User talk:Mathglot/Archive 5

See the PBS documentary "How a new generation is reviving the old heart of Tunis"^[1] for a story about how the city of Tunis is documenting their city and preserving their hertiage and adding information to Wikipedia via the MedinaPedia project.^[2]

Hello, I have removed the BLP prod tag you placed on Annett Renneberg because it has at least one source in the external links. The bar for removal of a BLP prod tag is pretty low (for example the sources don't necessarily have to be reliable), and I wouldn't oppose a regular prod or AfD on this article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I struck part of my comment above after another re-read of the BLP prod policy. The standards for initial placement of the tag and removal of the tag are different. The tag can be added only if there are no sources, reliable or otherwise, that verify something in the article; however, it can only be removed in the presence of a reliable source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, KuyaBriBri; I wasn't aware of the slight distinction in criteria between addition and removal, so that's good to know. In the meantime, someone else has restored the tag, and I thought criteria for that were pretty strict (socks, etc.) but they gave a rationale and I won't fight it, either way. Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me about this, and happy editing. Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I checked the first two articles, they are fine. I have no more time for this. Misibacsi (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Misibacsi: Thank you! Mathglot (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a call on Saturday that my mother was very ill and not expected to live till morning so I jumped on a plane to Victoria. She's actually rallied a bit, but is still definitely terminal, and this is only about six weeks after my father died, so other family members are not only shocked but already mourning him. Bottom line, this is where I have been/am now, but I do have internet access this trip and likely will be able to work on this tonight. I have not yet read all of your messages, but briefly, yes, there are some articles I worked on but did not strike. Some I was thinking about and it was still early in this process. I do trust your judgement on the whole and you seem to be striking or not and pinging me either way if I am in the history, which is good. Back later, need to deal with some domesticness. Elinruby (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, that's so sad and difficult. Real life takes priority, take care of what you need to, and don't worry about this little project, it'll be fine. If it takes your mind off things to come back here and mess around a bit, then by all means do, but please don't feel any sense of obligation about it. I really appreciate your taking the time to let me know what's going on at such a difficult time. My thoughts are with you; virtual hugs, and take care. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Yes, I will help with the reviews. I will start with the samples you provided. Is there a timeline or so?

--Mervat Salman (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! As you've asked me if I can asses the translations of articles from Romanian to English, I'd like to know how to do this properly, moreover, I'd like to know if there are any guidelines so the assessments are as accurate as possible. Thanks :).Justfun23 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Justfun23! Fair question, and I'm not aware of any guidelines for this. As this is for a very specific purpose, namely, assessing quality of translations created by users using the Content Translation tool, the task is narrower than the general question of what constitutes a good translation. For this narrow task, we only care that whatever the English article says, is a faithful translation of the Romanian, as far as the facts are concerned, and by "facts" we mean whatever was in the original article. We don't care about notability, verifiability, or truth, for this task. Also, I wouldn't sweat too much on being "as accurate as possible": we're not assessing if the article is accurate, but if the translation is. Here's what we're afraid of: that a monolingual English user used Google translate with no clue what the original said, and thinks that as long as they smooth out the English afterward, then it's a good translation. We both know that's not the case, as it can mangle the facts, and a monolingual won't see that, they'll only see the quality of the English, and decide whether it's "good" based on that. As a native speaker, if you put the two articles side-by-side, you'll probably get a feel for whether it's just machine translation that's been whitewashed with some good English on top, or whether it's actually a translation by someone that knows what they are doing.

Oh, also: the English article needn't be complete; if it is only 10% of the original article, and that 10% is a faithful translation of some part of the original, then that's still a PASS because the translation, as far as it goes, is accurate. If you have the time to add a comment like, "good, but lacking 90% of the original," that would be helpful, but it isn't strictly necessary. Does that clear it up for you? Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I will try to fix and pass the pages you suggested. If there are more pages like them, let me know.

Gav1991 (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

First one of these translations from Romanian I've encountered that's got serious problems. It's a reasonably accurate translation, but of a poor article about someone who deserves a better one. See my remarks at Talk:Filaret Barbu.

I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki these days, so if you want to discuss further please ping me or use {{talkback}} on my user talk page. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Will do; thanks, Jmabel! I look forward to working with you. Mathglot (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this edit, as I'd half-remembered seeing someone post a ready-made query to find CXT edits that overwrote their article instead of creating a new one. (I'm not sure whether it's still out there and I didn't find it, or if it was your edit there; and writing my own turned out to be easy enough.) In any case, access to Quarry is as easy as going to https://quarry.wmflabs.org, clicking the big blue "Login with Wikimedia" button, and clicking "Allow" when it redirects you to meta to authorize it. Schema's at mediawikiwiki:Manual:Database layout, but see also wikitech:Help:MySQL queries#Alternative Views for tables where the indices don't get clobbered by the need to redact deleted or oversighted revisions. —Cryptic 10:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Cryptic, wow! I didn't know this, thanks! The only problem now, is whether there's enough time left to take advantage of it; I wish I'd known this a couple of months ago. Plus I'm so busy with trying to find editors for Asian and other queries, as Elinruby suggested. I'll see if I can come up with something, if I can find a minute. Mathglot (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
Currently, I am working on a draft about an american actress. As of now, she doesnt have an article on enwiki, but she has an article on spanish wiki (es.wiki). I got stuck only on awards section. Here are the words that I need to be translated:

"Año", "Ceremonia", "Resultado", "Premio", "Trabajo".

