User talk:Mathglot/Archive 14

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Union générale des israélites de France

Hi @Mathglot: I checked the clarification, its not a physical seperatation, although that was obviously part of it. The German placed a 1Billion Franc fine on them, just for existing really, to pay for the war, who knows, not got that far, but it looks like it was material seperation of physicals good, chatels, monies and so on, to pay the fine, which was the whole point of the organisation to try and negate the effect of German requests for separation. scope_creepTalk 09:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep:, thanks for your comment. I guessed right, the original in the JStor article is the French word matériellement. Here's the passage on page 86:

En ce qui concerne la France, les Nazis veulent appliquer le plan suivant : tous les Juifs se trouvant en France doivent sans aucune exception être arrêtés et déportés en Pologne pour subir le sort destiné aux Juifs de toute l'Europe. Pour réaliser ce projet, les Juifs devaient être isolés de la population française moralement et matériellement. On devaient mettre en place une législation antisémite comme en Allemagne.

and here's how I'd translate it:

As far as France was concerned, the Nazis wanted to implement the following plan: all Jews in France without exception were to be arrested and deported to Poland to suffer the fate envisaged for all European Jewry. In order to carry out this plan, Jews were to be isolated from the French population both morally, and phyically. Anti-Semitic legislation was to be implemented as was the case in Germany.

It's true that matériellement can be translated materially sometimes, maybe most of the time, but I don't think that's the right word in this context. Where do you make the connection between the fine or the despoliation of their goods, and the use of isolés... moralement et matériellement in this excerpt?
Another thing that sounds translated to me in the first sentence, is the word discovery; that obviously comes from découverte in French, but I can't find where it comes from in the journal article or the French Wikipedia article. Possibly it was placed there by a French speaker whose English isn't perfect. This wouldn't be discovery in this context in English, it's more like hunt down, track down, ferret out, search out, expose, etc. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Because there is several other references that states both morally and materially in English. in the context of Jews and France during the Vichy regime at that that time, and particularly for the majority of the time, the translations is not physically isolated, it is material isolation, the idea that everything they owned was taken. Another word could be used to denote it. More than that, its the two aspect of life, moral existence and the physical existence. Both were taken, not physical isolation because that came later.Peter Hayes (1 April 2015). How Was It Possible?: A Holocaust Reader. U of Nebraska Press. p. 347. ISBN 978-0-8032-7469-3. There is more of these types of refs. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep:, Hmm... interesting. Materially isolated just doesn't sound right to me as a native speaker, to denote someone whose possessions were taken. It's an odd way to get that idea across. If that's what the sources say and mean by that expression, then we should use it, but it sure sounds like a mistranslation of isolé matériellement to me.
If you search only the expression, you get a bunch of unrelated science links. If you add "Vichy", you get one result, with the (to me) odd meaning. If you add "France" instead of "Vichy" you get lots of unrelated results, but also this one, which definitely has the mistranslation (on p. 77); it should say, "American universities, physically isolated around their campus...", not "materially isolated". It didn't surprise me that the first name of the author is "Georges".
Do you have links to those other sources as well? Sometimes, one has to watch the sources and look for more to get a sense of how the majority of English sources do it. Sometimes, even the majority of sources fall into a false friend or literal-translation trap, and then we have no choice but to use the "wrong", literal translation, (imho, Questions juives ⟶ "Jewish Questions" vs. "Jewish Affairs" is one of those), because of WP:RS and WP:DUE. It still grates somewhat when we have to do that, but our role as editors here is clear: we're not here to "correct the record", but strictly to summarize what the sources say. I made my peace with that a long time ago, but when you see a too-literal translation it's like a book with a typo in it; it's annoying, but there's nothing you can do about it. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Yip. I'll post them up. Take a look at the rest please as I work along it. That was a excellent update to lede, although I usually leave it to the end, so I can format it better, but it is now much better than the French article. I didn't understand the lede in the French article, it made no sense. scope_creepTalk 08:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hah, we managed to get this far without adding a link to the article we're talking about! So, just adding this for convenience: Union générale des israélites de France. (Also linked the section title, which is easier to find.) Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Union générale des israélites de France

