User talk:Mathglot

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

My editing tips.

Contents

Please comment on Talk:George Galloway[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Galloway. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Not done Already closed. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ref: Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal[edit]

Greetings! I see that you are a highly skilled WP professional highly conversant with its program; As you can remember, this complex Constitutional democracy/Draft proposal had been deleted and removed from public participation/improvement on the pretended reason of lack of references that were slowly provided (I did not know the specific WP reference provision, so added them in another way; No assisting details were given, leaving me to have to provide references to every word -- there was no point in continuing on this nonsensical basis). As you did not contact me during this deletion process that culminated in my neutrally unnecessary total blockage, I assumed your silent agreement contrary to your previous high-quality contribution. A consequent dispute-resolution contact to WP's only governing body remained arrogantly unanswered (a common feature with internet-based organisations), and I am confident that you know about it. It still leaves the justified impression that WP is policed by anti-democratic governments, and propaganda-like prefers to prevent the presentation of such fundamental democracy knowledge while also disallowing the correction of other partially false articles (always against democracy) dealing with democracy-related issues. Of course, this draft proposal was directly distributed worldwide together with the Universal Democracy Constitution (also available on Scribd as "Constitutional Democracy, Universal"), as the correction/provision of this topic is too important for us all -- and it is starting to have silent effects! I thought I find out your position/opinion, although I should have done so earlier. Strangely, our entries on Talk:Constitutional democracy remained unchanged. Please give me a constructive message in any case on my user talk page (However, I am not naively expecting much change).

Here is just one more example of WP's other prevention of necessary corrective improvements:

Improvement/Correction Proposal of WP Article "Types of democracy"[edit]

The introducing sentence/section of the WP article "Types of democracy: Types of democracy refers to kinds of governments or social structures which allow people to participate equally, either directly or indirectly" should be changed as follows in order not to mislead:

Types of democracy lists governmental or social structures using democracy variations/derivates/pretences. This article relies on the broader use rather than the proper definition of the word democracy in order to achieve a complete presentation. 10/5/2018

Maybe you could activate such improvements... Greetings, Fritz Fehling (currently indefinitely blocked for no justifiable reason...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.190.71 (talkcontribs) 01:10, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to this at User talk:Fritz Fehling#August 2018. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Archiving important documentation[edit]

You've blindly archived threads, some of which contained unanswered questions. They clearly do not meet the "stale" criteria for archiving. For discussions of a 1996 event, being 45 days old is absolutely no reason to archive discussions.

This is very disrespectful to the editors who contributed to those discussions, and it makes it harder for current editors to avoid mistakes previously made. Please stop doing this.

This incessant archiving (combined with the big project boxes that no one looks at but which hide the TOC and the discussions) is probably the reason why use of Talk pages is declining. This harms the fabric of the community too. Great floors (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Great floors: Your comment is apparently in reference to this revert of your edit at Talk:German orthography reform of 1996 where you moved 38,000 bytes of archived, ten year-old discussions back to the main Talk page. As is clear by the diffs, I didn't "blindly archive threads" as you claim; I merely restored the status quo ante which you disturbed. Find a Wikipedia policy that says it is "disrespectful to editors" to keep old threads archived, and I will revert myself.
Yes, old discussions may have unanswered questions. That is the nature of Wikipedia Talk pages, and if no one responds after some time, the old discussions are archived. If you have an issue with how Archiving is done in general, try opening a discussion about it at WT:ARCHIVE. In the meantime, you can always add a new discussion to the current Talk page, along with links pointing to any archived discussion you feel is relevant.
As for the current archive-age setting of 45 days, I believe that's quite a generous number; but it can be set to any agreed-upon value. I think your setting of eight years for the archive-age param is wildly outside the mainstream, but if you wish to seek consensus for that value on the Talk page, then by all means go for it. Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
For an additional note on this situation, please see this comment[permalink] at your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The page about talk pages or archiving only says that threads can be archived if they are "stale". Some or most of those threads are certainly not stale. They are relevant documents for why the article is how it is. An archive bot "blindly" archived everything. I undid the bot's mistake. What's to be gained by stuffing all those threads, that editors put work into, away in an archive? Great floors (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Great floors: A user talk page is not the place to argue for (or against) changes to existing policy. There is nothing further to be gained by continuing this fruitless discussion about established policy here. My suggestion to you, is to raise a new topic at WT:TALK referencing WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE, and try to gain consensus for your point of view. If you do, please {{ping}} me to that discussion. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