Kindly note that these words are the headings of the award sections. Upon using google translate I am getting odd results. Any help would be appriciated a lot. Kindly ping me when replying. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Looks to me like you've already translated them just fine. I checked Google, and it did a fine job on these five words, as well. Can you describe what odd results were you seeing, or what it was that caused you some doubt? Mathglot (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I got the reference from another pornstar's article. Draft talk:Anna Bell Peaks#Awards section. Unfortunately, as discussed on the talkpage, this is going to be my third draft not going in the mainspace/article space. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ano was fine, year. Ceremonia showed as "ritual", but I made a guess that it would be "ceremony". Resulatado showed "consequence", but I again made a guess that it must be result. It was actually Premio, and Trabajo that I first translated, as the first three were quite obvious. Primio was translated as "premium", and Trabajo came up as "toil". Because of these, I translated other words, and that made me doubt the Google translate lol. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I took a look at the talk page you linked to. It looks like the problem with the article has nothing to do with translation. Do you understand what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is trying to tell you about the article, and how to reduce the risk of your drafts not going into mainspace afterwards?

As for the translations: that's not at all what I see when I use Google translate for those words; it gets all of them right. However, in general, you'll do right by doubting Google translate; if you don't speak Spanish at all, I'd steer clear of trying to work on these. Mathglot (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

erm... I am not sure what you said lol. Here is what I know/think:

1. There is no connection between the translation, and the quality of the draft/article.
2. The article will not survive cuz it fails GNG, and WP:PORNBIO.
   On the other note, I think google translate works similar to all other google products: giving the user results based on their previous searches/activities. Currently web's greatest stalker is fb, then its google. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mathglot! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)
For more information about Wiki Loves Pride: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride.

(This is in response to my request here.)

Hey Mathglot, I have read your request for my evaluation of the three translations of English articles from the Chinese articles. I have evaluated the three articles and marked the first two as  Pass and the last one ✗ Fail. The reason being there were a lot newly added information to the translated page and some parts from the original one that's missing(especially in the synopsis). There were many sections missing from the Chinese page but is filled in the English page, which I don't think is a problem. However I suggest you to check if all sources in the English page are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarSong (talk • contribs) 00:34 04 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Matgglot. I would love to help out for more — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarSong (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(This is in response to my request here.)

I can try, but I don't have much time except for weekends, so it'll be a slow process.--little Alex (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just found your comments User_talk:Ettrig#Please_stop_repositioning_language_templates_immediately here. I came across this edit on my watchlist, and looked for guidance at WP:ORDER but found nothing - have added a note at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Position_of_.7B.7BExpand_French.7D.7D_etc. PamD 08:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @PamD: In the note that you added at MOS:Layout pinging Ettrig, where you quoted what the documentation at Expand French says about positioning of the template, you realize you are quoting Ettrig's own words back to him, that he added to that template? That was an alteration he made, seemingly in preparation for the subsequent moves of hundreds of language templates to his position of preference.

I don't know that I necessarily have a position what the right position of that template is. I may even end up agreeing with Ettrig (or not) but forcing the issue through unilateral action, both in altering many articles to his preference, and the doc to match, seems disingenuous at the very least.

I held off reverting Etrig's doc change because he announced on his talk page that he would be away for a month, and I did not want the appearance of acting behind his back. But now that he is back, I will likely revert that edit, and wait to see if there is a change in the existing consensus that would support his change.

My own position at this point, is weak support for the template at the top, but in an altered format that would reduce its vertical height to the equivalent of a {{Refimprove}} or similar. Much of the boilerplate in the Expand Language template is completely unnecessary and should be removed. Secondarily, I don't support Ettrig's claim that it "marks an opportunity, not a fault," because in fact translation introduces the possibility of factual error, and to me, an Expand Language template is a big fat red warning flag, saying, "Warning: material ahead, including sourced material with references (!) may be factually incorrect because it is translated." That is not the primary intent of the Expand Language template, but it is definitely a secondary effect of it, and most editors, I suspect, (including myself) will not place both a {{Expand French}} and {{Rough translation}} on the same article (although logically, maybe we should); at least, I don't recall seeing both of those templates on any one article. So, in reality, the "Expand" series of templates aren't just indicators of opportunity, in fact, they are warnings about verifiability. If that view gains consensus, then they should remain at the top (in reduced form) to match other, similar warnings. I may change my opinion the template placement, as more facts emerge, but that's my current feeling having been heavily involved in a number of translation-related articles and issues, and having viewed or edited many translated articles, and translated some myself. See for example, WP:PNT and WP:CXT/PTR, where I contribute a good deal, as well as WP:CXT/PTR/Clobbers and WP:CXT/PTR/BL where I am lead contributor.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mathglot (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

hi, i finished the assignment. if there are other articles, i'll be happy to help. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I can help! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 18:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If you get a chance can you check on the people I invited last night? It looks like we're going to be doing this for a while yet, just out of draft space?. Elinruby (talk)

Yes, I'll be happy to check on them. I'm just a little scatter-brained right now, so remind me in a day or so. Yep, looks like we'll just be doing it out of draft space. I'm kind of excited about this whole editor recruitment thing. It also occurs to me, that some of the monolinguals who enjoy hanging out at WP:PNT or even CXT/PTR would be perfect volunteers to help on this, because you don't need to know Chinese to speak to a Chinese-English translator. So if we could 10 more people helping us invite translators, that would really leverage our efforts.