@Mathglot: Why the hell did you change change the references from Harvard format? Now the sfn links don't work. It is simply not done to change the references after the article has been created. It is expressly forbidden per policy. Now it is a simple bibliography, which is unacceptable. I'm seriosly thinking about reverting all your changes. scope_creepTalk 11:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Relax, it was probably an oversight; I'll fix it. Mathglot (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep:, you mean, sfn refs 1-7, 17, 22, and 23? I just clicked all of them, and they work here. Can you tell me exactly which reference doesn't work for you, please? Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Its supposed to click into the citation first, not the bib, as you have removed the harv tag. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep:, Checking... Mathglot (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep:, So, can you tell me which footnote is not working, because when I try, they all seem to work. For example, starting at the top, in the lead: at the end of the first paragraph, there is "from the rest of the French population[1]", and when I click the '[1]', it goes to "1. ^ Ayoun & Bennett 2005, pp. 85-103." in the "Citations" section. If I click the "Ayoun & Bennett" part of it, then it goes to "Ayoun, Richard; Bennett, Ofra (2005). "אהרון אפלפלד באיטליה / Les allemands et l'union générale des israélites de France" [The Germans and the General Union of Israelites in France]. Revue Européenne des Études Hébraïques (in French). Institut Europeén d'Études He'braiques. 11. JSTOR 23492924" in the "Bibliography" section. I checked all the other ones in the lead ([2] through [6]) and they all go first to the citation, then after a second click, to the Bibliography. Which one is not working for you, please? Mathglot (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep:, anything? I have to go to sleep soon, but if you respond after I do please don't revert everything I did, as there are several new sources added, and also a bunch of red links are now connected to French sources via the {{ill}}. Whatever the problem is, I'll fix it first thing. Just point me to the problem, so I can look at it even if you're not around when I am. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
So, I'm out, for now; leave me some bread crumbs for tomorrow. Ta, Mathglot (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Forgot it about. I'd put it in twice, not doing it a third time. I spent hour and half on it, late last night. It is a pain to setup, particularly in a big article, which I think its going to end up and a pain to maintain. There is no point wasting anybody else's time. scope_creepTalk 12:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep:, all sfn linkages appear to be still working. If you meant, it's a pain setting up bibliographies with sfn's, I think one of the best things about it is that after you convert all your in-line references into sfn+bibliography cite, the sfn's are so much shorter and it's much easier to find stuff in the body wikicode; I'm guessing that's what you like about them, too. You only have to do it once, and then it's easy to maintain, but I know what you mean for the initial set-up. Those new references I added (four or five, I think) can be moved from in-line <ref>'s into the bibliography as well. I'll go ahead and do that, unless you object. Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. Excellent copyedit. scope_creepTalk 21:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I went off the handle yesterday. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep:, No worries; I appreciate your saying that. We're living with this crazy reality, and then there's individual RL; we all have our days. You and I have obvious common interests, and should make a great team on other articles, too. Hit me up anytime. Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

French Revolution hey ho

I've tried to avoid getting overly involved in the TP carousel - at the moment, I'm focusing on updating the article content, since in theory the Lede should be a summary; hence, if its not in the body, shouldn't be in the Lede.

Have a look at the section on 'Creating a new constitution' which covers this issue. After writing it (having done quite a lot of research), I thought 'Am I including this because its central to the article? Or just to placate the loonies?' Not entirely sure but I am sure it doesn't need to be in the Lede.

Gwhilickers has form for pointless nitpicking (take a look at the 'Belligerents' discussion on the American Revolutionary War TP, but as for 02110x...As I mentioned to one of the arbitrators over a week ago, I'm genuinely concerned there's something more going on than a simple insistence on getting their way (there's plenty of people who do that). I've never seen anything like this and it might be in his best own interest to be barred, at least for a while. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11:, hmm, I responded to this yesterday, or so I thought; evidently it never got saved, and when I closed up shop for the night, that was that. I'll have to get back to you on this. I don't disagree, but it deserves a more cogent response than that. Hit me up if I forget to get back to you in a few days. Btw, did you see the "redux" section at the bottom of FR Talk? Robert McC is once again stepping up to offer services (in response to my request, following up on the "strong encouragement" at the ANI closure) for DR—if we want it. I think there's a minimum quorum of 3 required for DR to go forward; Robert counts 2 in favor so far, I count only 1. Don't feel you have to respond there, but if you hadn't seen it at all, I didn't want you to miss out just because you didn't know about it. Tty soon. Oh, and regarding 02110x, you got your wish (and I agree with you, and the result). Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Joined. Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