An update maybe[edit]

reports that two anti-#LGBT bills, including a marriage ban bill, which passed the Senate last year, have still not advanced in the lower house


https://www.voanews.com/amp/in-haiti-slight-progress-for-lgbt-rights-is-seen-as-victory/4528161.html

http://www.whig.com/article/20180814/AP/308149903

http://agenciaaids.com.br/noticia/54575/

AdamPrideTN (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@AdamPrideTN: Do you have a question? What is your objective of your comment above? Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think u edited the page of LGBT rights in Haiti About a marriage ban And this i think is an update right AdamPrideTN (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@AdamPrideTN:I have made no edits to this article. But even if I had, the proper place for comments about the article, would be the article talk page. Try asking your question or providing your suggestion at Talk:LGBT rights in Haiti. Also, please use indentation on Talk pages to keep the discussion orderly; you can read about this at Help:Talk pages#Indentation. See also WP:TALK for more tips about using Talk pages. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right[edit]

Sorry it was not really relevant to compare this situation to someone thinking they are a dog because as you've pointed out Wikipedia has already decided to honor gender identity. I tried to bring it back to the relevant issues below that and struck the comment. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The message above is apparently in reference to my comment at the Rfc at Trans woman[permalink]. I have responded in more detail at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Egypt[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Egypt. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

MGTOW Levels edit[edit]

The Vice article is a standard hit piece. The image at the top and the overall implications which the author tries to convey make that clear while feigning impartiality; thus making it unreliable source.

Something i couldn't finish during the last edit, due to character limit. MGTOW is individualistic in nature as there are no rules or beliefs to adhere to but your own, thus any central authority to make the rules and "levels" system is absent. Because of this, the beliefs are made clear on various outlets, of which the /r/mgtow or mgtow.com are part. The beliefs of the members, by and large, is The force that is shaping the MGTOW; to allow one biased individual at Vice such power is incorrect. As the beliefs of the community are made known across these outlets, these are the places where they can be found. There are no known outlets which have endorsed this "level" belief. Being an isolationist is a person's personal choice, not a rule one must adhere to in order to belong. MGTOW members by and large do not make such choices, nor do they advocate for them, therefore, including it into the MGTOW description will only mislead people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.133.100 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your comments above apparently in connection with this section blanking, and this revert at Men Going Their Own Way. Further info about this here. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: Demographic Tables[edit]

Renathras, Got your message about your edits to state demographic tables. It seemed more appropriate to move this discussion to your Talk page, so I have done so, and responded there.

Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greece[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greece. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Stone (artist)[edit]

Excuseme. Really do you think was better before my humble contribution? Jeffrey Prothero (Cynbe ru Taren) died at November 16, 2016, said his wife Sandy Stone in the discussion page of Cynbe ru Taren in Wikipedia.--Climent Sostres (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Environment and sexual orientation article[edit]

I could use your help watching this article. I suspect that the IP is Justthefacts9. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

reply[edit]

While the reference is to a book, the link is to the galley proof of a single chapter from the book. On the assumption that the chapter was the relevant portion of the book, I attempted to verify the original sentence in the article and could not. I modified the article text so that it now accords with the linked chapter. After reading your comment, I also added a page number (roman numerals within the galley proof), but it is possible that I didn't put it in the right place, since I'm not a qualified Wikipedia editor. Being unfamiliar with the Wikipedia format is also the reason I didn't modify the citation so that it cites a book chapter rather than the whole book. If you know how to do that, I think it would be a good idea. Another option would be to remove the link (if in fact the chapter isn't the relevant portion). However, in that last case, it might be best to verify the original text again, this time against the entire book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.159.1 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The comment above apparently in reference to this edit to Capitalism, and followed up by this talk page comment. Replied at your talk page; let's keep the discussion all in one place there. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon invitation for September 26![edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
Wikimedia Community logo
WikiSalon attendees

Periodically, on the last Wednesday evening of the month, wiki enthusiasts gather at the Bay Area WikiSalon series to munch, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We allow time for announcements, informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Bring a friend! Kid/family friendly. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. This months' focus is Did you know ... ?