Anyway, go take a break. You really deserve it. We'll be fine, come back when you're refreshed. @Elinruby: Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You'd be very welcome at WP:PNT; hope you stop by. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 1:36 am, 11 April 2017, Tuesday (1 month, 26 days ago) (UTC−5)

Thanks for seeing my work and for the invite, life outside Wikipedia has gotten quite busy lately. Once things slow down I may take you up on your offer. Cheers.Dig _deeper ^talk 13:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(Note to self: In reference to a note about a good translation at User talk:Dig deeper#Tours Amphitheatre.) Mathglot (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I need to starting getting myself back up to Canada and have major triage to do first so I am going to stop obsessing over that list, although I crossed off a couple of perfectly respectable African BLPs just yesterday that needed only the mildest of copyedits.... Can you update the lists etc if you get a chance -- also I have someone named Rui_Gabriel_Correia (pt-5, en-5) who seems interested and isn't in the lists yet. On Dilma Rousseff perhaps the answer I just gave to Saturnalia0 gives you an end of the string where you can start unravelling? Alternately, the Michel Temer proceedings have breaking news and updating that should be a place to start. Let me see if I can formulate a TL;DR summary -- Eduardo Cunha procedurally had a choice of whether to accept an impeachment petition. Rousseff said he did so because she refused to block an investigation into his corruption charges. She said the impeachment was intended to let the kickbacks continue. The economy tanked and there were protests. She was impeached. Cunha is now in jail, many investigations still ongoing. Rousseff still not accused of corruption, just a somewhat arcane violation of the budget law. Elinruby (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: By pure coincidence, I made three edits to Dilma, and added a new section on Talk:Dilma in the last few minutes, didn't know if you were writing now cuz of that or not. I've interacted with Rui before, can't remember where, but maybe we should recruit him (or others) to Dilma, now that we have some experience with the recruitment procedure from PTR/BL. I'll look at your response to Saturnalia0 and see what I can do. Relax, disconnect, don't think about WP, come back refreshed. Mathglot (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I'm off as of now till Saturday late. I'll check in on my phone to answer any pings and see how things are going, but I can't do any recruiting or results collation while I'm out. Hope you have a good break, too. Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, I examined the two articles that you mentioned in your communication to me. However I am not familiar with the templates that you suggested, and at the moment am too busy to start learning how to use them. My recommendations are: Fail for Markus Dürager, Pass for Matthias Berking. If you are happy with this method of communication, I can carry out further verifications for you. Hohenloh ⁺ 16:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I am starting to follow up on some things now: You asked me why I struck this one. In general I tend to want to keep articles about cultural practices, although I grant you that the translation is pretty bad and I don't speak Polish. The one Polish speaker I got an answer from (kind of an authority on the military history I am told) passed all five of his articles and said the process was a waste of time. I told him I mostly agreed but it was not my idea. Possibly I'll be able to interest him in this one, which is er, definitely not a pass. But. I am vaguely interested in the topic, is why. On the other hand I myself cannot fix the article. This update is fyi and does not require a replay unless you really really wanna. I'll try to come back and add the number of the article on the list in case you want to look. Elinruby (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC) It's 1039 Elinruby (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, User:Elinruby, I've always been in favor of anyone being able to strike an item, with the promise of "adopting" it and promising to take care of it after the temp X2 period is over. I think I've done that with a couple of Catalan ones maybe. So, that goes equally for this one: just add a comment at #1039, "I'm adopting this one" and strike it. If you don't speak Polish, you'll have to find allies to fix it up, and since we don't know how long that might take, I would say the best compromise solution is to move it to your user draft space and invite the Polish translators to fix it up there. Or, move it there now, and then you don't have to give an explanation at the item.

Btw: if the Polish translator passed all five of his articles, that's definitely not a waste of time to the project, although he might not have liked the task. That's five more articles that don't have to be struck for X2. I see what we are doing as protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia: just look at all the articles in the scientific and mainstream press trying to tear it down for inaccuracy and other reasons. So not allowing junk translations into the encyclopedia is a very valuable task, and I appreciate the time that you and everyone has put in. That doesn't always mean it's a fun task, but it's definitely a valuable one.

So, back to Prayers for Prisoners Day: if you want it, please either strike #1039 and leave a note about adoption, or just move it to your user drafts and then you don't have to give an explanation as it won't be there to be nuked. Mathglot (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever...I'll do something. Maybe. I am not passionate about this article; was just answering the question. I personally don't think this project has been a good use of time tho, except perhaps that it may have sparked some good movement in the right direction. Not to argue with you or anything but I don't see it as a big problem (per se) if the tool gets confused about his vs hers or about word order -- although that one is annoying, yes. So we're catching some fairly bad stuff, some of which can be fixed if someone cares enough, and it's taken months... to identify a batch of articles that could as easily been identified by following up on particular editors. But it's all good, we're almost done with this now and I think the point has been made that it's not the tool that makes the bad translation. And perhaps we are closer to working out a better process, so yay. More people are involved, so yay.Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you about the inefficiency, and in that sense it hasn't been a good use of our time, although a useful one to the encyclopedia. More than the his/hers stuff, I'm concerned about the "he's a scientist"—No, "he's a journalist", stuff. (From a Pootis example.) I had always intended to open a post-mortem thread when it's over, and still do, so we can talk about what we have learned. But things like this are always clearer with 20-20 hindsight. I look forward to leveraging the infrastructure tools we've created and the budding translator community that we've started to accumulate for bigger and better things, like the #Clearing the backlog discussion you've already commented on. Definitely "yay!" Mathglot (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, which is why I said per se because those problems *can* lead to all sorts of errors about who influenced who or what exactly happened, esp since, with a lot of other wikis seem to have a sort of flowery "academic" tone with needlessly complex sentences with lots of subordinate clauses and conditional tenses. Incidentally, I just saw one I know you'll like -- Joan Looked. I give you three guesses and the first two don't count. And yes, it is a name. Elinruby (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: HA-ha-ha-ha! I've got it! At least, I'm 99% sure I have, but I haven't miroed the article yet, so I can't be 100% certain till I do. Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

yep ;) but you forgot the accent. New rule - you can be cranky about word order if I get to be cranky about accents :) I am thinking of rescuing that one just in honor of the giggle hehe. Elinruby (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for your thoughts and support.