Political advocacy in usernames is not allowed, and we routinely block such names on sight per WP:DISRUPTNAME. That being the case I have blocked that user and removed the RFCN, if you see something like that in the future you can report it at WP:UAA. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox:, thanks for taking care of TrumpwillwinFlorida (talk · contribs). I actually found WP:UAA first, and felt waved off by the statement about "blatant and serious violations of the username policy requiring an immediate block" and wasn't sure it qualified per WP:U, so opted for point 5 ("less serious; discuss"), and ended up at WP:RFCN. Looking at WP:DISRUPTNAME, it didn't look obvious and clear to me that this even fit that case, much less the stricter UAA one. As a regular, you've probably internalized the intent behind the words at WP:U and know the history of what kind of thing does or doesn't qualify, but as a UAA/RFCN-newbie (but a 14-year editor) take my word for it, it isn't that clear. A set of examples might help, or even an "explanatory supplement" page with a more expansive explanation, and a bunch of examples in the "meets the criteria for block" / "doesn't meet" categories might help editors like me make the right choice, without having to bother the regulars. At a minimum, like the longish section at MOS:LEAD#Avoid these common mistakes, or perhaps even better, like the RS vs. DUE supplement page WP:RSUW. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that this was super obvious. It isn't. There's a lot of nuance that isn't explicitly spelled out in the official rules. I think your idea of a supplemental page is decent one. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

French Revolution RFC

I am replying here, because I failed the DRN. It appears that User:Gwillhickers was acting in confused good faith to try to improve the RFC. I saw your request to unscramble it immediately after I think I have unscrambled it. I hope that this works this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I hope so, too! Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Notices of French Revolution RFC

Thank you for posting the neutrally worded notices of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Union générale des israélites de France

Hi @Mathglot: How goes it? I was reading up on that absurd question about including Americans as a cause of the French revolution. In the lede no less!!. Its got to be the most absurd statement I've read all year. I hope I didn't put you off the General Union of Israelites. scope_creepTalk 14:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep:, No worries; we're good. Just waiting for things to settle at UGIF, and I'll move those three or four references I added, into the bibliography and add {{sfn}}s for them. Thanks for your encouragement about the French Revolution; I agree, 'absurd' is a pretty good word for it. Mathglot (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Not wrapping Rfc tags

@Redrose64: thanks for this fix at Talk:Chameria, about not placing {{rfc}} within <nowiki> tags (or html comments). I always assumed <nowiki> was the universal escape, but I guess not. Learn something new every day. Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, as someone who programs, it's a bit offensive to my sensibilities that a program like Legobot wouldn't handle that case. There must be a library routine in mediawiki software somewhere, that strips comments, undoes stuff between <nowiki> tags and so on, or rendered Talk pages wouldn't work. Why can't Legobot just call that? Can't be that hard. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't maintain (or even run) Legobot. However, during the last five years or so, I have been observing how it operates regarding RfCs, and when problems occur (as here) I am now able to understand why, trace the problem back (in this case, to this edit) and fix that instance so that it doesn't persist. WP:RFCEND and Template:Rfc#Usage both warn against using nowiki tags, because Legobot ignores them; it looks for two opening braces followed by the letters "rfc", case-insensitive. When it finds those five characters together, it assumes that it is the beginning of an open RfC and starts processing the text that follows, up to the next valid timestamp. By inserting the four characters tlx| I split up that five-character sequence so that it is no longer detected as an open RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: yes, I'm aware you have no connection with the bot, and I saw exactly how you fixed it; thanks again for your sleuthing and fix. Yes, it's true that users are waved off of using <nowiki> tags around it in two places, which is of course a weak stop-gap at best (like a book with a printed Errata page at the back), because most people (like this 14-year editor) who use Rfcs regularly, will never have noticed that. The real problem is the poorly coded bot that allows such errors to happen in the first place. I do appreciate your fix, I'd just like to, ideally, press for change at the bot, and failing that, since the failing pattern is easy to recognize, and maybe we should just add a line to the regexes at AWB and let AWB users fix it during their runs. I don't mess with bots; maybe there's another one that runs off regexes and could apply it completely automatically, unlike AWB which requires an operator. Either one should free you up from having to do the sleuthing manually. (Btw, I'm crackerjack at regexes, if you're already finding these problems with AWB, and need one written.) Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
You already found something that works, so you won't need these, but in the spirit of "there's always more than one way to do it", you could do: {{Not a typo|rf|c}} (or {{Typo|rf|c}}, or even {{sic|hide=y|rf|c}}) which should also work, as should rf&#x063; which renders as: rfc. Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you reverted my edit?