We will have beverages (including beer and wine) plus light snacks (maybe pizza too!).


Details and RSVP here (note: we are meeting at the new WMF HQ at 120 Kearny Street!)

See you soon! Avik (User:Quantumavik), Lodewijk (User:Effeietsanders), Ben Creasy (User:Ben Creasy), Stephen (User:Slaporte), and Wayne (User:Checkingfax)
(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Fadel Al-Aboud[edit]

Hi Mathglot. Back in May 2017, you userfied this as User:Free Syrian 200/Fadel Alaboud per User talk:Free Syrian 200#Fadel Alaboud moved to User draft. An article about the same subject has just been added to the mainspace by the same editor. Since you userfied this once before, maybe you could take a look at it again and see the concerns you previously had have been addressed. I'm not sure if a WP:HISTMERGE is needed since this appears to be a copy-paste move, but it does look like Free Syrian 200 is the only major contributor to the sandbox so maybe one is not needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks. At first glance, I agree about no Histmerge, but before comparing the two articles in more detail, I want to see if Free Syrian 200 (talk · contribs) is able to use English (or even MT) well enough to interact on Talk pages. See my response at User talk:Free Syrian 200#Fadel Al-Aboud. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Australia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Last call for RSVPs for Wednesday evening[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
Wikimedia Community logo
WikiSalon attendees

Hey, folks.​ Reminder:​ Wednesday evening ​at 6 ​is the Bay Area WikiSalon series​.​


Details and RSVP here (note: we are meeting at the new WMF HQ at 120 Kearny Street!)

See you soon! Avik (User:Quantumavik), Lodewijk (User:Effeietsanders), Ben Creasy (User:Ben Creasy), Stephen (User:Slaporte), and Wayne (User:Checkingfax)
(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 70,000 Character Petition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Fixed Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Mathglot! You created a thread called What's the best venue to seek an uninvolved editor to assist explaining policy to a new user? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


Chaz Bono[edit]

I had to fix this. He initially came out as a lesbian. That wording is going to be confusing for many readers, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Tweaked here and here. Maybe "still" should be changed to "then." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "then." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oscar López Rivera[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oscar López Rivera. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Avetik Chalabyan article up for deletion[edit]

Hi Mathglot! About 2 years ago I wrote a biography of a living person article [Chalabyan]. The article has been recently marked as up for deletion. Any advice on why this might be happening, how to address it or what to improve would really be appreciated. Obviously, your vote as an experienced editor on Wiki would really go a long way to make sure it's not deleted.

Thanks in advance for your attention to the matter.

Alice Ananian (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing other contributors' comments[edit]

Greetings, Mathglot. Before closing the RfC about gender pronouns in the Albert Cashier article, I tried formatting the discussion so that readers can navigate through it easily and that meaning of views is not lost. It's typical for discussions to get out of hand in Wikipedia in terms of proper formatting, because we are often more interested in stating our point of view rather than how the statement fits on the page. You reverted the format-edit as being a violation of the WP:TPO guideline. I do not intend to change your revert but, as you should perhaps know, exceptions to the general rule about not touching other people's comments is allowed quite explicitly and specifically: Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, etc. Which is precisely what I did and all that I did. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: I went back there after getting your message, to re-examine it to see whether a self-revert was in order, but by that time you had already closed it. It’s moot, so no point examining the situation now, but you may have been right and allowing a little more time between leaving me the message and the Rfc closure would have perhaps permitted a better outcome. Oh well, better luck next time. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

SSM[edit]

What are you talking about? I haven't been "challenged on this per WP:V", there's been no comment at all. Just silent, idiotic edits. Do I really need to prove that England is a country, when that's already been established on the talk page? You could start with this.