Carole, I am respectfully asking you to cancel your request to block me. You could see that my request for your help with template conflicted with your request to block me. I thank you for your infinite patience.

Mathglot, I welcome your help, so I can continue to be involved in the Holocaust articles. I have improved, slowly, but surely. I sincerely mean that.

I have been learning to collaborate in a constructive way, and reading wiki rules. And I am trying to do things slowly: Today, I saw that Ealdgyth couldn’t find some sources, and deleted sentences. I made some research and I think that I found sources supporting the deleted sentences. Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, I will present my citations in the Talk of the article, and ask Eadgyth if they are appropriate. Not today: because I want to think about them, and make sure that the citations are historically relevant, and “actually supports ALL of the information in the sentence”, like Ealdgyth asked about “euphemism” (I think that I did find a full sentence for that!)

I did truly show “intention to try to work with others”, and get along (I have moved a lot in my life!): I notice when people corrected my formatting or statements, and I thank them publicly. If I am reverted, I don’t put back my contribution, but discuss it in the Talk of the Article, as Ealdgyth told me to do. After my change of “German-occupied Poland” was reverted, by Ealdgyth , I admitted I was wrong, because I remembered that Poland was divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Thank you all for your kind consideration.

Be well, and be grateful for everyday.Henia Perlman (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, here the new suggestion, after I read last message of Carole, about article being too long (I agree)

For the time being, I will only make modifications, together with CaroleI (not adding) and see:

Carole and Henia will work through the wording (template, style) Henia would like to modify

-- getting it wikipedia ready, and posting it as a modification in the right format.

In the Talk page of the article, I will explain that I just posted a modification, explain the reason, and welcome comments/discussion/objections.

It will be like Ealdgyth posting modification (since Carole will be formating); if people who don't agree to the modification, we can discuss the modification in Talk of the article.

I think that Carole and Henia could be be both good collaborators for a modification, ready to be made in the article.

Let's try the one step process of modification of what is already in the article and see!

Thanks again so much for helping me out! Henia Perlman (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia, Thanks for your reply. I see that this discussion topic is going on in three or four places, and it's better to just keep it one place, and although normally it should be your talk page, de facto it seems to be going on now at Carole's talk page, so unless she has an objection, let's keep the discussion there for now.

Also, please learn the talk page procedures. I left you some links on Carole's page. Please learn how to respond to discussions without opening a new section every time. Again, thanks for your comment; let's continue the discussion at Carole's page for now, until she suggests it be moved somewhere. Mathglot (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was merely trying to narrow the rather large miscellaneous year works, with year documents. I your edit because you had pointed out that I had put the document in the wrong year. However, it was still in "1962 works", I wanted to put it in "1962 documents".--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, this all seems like a tempest in a teapot. One character was wrong in what should be an obvious routine edit while sorting categories. You reverted it, replacing it with the correct year, but the broader cat that I was trying to narrow down. Eventually we discussed the issue and put it in the right category. Do you really think anyone reading the article cares about the minutia of this edit conflict?:) I think we should devote our time and energy to more pressing matters.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record: this refers to this discussion about Bellerophon5685's edit at 70,000 Character Petition. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mathglot;

I thought of sharing my initiative to add articles about Levant Women with you. We need editors to add some articles from the lists provided in the meta page in French. How can you help with this? https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/100wikidays/Levant_women

Thank for your cooperation. --Mervat Salman (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mervat, I'll be happy to look into this, thanks for adding me to your list. I may be able to help you in other ways, too, besides just working on specific articles myself. For another project, we have a translation infrastructure set up to manage article translations. I might be help to leverage your efforts, and find multiple people to help you with specific languages, if you tell me which languages you need help with.

I could maybe also help you in another way, by creating an invitation template for you. Remember the invitation I sent to you on your page? That invitation was based on the template {{X2 review help}} which I created for our project. If you can write up the text of an invitation for your Levant Women project, I can create a template for you to use. This will make it easier and faster for you to send out invitations. For example, one afternoon a couple of weeks ago, I sent out 52 invitations to people who speak German to help with some German translations. That would take a long time if you had to do it by hand.

Anyway, thanks again, and I'll be happy to create some articles for your project. Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help, you can also spread the word among other wikipedians. Looking forward for more collaboration. Regards. --Mervat Salman (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, a number of IP editors have been adding details of Aleshia Brevard's death to her article, however I've been unable to find any news, death notices or obituaries concerning her death. I'm unsure as to what to do as it feels a bit silly to fight to remove references of her death when it's most likely that these IP editors are connected with her in some way and she truly has passed away, but it's an unverified claim, so it should be removed, right? I thought you may have some insight. Thank you, Cjhard (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Cjhard: That would be sad news, indeed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and will look into it. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Cjhard: The guideline on living persons (which also applies to recently deceased persons btw) is very clear on this: such material should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. If you see something like this, either at this article or any BLP article on Wikipedia, revert first, notify someone second.