  • Theirself* is used as an alternative to *themself* by some. I thought this would be important information to include. Cameron.coombe (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cameron.coombe:, assuming this is in regard to this edit of yours to Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns. (In future, please include a link when communicating with an editor on their Talk page about an article; for example, I didn't recognize what you were talking about, and had to go hunt it down.)
The reason for the revert, as mentioned in the edit summary, was that you did not include a source as required by Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. Instead, you inserted it into a list of items that were previously sourced, making your addition to appear to be sourced by that reference. Theirself is certainly non-standard, even in sources that would accept themself. Don't forget, that English Wikipedia is read by people all around the world, and might assume that theirself was standard English. At the very least, even if it *is* included with a citation, it would be better for it to be in a section of the article that made it clear it is not part of the standard language. Does that make sense? Mathglot (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Translating

Hi, thank you for offering help! I am very new to wikipedia, still trying to wrap my head around things here. I guess my easiest option to start contributing would be translations. As I am fairly good at it. I am fluent in English and Russian and have B2 level of French and Spanish. So I have found a few lists of articles that need translation, but I am not sure I can get a whole article done at once. Is it ok to publish them in parts? LoraxJr 12:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@LoraxJr: the best way to do it, is to use the Draft WP:NAMESPACE for your article, and develop it there. You can look at some of the articles there to get an idea, with this search query.
There are two more approaches which I use, which work well if the source article is middling in size, or longer.
  1. Instead of translating section by section, doing each one completely before starting the next one, translate the section headers to create your organizational structure in English, add {{Empty section}} under each section header, and then translate only the first sentence or two from each section in the original, replacing the "Empty section" (which will be like a flag, showing you how much is left). The first sentence in each section the original, *should be* a kind of summary of the rest of the section, so leaving out the rest of the section may not matter, at least at first.
  2. Translate only the lead, but translate it fully.
In either of those approaches, you will have to include some citations to reliable sources, which the source article should already have, if it was written properly. If they are not on the first sentence in the section (approach 1) or in the lead (#2), then you might have to look through the article to find an appropriate reference for the part you are translating. Once you have an article with three citations to reliable sources, if it's Notable, you can publish it. If it is not a complete translation, please add {{Expand Russian|Название русскоязычной статьи}} to the top of the page.
Before you start translating anything, do two things:
  1. Very that the article doesn't already exist on en-wiki, or you will be wasting your time. It may be under a different name, a different spelling than normal transliteration, or it might be a part of another article that already exists, so make sure you search for it (Example).
  2. Make sure the article topic is WP:NOTABLE. This has a specific meaning at Wikipedia; read the page at the link. If you translate an article whose topic is not notable, the article will be deleted, no matter how much time you spend on it or improve it.
I also have a model of a "Draft article" in a text file; you could use it, if you want, as a starting point. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! This absolutely helps! I will try both approaches to see which one is more convenient. LoraxJr 20:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

And another unrelated to translation question. I am not very good with scripts, but I read that it is possible to insert java scripts into the common.js page to make discussions on talk pages easier. But the code I tried does not seem to be working. Is there a place where should look for options on that? Thank you! LoraxJr 12:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@LoraxJr:, yes, you should start on the Talk page of the person who wrote or maintains the script. Only if you've tried that, and had no success after waiting several days or a week, should you then try another venue, perhaps WP:VPT for example. Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I will try another one, thank you! LoraxJr 20:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. For the record, I was not reporting anyone or requesting any specific action. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