(So ... what? The constituent countries of the UK are not countries, but the constituent countries of Denmark are countries? Do *you* have any source to back that up, since you're the one who wants to change the article to claim that?)

kwami (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xinjiang conflict[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xinjiang conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments at Talk:Sciences Po[edit]

Hi. I'm at work right now, and I won't be able to see to it. You may move what I wrote however you wish, just don't modify it. Be bold! :) Regards, Comte0 (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Comte0: Thanks, but there's no hurry, and unless you postively prefer me to do so, I'd rather wait till you have the time. For one thing, your comment sounded like a Support vote, but that would be changing things if I did it, so I'd rather you did anything of that nature. Still, if you prefer not to visit the page a second time, I'll move your comment unmodified if that is your wish. Just let me know your preference (and no need to respond to this again while at work; Face-wink.svg). Happy trails, Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Christianity and antisemitism‎[edit]

Hiya. Someone else already reverted your reversion at Christianity and antisemitism‎, but I just wanted to clarify that the "unsourced content" you mention was NOT added by me. I assume the two unsourced paragraphs which caught your eye were the ones that begin with

Throughout the 19th century and into the 20th, the Roman Catholic Church still incorporated strong antisemitic elements, despite increasing attempts to separate anti-Judaism (opposition to the Jewish religion on religious grounds) and racial antisemitism...

and

Pope Pius VII (1800–1823) had the walls of the Jewish ghetto in Rome rebuilt after the Jews were emancipated by Napoleon, and Jews were restricted to the ghetto through the end of the Papal States in 1870...

If you take a look at the previous versions, you'll see that both of those paragraphs were already included in the article. I rearranged their order so that the article flows more smoothly, but otherwise I left them unchanged.

All the other paragraphs which DO contain new content added by me are heavily sourced. Hope that clears up any confusion. Cheers. AbsoluteEgoist (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does AbsoluteEgoist, thanks and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Lodi Gyari[edit]

Hi Mathglot, Here is I think Lodi Gyari :

Le dalaï-lama arrivant à Zurich en 1973. Lodi Gyari est en arrière plan, à gauche.
Lodi Gyari arriving at Zurich airport in 1973.

--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks![edit]

Many thanks for the additions to the article "Crisis of the Late Middle Ages" and participation in the discussion of its translation into Russian. DarDar (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Transgender[edit]

Thanks for your message. So what's the process to have the phrasing amended from "the opposite of transgender is cisgender" to "the opposite of transgender is normal"?

And I don't mean it mockingly. I'm interested in the entire process, how do these changes get vetoed, what sources are considered reliable, what's the quorum, etc?

Many thanks, Fendergenderbender (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Photolab[edit]

Recursive camera icon-(02-3 4-2))-.png
Hello, Mathglot. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

PawełMM (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC).


You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Mathglot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

PC review accept comment[edit]

Heh, I was going to leave you a friendly reminder that your accept-comment advice regarding Angola wasn't visible anywhere except the Advanced review log, but I see now that you made the necessary enhancements to the citation yourself. Now that's dedication! All good, since I was already editing here I figured I'll take the opportunity to applaud the above-and-beyond review efforts. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

FeRDNYC Thanks. I'm not crazy about the current system of accept notices; imho, they all ought to go into the article itself, as a dummy edit with a full edit summary. Sometimes, there's some thing to say even in an accept that needs to be exposed at article level; and the current system, as you pointed out, doesn't do that. Anyway, your kind words are appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: they all ought to go into the article itself, as a dummy edit with a full edit summary *nod* Or even just tacked on to the accepted edit. I mean, if the history can show "[accepted by FeRDNYC]", surely it can show "[accepted by FeRDNYC with message Accept message]" or whatever. ...But, there are a lot of things I would change about how PC protection operates, and I suspect that's true for most reviewers. Hopefully it'll evolve and improve over time. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

OR at Roman diocese and editor adding it[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Roman Diocese[edit]

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)

Roman Diocese[edit]

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)

Roman Diocese[edit]

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.

Roman Diocese[edit]

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)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png 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)

Editing Shroud of Turin[edit]

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)

About the edit on the "LGBT" Rights in Sri Lanka[edit]

Dear @mathglot,

Why are you so resistant to the edits/new additions to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpwrites91 (talkcontribs) 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)

About the edit on List of constituencies of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly[edit]

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. WBGconverse 06:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Genderism Change[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)