Even if you happen to be wrong on the facts, it is never wrong to revert until reliable sources have been provided. I believe there may even be an exception to the 3 revert rule in this case, so the first thing to do is revert, then maybe notify the user on their talk page, then seek instance. You can always ask a question on your own talk page and add {{HelpMe}} to your post, and an admin will come along to answer and assist if need be. Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Cjhard I thought so; here it is: WP:3RRBLP. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I note that IMDb has now retracted this information from their site. TransGriot still has it listed, but Monica Roberts did not respond to an enquiry. Andrea James still has it listed, and claims Gwendolyn Anne Smith as her source, and Ms Smith did not respond to an inquiry. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirects have different deletion criteria than articles. I created this redirect because I came across this term elsewhere and did a little web research to understand what it meant. At one point if I recall correctly, the LGBT article mentioned FABGLITTER as a variant of LGBT+. The variant has a short history, and might not be particularly notable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help people figure out what things mean, or once meant, or once tried to mean. I'll update the redirect so it points to the "Other variant" section of LGBT. It is a harmless redirect that may be helpful to someone (it would have been helpful to me before I created it). -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sam, thanks for the comment. Yeah, I just learned that you can't Prod a redirect, and also that redirects are very cheap in terms of server space and other things, and that it's mostly not worth the bother to delete them. On the flip side, I looked it up, too, and it seemed to be just some guy with a blog and his friends having a lark making up new acronyms for LGBT, and I assumed they wanted to "see if they could get it into Wikipedia" (I once snuck a fake word into Urban dictionary, and it was mostly thumbs-upped by my friends and lasted about 9 months) and I Prodded for that reason, basically, to discourage that sort of behavior, since as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", anyone sometimes *does* edit. But given the other considerations, this hardly seems worth any additional attention on our part. If you would have found it helpful at some point, then fine, as long as there's something about it in the article; one thing I really hate, is getting redirected into the middle of some article, and having no clue why I'm there. Pointing it to "other variant" should solve that. Btw, did you notice the FABGLITTERHAT that I also tried to Prod? I see nothing at all on the internet for that one, and it probably is just someone having a giggle after having seen FABGLITTER, and wanting to join the party (with a hat). But per the above, not worth spending the time to delete that one, either. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What this points out is something I hadn't really thought much about before, and that is that a redirect can be used to point out a topic's lack of notability. So in this case, looking up FABGLITTER (and finding that it is a variant that isn't even mentioned in the article) does that. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Barthélemy Hervart, Mathglot!

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

Thanks for creating this. Could you please see if you can address the WP:INLINECITE tag?

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

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You're invited to The Black Woman is God Edit-a-Thon at SOMArts in San Francisco on Saturday July 22, 1-4 pm. It'll be at 934 Brannan Street (between 8th & 9th). Everyone is welcome to join this editing event, held in conjunction with The Black Woman is God exhibition to raise the online visibility of Black women artists and challenge the gaps in art history that erase or minimize Black women’s contributions as artists, activists and social change-makers. (Message requested by Dreamyshade and delivered on 14:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC). You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)

I noticed you reverted my changes to Aleshia Brevard. I used the same citation as in July 1, 2017 and that has yet to be challenged. I've noticed a few blog posts referencing the same material, but nothing concrete. User:EternalNomad is the one who added that citation so perhaps talk to them? Snickers2686 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, User:Snickers2686, and thanks for calling my attention to Deaths in 2017. No need to talk to them, at least not first: WP:BLP is very clear about this, and unsourced or improperly sourced material positive, negative, or neutral "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis in the original). The correct procedure here, is to immediately remove the material, which I've now done, and if anyone wants to discuss, they may do so on the talk page. However as a courtesy, one should ping @EternalNomad: so they are aware of the situation, and also to let them know not to restore any information about Aleshia without an impeccable source, per the guideline. This means a published newspaper obituary, a listing in the SSDI death index, or similar.

I have reverted the listing for Aleshia at Deaths in 2017. The guideline at WP:BLP is much stricter than normal citation requirements, and a blog run by an individual is not a reliable source even under the more relaxed rules for general articles, let alone for a BLP. If the blog cited an obit in a published paper, then of course, no problem; but it doesn't. The information may well be correct, but Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and this just doesn't meet that standard. Even for example if you were family and present at bedside at t.o.d., we still couldn't use it; it *must* be sourced; that is non-negotiable. There is no record in the SSDI index, no obit in local newspapers, nothing but an imdb listing (anybody can edit imdb; I have) and a blog, and now a tweet, as people see the other notices, and start multiplying them around. None of them are relialbe—so far.

Note that I am not saying the information isn't true, just that it isn't publishable at Wikipedia under the requirements of WP:BLP until there is a reliable source about it. The minute we get a good source about this, the material may be readded. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. Can you explain why you marked the article as advertisement? i can't understand why you see it like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phishmaker (talk • contribs) 12:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC) (Phishmaker (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC))

@Xaosflux: I'm an interested party to the conversation you intiated at User:Degeno's talk page regarding de to en translations, as I also do occasional translations from de-wiki (and from others; most recently ca-wiki).

So far, I use the standard attribution recommended at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate adding the edit summary listed at (a) (per edit, if more than one) and also add the {{translated page}} template suggested at (b) on the Talk page (once; when done). Is there any reason to stop doing that and instead import the history as you mention at Degeno's TP? Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, both can be used, and either is sufficient - I think I was confusing a few people when I messaged Degeno, thinking that he had more dewiki edits than enwiki ones. On dewiki history imports and merges (even dewiki-->dewiki for forks) are more encouraged in their community. If you plan on doing some dewiki ones in advance, importing them do User:Mathglot/dewikititle can be done for you to translate at your leisure. enwiki does not require the import, but it doesn't hurt. WP:RFPI requests are normally turned over in a day. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. (thanked). Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I don't pretend to have any proficiency in article creation/ modification and can't say that I am completely familiarised with all protocols, rules, etiquette etc. For those reasons, I invite you to correct me on anything I get wrong in the following discussion and to not feel in any way criticised by my suggestions and questions :)

I was wondering why you decided to remove the following contribution to the "Reappropriation" article. I understand that it is a sensitive subject however I think it's fair to say that the example given here is a prevalent one and the sources (such as the rap group N.W.A.) are clear and explicit examples of it's use. I agree that at least one impeccably reliable source should be given and think that such a source/s could be found (by myself even) without too much difficulty. If you think that the example could be re-enstated given that water-tight sources were given, may I make that edit? Thanks for reading and considering this point of view. Here is the contribution to which I refer:

Reappropriation 347 BYTES REMOVED, 1 MONTH AGO →‎Race and ethnicity: Remove unsourced examples. Especially for a sensitive topic like this one, every example *must* have an impeccably reliable source, and preferably more than one. To a lesser extent, and more controversially among the groups referred to, many racial, ethnic, and class terms have been reappropriated:

• "Nigga" by African Americans^[1][2] TheWolfMoose (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, TheWolfMoose, and welcome to Wikipedia! It does indeed take a while to catch up with all the many rules around here, and it's perfectly okay for you to question why someone did something affecting your edit. I'll add some additional useful info on your talk page a little later, but basically the answer your specific question has to do with Wikipedia's core policies on Neutral point of view and verifiability.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a cardinal rule is that all statements made must be verifiable. The normal way to demonstrate verifiability is through citations to reliable sources. Not every single thing has to be footnoted, but anything non-obvious or likely to be challenged must have a citation; sensitive or contentious information needs footnoting with impeccable sourcing, preferably more than one. Wikipedia is not censored, so the removal of the information you added had nothing to do with the words being offensive, and if properly cited, you can add the information back.

Okay, so much for rules; what does this mean in practice? It means you should go find some reliable sources that document what you wanted to add to the article, then add your information back in again, with the reliable sources noted in footnotes. The Help:Footnotes page will explain how to do this, using the <ref> tag. If you want to experiment creating text with footnotes, you can try using your user sandbox (click 'Sandbox') at the top of any page when you are logged in). If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask!

By the way: your reference #1 above doesn't show up above and throws a warning, because it's an invocation of a "named reference" whose definition is in the article, not here on this talk page. You don't have to worry about this when editing the article and adding your sources, I just wanted to explain why you're not seeing the footnote you expected to see above. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once for details. Mathglot (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @TheWolfMoose: Thought you'd like to know that User:Florian Blaschke has restored your example, with a claim that it is referenced. It's true that there is a named citation ("Slurs") there, however I don't believe that that reference actually supports this example. I am looking into this now, and if there's any change required I'll take it up on the Talk page of the article. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, thanks for your reply. I apologise for such a late reply myself; I have just got back from holiday. It's interesting to here about the example restoration however I thought that I would point out that it wasn't actually me who added the example in the first place. I am unsure as to who it was, perhaps it was the recent restorer FlorianBlaschke. I just happened to be browsing the article and was suprised not to see the example in question and so decided to look through the history of the article to see if it had ever been added and then, as it had in fact been added, I decided to ask why it had been removed, hence my correspondance with you. I hope this clears things up. Thanks again for how helpful you have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWolfMoose (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, TheWolfMoose I didn't assume you had added it, I took your question at face value and answered it as well as I could. Just wanted to keep you informed in case you were still interested.

By the way: please read up on talk page procedures at WP:TALK, and especially indentation and signing your talk page comments using four tildes (~~~~). Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see, thank you. And will do :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWolfMoose (talk • contribs) 07:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Content restored and collapsed. Suggestion noted for future reference. Edaham (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: Yep, that's the way to go. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

if you happen to look at the page history - apologies for the multiple edits. Apple iphone helped me mess up the syntax and wiki markup a few times before I sorted t out. Edaham (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: I did, and I was (slightly). ;-) Happens to me all the time while mobile, so np, all good. Thanks for the word. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You have recently participated in a discussion of the title of the Minorca/Menorca article. A move request discussion concerning the issue is currently open at Talk:Minorca if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  21:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

I noticed you are a translator from itwiki to enwiki. I don't know whether your 'mathglot' name means you are mathematically trained.

I have updated the talk pages of it:Alberto Tonelli and Tonelli–Shanks algorithm recently.

I've looked at Dickson's History of Numbers vol 1 p215, and decided that Tonelli's modular square root algorithm of 1891 also does modular square roots of powers of primes (p^3) and not just primes as Shanks 1973 algorithm does.

This means that Tonnelli is more prominent than first appears. Even his itwiki article doesn't mention that he did the modular square root algorithm, which is used widely today because modular arithmetic is used in the secure web.

There are two Tonnelli's, Alberto and Claudio, Alberto is the one who did the modular square root algorithm.

In any case, an article translation from itwiki on Alberto Tonnelli to the enwiki would be a good idea, and would improve the reputation of an old Italian mathematician who deserves more exposure now than he currently does.

Endo999 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Endo999:, once upon a time (many moons ago) I might have claimed some facility with advanced mathematical topics, but this is one of those fields that if you don't keep up, you start getting rusty. Nevertheless, I'll have a look, to see if I feel competent to contribute. If not, I'll gracefully bow out, or just help, if I can, on the less math-oriented portions. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

«do not link common words like 'fate', 'professor'» As there is a systematic difference in the meaning e.g. 'professor' between de and us-en, I think, this should be expressed by linking. Also 'fate' should be explained by linking, 'presentation' I linked, as this modification is contrasting to the before used 'representation', same case 'suggestive'. As the article obviously is also read by non-native speakers, linking should be handled rather generously. And what about doing some sourcing and checking the facts? AVS (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ya beat me to it! Reply can be found here. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• 04:25, 17. Dez. 2014 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (+700)‎ . . Benutzer:Mathglot ‎ (Andere projekten verbinden.) (aktuell) [2 Versionen zurücksetzen] : P, n
• Anscheinend, dass : Concours de Genève, nur auf französich statt de, denn es in Genf (Genève) statt findet. Mathglot (Diskussion) 01:10, 12. Jun. 2017 (CEST) das, französisch, denn es findet in Genf (Genève) statt
• 21:40, 3. Jun. 2015 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (-41)‎ . . K Boris Wladimirowitsch Sachoder ‎ (Nur die englische Link existiert.) der englische Link