A Google search data matter

Hi, Mathglot. Editors could use your analysis at Talk:Yaoi#Requested move 8 November 2020. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, sorry I didn't get to this in time. I think I was thinking about the Rfc 30-day countdown, and thought I had more time. Also, I've been distracted from my regular stuff, with all the brouhaha mostly at Talk:French Revolution, but also Talk:Queer theory and elsewhere. Anyway, now I'm looking forward to getting back to my Drafts.
I *did* make a start on the Yaoi/BL issue, gathering ngrams and noting the absurdity of the huge hit counts, as well as my standard commentary about formulating meaningful queries and analyzing them properly and such but I suppose that's all moot now. One of the "interpretation" errors, was the fact that "boys love" is an English expression that may come up in other contexts in English sources, whereas "yaoi" is extremely unlikely to; an ngram plot going back to 1800 proves the point. They both started to ramp up post-1980, but the second graph plot for BL has to be biased downwards by the average level it had prior to 1980 to exclude all the non-manga contexts; I had those graphs since day one and maybe should've just published them then, but I was dilly-dallying around, coming back to it now and again while busy with my other stuff, while trying to build a case including the phony hit counts, which unfortunately never got finished in time.
Sorry about this; I feel a bit overwhelmed with other things on my outstanding "To-do" list which never seems to get past item #1 or 2, while new items keep getting added faster than I can deal with old ones, and then the priorities get reshuffled. I'm sure you've been there. Keep asking me anyway; and feel free to nudge me, if there's a deadline coming up and it's been crickets on my side; in that case, I could just whip something up quickly next time. <apologetic/embarrassed-face emoji> Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Either way, I appreciate you looking into this. At the talk page, I noted what data you did gather. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Template test

template test

This template test cannot be performed from sandbox because of auto-cat exclusion: 

{{subst:Dashboard.wikiedu.org welcome/sandbox|name=T'Pol}}
Welcome to Wiki Education

Hello, Mathglot, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is T'Pol and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Additional Resources
  • You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Expected: page is autocategorized (don't forget to undo it).

Result: no categorization. (This was rev. 990082876‎ of the sandbox.)

Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Retry, using rev 990093692‎: 

{{subst:Dashboard.wikiedu.org welcome/sandbox|name=Seven of Nine}}
Welcome to Wiki Education

Hello, Mathglot, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Seven of Nine and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Additional Resources
  • You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


Result:

Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Would you weigh in?

I'm trying to do some discussion and consensus-building on Talk:Gender reveal party. I've seen you wade into some pretty contentious articles, especially regarding gender-related matters. You're pretty neutral when it comes to things. So I would like to ask you to weigh in, given the only current discussion is between myself and an editor with whom I am in mild dispute. They have also said some things of which I am wary which leans against my good faith, so I ask for yours to be added into the mix. Thank you for your time. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gwenhope:, sure, I'd be happy to. Let me take a look at it, and I'll get back to you there in a while. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop Being a Boomer

On the page Bishop Kearney High School (Irondequoit, New York) you removed my edits as you say they are not sourced. However - if you clicked on the individuals I added to "Notable alumni," you'd see they are already mostly sourced. For instance, if you visit the pages for Quinton Rose, Nahziah Carter, Rene Ingoglia, Tom Keegan or used a simple Google Search, you would see these individuals have been sourced on Wikipedia. There are so many Wikipedia pages that have clearly false information - yet THIS is what your worried about? Peace. --2604:6000:6F43:4100:598C:FB44:319B:D1C3 (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand you're upset, however we need to try to be WP:CIVIL here. Mathglot is an established editor. If you wish to clarify or discuss disputed or contentious edits, the article talk page is perfect. Correcting incorrect information is everyone's job here on the wiki, and we thank you for wanting to do that, but let's cool down and be a little kinder, discuss these things, and reach consensus first. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
IP 2604: replied to you at your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Clashes_of_policies

Do you have any comment on the discussion I created?DeathTrain (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that you never commented on the discussion. DeathTrain (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@DeathTrain: Hunh, you're right, I guess I never did. And now I don't see it at that link; must've been archived already. Mathglot (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Here it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_161#Clashes_of_policies Do you have any comment now that it is has been archived?DeathTrain (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
So I guess you don't. --DeathTrain (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Re RfC responses to date – day two

Hey:

