news articles appearing in the last 24 hours and around 30 edits to the article in the last 72 hours I think that qualifies as rapidly changing. If you disagree, please remove the banner again, and explain in the Edit Summary with a bit more explanatory text than the derisive "please see Template:Current for appropriate use of template" which leaves one in the position of trying to mind-read your intent, and comes off as rather haughty. I won't revert a 2nd undo with a reasonable policy-sourced explanation. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No offense, but if someone told me to "please see Template:Current for appropriate use of template", I could probably make it to bullet 2 of its guidelines, which includes the following words: "the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day". And I wouldn't even resent being made to do so. WWGB should not have been expected to copy-and-paste those words into his edit summary, even if they would all fit there. ―Mandruss  13:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Sandra Bland[edit]

Can you withdraw the request? There won't be one !support vote within one week. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Note on verse translation and poetic license[edit]

Should it rhyme? See Village Pump discussion about verse translation and poetic license. Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's try SuggestBot once[edit]

This ( {{User:SuggestBot/suggest}}) should get me some suggested articles to work on, if I've followed the SuggestBot doc correctly.

Now let's see what happens. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
1,072 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Vichy France (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
15 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Norma Arm (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
12 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start IX SS Mountain Corps (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
65 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: B Francs-tireurs (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
205 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start Le Mans Prototype (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
490 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: A French Resistance (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
93 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Clandestine HUMINT asset recruiting (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
72 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Sébastien Foucan (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
754 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Robert Bosch GmbH (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
145 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: B Military history of France during World War II (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expand
131 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Plague Inc. (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
361 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Free France (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expand
51 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C BMEzine (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
212 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Anti-Zionism (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
40 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Two Hundred Years Together (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
11 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
922 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Amazon River (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Merge
20 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: Start Save Indian Family Foundation (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
15 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Judah Leon Abravanel (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
24 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B History of the Jews in Bessarabia (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Adebisi Akanji (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
1 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Adrien Pommier (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
3 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Women's self image (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
27 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: C Gender roles in childhood (talk) 2.0 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
11 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub History of Limousin (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Nava Sudasana (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
15 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Everest Institute (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
78 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub France during World War II (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Middleton Cemetery (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
9 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

List of state leaders in 1947 - French Co-Prince[edit]

Note to self: User talk:Zoltan Bukovszky edits many articles about world leaders. He claims Léon Blum was French Co-Prince of Andorra and I claim there's no WP:RS that supports that

Mathglot (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: following[edit]

My sincerest apologies. I just couldn't believe Sandra would go out of her way to repeat her claims on a topic that had nothing to do with the train attack article (and therefore, herself (she didn't even get herself involved before then)). I was pretty frustrated. Versus001 (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Versus001:, in response to your message: No need to apologize to me, I didn't see anything offensive to me personally, I just thought you'd be a more effective advocate for your own cause by staying calm. I understand your frustration, but believe me, it's the best course of action. After you log off, you can go crush a beer can, but try to keep a lid on it while in Talk. Again, I'm not castigating you, it's not my place to do so, and there's no reason to. This is just friendly advice, you'll be happier for it.
By the way, check the note at the top of my page; if we interact again, I prefer to keep conversations in one place, so if I talk to you on your page, just respond there with a ping, and if you talk to me on my page, I'll respond here (like I'm doing now) and ping you (like this: {{ping|Versus001}}) so you'll know there's something here for you to read. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

May I ...[edit]

ask if you do paid editing? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Not a chance, sorry. Not sure whether to be insulted, or complimented because you feel my writing is of such quality that you think highly enough to want to compensate me to promote your company or for whatever pet project you have going on. Or are you picking editors randomly, and asking them this? I think WP policy seriously frowns on this sort of thing. Whatever possessed you to contact me about this? Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Now I see what this is about; an accusation—of me!—being a paid editor! See User talk:Smallbones#Recant your accusation of Paid editing immediately. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a question anyone can ask, it is not a slur we just ask that if you were a paid editor to point out the COI. It's a matter of good faith that works in both ways, SPA (Single Purpose Accounts) are allowed here if they edit within the guidelines. Demanding apologies for earnest and good faith questions is as ludicrous as forsaking those other editors merely because they are paid to be here. This place is like a fungus and grows on you so one day a paid editor may sample the other roses and just as often some take medication to eradicate the fungus that has grown ;). There are a few long term editors very esteemed (depending on who you ask ) that are paid to edit. An example is one of our site admins User:Jehochman I'm linking his userpage as you can see he puts what he conflict of interests are which is a little different then paid editing it just puts it on the table for everyone. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I reject your analysis that "it is not a slur [if] we just ask if you were a paid editor." It's only natural that a statement like that appearing on this page might lead respected editors reading it to stop and wonder about my possible status as a paid editor, and wonder why anybody would ask such a question if there were no truth to it, whereas up until now no one has had any reason to wonder about that. "Where there's smoke, there's fire", right? Of course it's a slur if made without evidence, it's absurd to imagine that it is not.
I don't believe that there is any decent, respectful way to ask "Are you (or, were you) a paid editor" on someone's talk page with zero evidence, that doesn't leave a taint or odor of possible serious misbehavior. (However, I would totally be fine with the placing of such a statement if instead one had written, "We believe you may be a paid editor based on your work on Article due to these diffs[1][2][3][4][5], are you?" if a good-faith effort had been made to investigate and find evidence and include it on the talk page along with the question.) However, this was not what happened. No effort was spent, no investigation was done, it's a bare question/accusation with no evidence whatever. Perhaps (and this is pure speculation on my part) it was done out of a desire to save time by skipping the time-consuming investigative part on the part of a busy editor who has done plenty of good work rooting out paid editors, based on their sixth sense of who is likely to edit on a certain type of article (Vemma, for example). However, nobody is perfect, and they made a mistake in this case by skipping the minimal investigation which would have quickly demonstrated the truth of the matter. By their misstep, they harmed my reputation, and they must take responsibility for undoing the harm, as I cannot credibly delete the accusation myself. I'm simply asking for recantation of a baseless accusation and an apology for the bother; that's it.
If you believe someone might be a paid editor, the proper way to do that, imho, is to do a bit of investigation, find some evidence of paid editing, and only then make the accusation (or "ask the polite question" if you prefer). I affirm your statement of "good faith works both ways" if by that you mean that when I defend my reputation and demand a retraction for a baseless accusation I am entitled to the very same assumption of good faith that I am making my demand for legitimate reasons based on policies and guidelines, and that it is right and proper for me to do so. The other editor has accused me falsely of something which is a violation of WP policy, however I have not accused the other editor of anything at all other than making a mistake, which is something we all do on occasion. Furthermore, this error can easily be rectified and it should be rectified, and then we can all go back to editing with no harm done. Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's your choice I suppose but its a mountain out of a molehill in all reality, none the less its up to you how you percieve it, most members here will think it is a non issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree with the comment immediately above. I just saw this discussion, such as it is, referenced on Smallbones' talk page. I don't know the background to this or how it came up, but sometimes one has to ask questions like that. I don't understand why you are making a fuss, and doing so seems to be an unwarranted accusation of bad faith on the part of the questioner. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
"sometimes one has to ask questions like that"? How about... What is your real name, Coretheapple? I just have to ask. - Mister 2001:558:1400:10:B15A:74E8:F4BB:162B (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Incoherent[edit]

There's movement at Template talk:Incoherent which needs my feedback. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wendy Delorme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pigalle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)