A little help 😁 bkb (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bussakendle: Thanks, I usually don't bother with proofing der/die/das in edit summaries because I don't remember the noun genders and it's too much bother to look it up; also didn't bother looking up the trennbar status of stattfinden. I'm more careful in article text. französich is just a typo, there's no language I can think of offhand that ends in -ich. Also, all nouns are capitalized, and edit summaries are not editable, so even if you know there's a problem, once it's out there, it's out there. It's hardly worth adding a dummy edit just to advertise that you know something was a typo, so I just leave it alone. Thanks for the tips, Mathglot (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's the same for me in French, as the provenience is different (celtic vs germanic). Deutsches Sprach der Teufel hol. Das(s) die 'der' 'die' 'das' der Teufel hol. bkb (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

As the disc page is for article improvement:
The reference is given by the header – which is your edit summary, so what: the clever one gives way. AVS (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm entirely flummoxed by this bafflegab; care to elaborate? Mathglot (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

On 14 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sergeants' Revolt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that student activists joined forces with the military to overthrow the Cuban government during the 1933 Sergeants' Revolt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sergeants' Revolt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sergeants' Revolt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

On 14 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Directorio Estudiantil Universitario, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that student activists joined forces with the military to overthrow the Cuban government during the 1933 Sergeants' Revolt? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Directorio Estudiantil Universitario), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I'm going to ping you in a discussion at the page for sexual objectification. I saw that you had reverted the student's edits because they were a newer user and it was a relatively big edit, however this came across as a bit WP:BITE-y to the student and their educator. (I know you meant well - it just struck them the wrong way.) I think that it was likely done because this article's topic is, to put it mildly, a fairly sensitive topic area and smaller edits are more likely to stand up against criticism and make it easier to make any corrections or changes to the new additions, however the student isn't as familiar with this and the change felt fairly abrupt and sudden. They'd left some notes in the article's talk page about their plans and had been working on this for a while in their sandbox, so they likely felt that there had already been enough setup. At Wiki Education we do encourage smaller edits, but they may have thought that their change wasn't that large. The educator is aware that the student's contribution isn't perfect and needed some editing, and that the summary explanation was lacking, but they just didn't feel that this was a valid reason to revert the edits.

Can you go weigh in on the talk page? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): Hi, and thanks for letting me know. I will reply there eventually, but I have a few other things on my plate just now, so it may not be right away. In the revert, I treaded more gently than I normally would have precisely because they are new here: I welcomed them to try again, and offered specific suggestions on how to proceed. Even an experienced editor would not likely get such a large edit through without pushback on an article in a delicate area like this. Nobody likes having their stuff reverted, so I understand their feeling miffed, however they might consider how such an edit effectively reverts the efforts of other editors (nothing personal here—it did not affect any contribution of mine). In addition, it wouldn't be uncommon for a new editor to have most, even all, of their edits reverted when just starting out, especially in a controversial area. This is a very tough area for someone to start to learn Wikipedia, and I wouldn't recommend it to a new editor. (I was recently involved along with some other experienced editors in trying to help a PhD professor new to Wikipedia contribute to articles in her subject area of expertise which happened to be a controversial one; she got reverted a lot, and mostly ignored recommendations by numerous experienced editors to change subject area while learning, but she just couldn't do it though we begged her to, and she was eventually blocked indefinitely, much to the chagrin of several experienced mentors trying very hard to smooth the path for her.) If the course material requires a student to contribute in this subject area, then of course they should, but they should step very lightly, even more so than an experienced user would. Having a thick skin, especially with respect to reverts while they learn the ropes, is a necessary attribute, or they won't last. Most student editors doing it as part of a course requirement don't remain anyway, so that would hardly be unexpected, but it would still be unfortunate because Wikipedia needs good editors. I will respond at Talk:Sexual objectification when I get a chance. I may leave a brief teaser there as an ack in the meantime. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! We do try to get them to make smaller edits, but sometimes we will get people who make the larger edits for whatever reason (not paying attention, wrapped up in the edit, cut/pasting content, etc). Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Клуб Центральная станция не соответствует русским Wikipedia:Notability. А у нас даже значимые статьи удаляют Терпр (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Терпр, Большое спасибо за ваш ответ! Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. I'm assuming this wasn't preparatory to switching the whole article over to Harvard refs. Or was it? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rivertorch, it depends what you mean by switching over. I was planning on adding {{harvnb}} inside the existing named (or unnamed) refs, so that the footnotes would link to their sources, and named references would continue to work as before. The only change visible at the level of the rendered page would be that, e.g., "Carter" would turn blue and link to his book in the source section, so no change in style as far as what the reader sees. Do you see a problem with this? Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, I guess not. I've never taken the time and trouble to learn Harvard refs, so I tend to avoid editing or even watching articles that use that format. So it's not the rendered page that concerns me; it's feeling confident that I know what I'm doing when editing the page in the first place. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:85.255.232.212. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

I refer to your unwarranted personal attack with this edit. 85.255.232.212 did absolutely nothing wrong and is almost as far from edit warring as it is possible to get. 85.255.232.212's original edit was clearly a good faith (and in the circumstances reasonable) revert as the article is tagged as being written in British English. It is therefore not an unreasonable asumption that someone has changed the language variant since the tag was added as our American users regularly do (although I accept that this has not, in fact, happened in this case).