(1) Thanks for the comment at the RfC on the American Revolutionary War. Four other editors have mentioned that there is too much packed into the RfC as presented.
- Conclusion: If participation is not more responsive over the next two weeks, say by December 20, I’ll circle back around to this some time in February after soliciting more input and guidance.
- imho, the scope for the article ARW needs to be clearly defined with a title that means that scope as sourced to (a) a scholarly reference source, and (b) with prominent adherents, like wp says, and no more, “precise scope”, wp says.
(2) One proven friend editor actually suggested I’m wp:bludgeoning!
- Conclusion: Until December 10, no more from me on the RfC, other than maybe updating new discussion points. -- wp:guidelines say, “pause”, so be it.
(3) The query is, “Which title to choose to define the scope of the article?” Easily half-a-dozen editors in the first two days replied essentially, “The name is the name.”
- Conclusion: They cannot ALL be wrong. I’ve misfired on my RfC composition here, clearly.
(4) One editor reported seeing no connection between the RfC as to choosing scope & title, but it was my intent that the discussion box provide the two titles and their respective scopes.
- Conclusion: Somehow the information in the boxes was not conveyed, not at all, in some cases.
(5) Two editors did get my drift, but to my amazement, he denied there was any difference between the two historiographies, “they are the same”, that is, in American historiography, siege Gibraltar = siege Yorktown, and port Savannah, Georgia = port Trincomalee, Ceylon - in their relative weights and importance to the American history of the Revolutionary War. – No joke.
- Conclusion: back to the drawing boards without a turnaround in the RfC responses by December 20.
Any observations and suggestions you may have for the February trial would be welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Hi; not ignoring you, just oversubscribed. I will think about this, and get back to you with my thoughts on how it might work better in February (although May might be better; but we can talk about that, too). I'm notoriously forgetful; if you hear nothing by a week or so, please ping me again. Cheers! Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Mathglot, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Template:Ill

Hi Mathglot, thanks for this improvement. You don't by any chance know if a pipe can be used inside an Ill template? I wanted to pipe 'Arno David Klarsfeld' to de:Arno Klarsfeld just so his middle name would be included, but it didn't seem to work. I also wonder if creation of a red link could be avoided, but I suppose that is part of the design. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to Jonesey95 for the tip and the update. EdJohnston, depending what you think the en-wiki article should be called, you could also do it this way:
{{ill|Arno David Klarsfeld|de|Arno Klarsfeld|fr|Arno Klarsfeld}}
but that is both wordier, and it seems unlikely we'd want to call it that, so Jonesy95's solution is better.
About the red link, two points:
  • Red links are generally a good thing, within reason. If you want to avoid that, I suppose you could roll your own no-red "ill", thus:
    ...and one son, Arno Klarsfeld [de; fr]...
  • You can have a valid circular blue link under one condition, i.e. in the case where you have a permitted circular redirect for a topic. So in the case of Arno Klarsfeld, you could reasonably create a redirect with possibilities to a section of the Serge or Beate article. (And you can even link the redirect page itself via Wikidata to fr- and de-wiki as for Paul Sézille, though it's a squirrely process to do it.) But you can't have an {{ill}} link that goes blue without being a redirect *and* have the [fr] and [de] interwiki links at the same time, because as soon as an article is created on en-wiki for the red link, the interwikis get suppressed by the template. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Proofreeading

I nearly corrected the spelling and realized just in time that was probably the point. Largoplazo (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Lol, no, that was unintentional, but I can see why you thought that! (Had I wanted it that way, I would have coded {{as written|proofreeading}} instead.) Thanks for catching it! Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This makes my evening, thanks! Largoplazo (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Mathglot, thank you for your help and time, which is much appreciated here. Best wishes and happy holidays! --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Mathglot, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. 

scope_creepTalk 11:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

Hello Mathglot!

You deleted some of my changes because sources or quotations were missing. I have always tried to act according to the sources. In the case of Europe, I have not cited any sources because the article itself almost never cites footnotes. I didn't do it at Schneeberg because I had the info from the German wiki and was there myself once. At Paneuropean Picnic I checked the sources myself and actually only sorted the horrible previous article so that it was legible. I know a large part of the sources on the opening of the Wall because I had to write a paper on them. I also thought that simple sentences that just make the article easier to read and just lead it over are okay. In any case, I didn't want to do anything wrong - it's a shame that the work at Paneuropa Picnick with sorting was in vain.

Kind regards - great that there is wiki - and thanks for the hint!

Schi11, 13:45, 30.12.2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schi11 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Schi11:, Responded at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Mathglot/Archive_14"