However, what I find particularly dispicable about your rant was the accompanying hypocrisy. You, my friend, are guilty of everything of which you accuse 85.255.232.212. You are perilously close to edit warring having made three reverts to the article in five days (four is edit warring and liable to a block (the block is guaranteed if the four reverts take place within 24 hours)). For your information, the reverts were;

1 A bad faith revert given the ENGVAR tag.

2 A bad faith revert claiming that 85.255.232.212 was not entitled to do exactly what he was entitled to do (and the edit comments suggest a report was filed which seems to be the case as Cluebot did not revert him again).

3 A bad faith revert following someone else performing a minor copy edit. You don't have ownersip of the article format or layout. If you had a problem, you should have taken it to talk.

As far as consensus goes, if anything is added to an article or its talk page, it has de facto consensus if no one challenges it (especially after four years plus) though the case for a tag of this type is not a particularly strong one.

You falsley accused 85.255.232.212 of ignoring your points over the English variant of the article. In reality, he or she never pushed the point beyond the original revert but confined any further discussion to the tag. Sparkingplugs (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha; very amusing, thanks for the laugh! I'm shaking in my boots. Trying to avoid responsibility for your anti-consensus behavior by casting aspersions and inventing false accusations, that's a good one; I'll have to remember that.

Everything is right there in the history of the article, and anyone interested can just look it up. A good, recounting of this affair and the part you played in it can be found at User talk:85.255.232.212#Air France Flight 447 (permalink).

As far as blocking, I already told you here that "if you want to go for a block, the AN/I is that-a-way ➥ ➨ , but you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG first." But I guess you didn't like that comment, as I see that it's not there anymore.

Oh, I see; you referred to 85.255.232.212 in the third person, so I guess that's not you? Oh well, you seem to know all about Wikipedia policies, blocks, and level 4 warning templates, bravo, that's truly impressive for a brand new user with only four edits, two of them here on my talk page. So please allow me to be the first to Welcome you to Wikipedia! Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a new account but only because I create new accounts for warnings and feedback such as this. I have had problems in the past with a particular user (now mercifully indef blocked) attempting to pursue vendettas so this is how I do it these days. Since this is a new account and I haven't crossed swords with you on my main account, you can't possibly have told me anything.

You are correct that the full history is in the article's edit history, and I fail to see how that history tells a different story to that which I have given above. 85.255.232.212 (See 85.255.232.212's edits) has made but two edits to the article (effectively one edit after the Cluebot revert is discounted) and you have made three reversions this month. If I have misinterpreted this apparently clear edit history, then please enlighten me and tell me where? Sparkingplugs (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It had just occurred to me, given your implied accusation above, whether you were assuming that 95.144.50.132 who made the first Brit Eng revision and 85.255.232.212 were the same person. An IP address link chase reveals that they are highly unlikely to be. 95.144.50.132 is an EE static fixed line broadband address that resolves to Bexhill on Sea, UK. 85.255.232.212 is a Vodafone dynamic fixed landline broadband address that resolves only to the UK (the city field is blank), but is currently unallocated (which fits with the subsequent posts to 85.255.232.212's talk page coming from different but related IP addresses). Sparkingplugs (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a dispute about Catalan supremacism which may interest you. I commented but am too over-committed to seriously attempt to help. Also, I asked a question about whether School of Paris, the one we worked on in the context of Annees Folles, should be renamed to Jewish School of Paris, since I am getting the impression it is what they were called at the time. (The painters, not the medieval manuscript illustrators). I don't necessarily advocate either way and would of course want to nail this down in the sources before making changes, but if this is what they were called at the time...it's sort of profiling, and yet, it's pertinent if they were all in Paris as refugees. Your thoughts on the subject are invited if you would like to opined. Elinruby (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Thanks, but per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan supremacism it looks like it had already been deleted before you got to to make your comment. Keep sending me Catalan stuff, though. Mathglot (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. The edit by Foggymaize at Transgender people in sports was my fault. She is my wife and was asking me how to leave a note about her changes when I accidentally hit save on visual editor. I then told her the best option was to leave a note on the talk page explaining the editing, which she did here. I have explained that it is better to do smaller edits with explanations, but she is new here and considering our relationship I am careful of how involved I get in her editing. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this area, but after looking at a few articles there is definitely some work needed. If you have no objections on the edits themselves, as explained in the talk, I will reinstate them. AIRcorn (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My edits to transphobia were sourced, were in line with requests in talk to provide copy which discussed the origin and common usages of the term, and are more even handed than the previous defamatory revisions by TaylanUB. Exclusionary feminism is a fringe belief, and the section if it is to be included should reflect the consensus on the matter. I'm not sure how reverting my edits for NPoV is constructive. The base content of the section as it stands, and certainly as it first appeared, already arguably violate NPoV. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, BlackholeWA, and welcome back. (Logistics note: I prefer keeping conversations all in one place, and although this one started at your talk page, in this section, since you've replied to it on my talk page, let's just keep the discussion here, now.)

In response to your comment above, I actually don't disagree with you that the content of the section as it stands now and as it first appeared violate NPoV. The section should not remain as it is now, for that very reason. However, any changes made to that section should move in the direction of improving the article (that's what the article talk page is for, after all) and not make it worse. In my opinion, your changes at Transphobia made the NPOV problem bigger than it was before, and that's why I undid them.

You did the right thing by posting at Talk:Transphobia, and now we can try to figure out some consensus there, which, even if it doesn't please everybody, will hopefully arrive at a point where everyone can live with it. This whole topic, as I'm sure you are aware, has some extremely divergent opinions among different editors, and is under discretionary sanctions. If you don't remember what that is from your previous Wiki-incarnation, I urge you to refresh your memory about it, but basically it means, step lightly and carefully, because admins are watching (not me, I'm not one) and are more liable to issue sanctions than with "regular" articles. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)