User talk:Mathglot

My editing tips.

might want to stroll by NPOV board

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)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Mathglot. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I found your request and responses at the bad image list to use Divine's image to be a wonderful example of civility. Naraht (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Transgender people in sports

Hi Mathglot. The edit[1] 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.[2] 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mathglot. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Transphobia

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)

Improperly formatted, please try again

It seems, you want to play the teacher ... Wouldn't it be better to improve yourself? Are you interested in content or in dominance? AVS (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The comment above is apparently in reference to my revert of your recent edit at Dasein ohne Leben. Your edit took an explanatory footnote that had been properly formatted, and turned it into one that was garbled and unclear.

I think what happened, is that you attempted to place a reference into the note. That's fine, even a good idea, however, the ref was improperly formatted and interpolated the reference text inline into the note, even separating an adjective from its noun by 20 words, instead of being formatted properly as a footnote. I reverted with an indication that your edit had been made in good faith, explained in the edit summary what was wrong with it, and encouraged you to try again. And this is your reaction?

This seems to be a pattern. You have been prickly before in your reaction to other edits at this article which were made in order to protect its integrity or prevent disruption. Your first reaction to someone altering an edit of yours often appears to be to assume that you are right, and that no one else could possibly be interested in improving the article but are merely standing in your way, or expressing "dominance". I'm not sure if this represents a sense of ownership of the article on your part, just a natural combativeness, you're unable to admit a simple mistake, or if you truly don't see that anyone who disagrees with you might be honestly trying to improve the article. Whatever it is, you've been around for long enough to know that finding consensus is a core principle of Wikipedia, so when you disagree with someone, just talk it out on the article page, and don't make baseless accusations about other users.

So, please cool your jets, no more temper tantrums, and let's just concentrate on improving the article and assuming that others are trying to do the same; okay?

Oh, and one other thing: the comments you leave never have a link to what you are talking about. People work on lots of different things, and if you want to raise an issue with someone about an article, the courteous thing to do is to provide a link, preferably a {{diff}} to what you are talking about. At the very minimum, you need to at least name the article you are talking about, otherwise you force the person to search their contribution history and yours, to try to figure out what you mean, and that is just rude. So, please, don't do that; ideally, use {{diff}}s if you can, otherwise plain article links will do. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Pride parade

I did see any edits to the article that would justify removing a maintenance tag that had only been placed a couple of months ago. The IP editor did not add a note explaining why they had removed the tag. Pjefts (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I see what i did wrong. Pjefts (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Hi Mathglot, thank you for your recent edits to Feminist views on prostitution. I think that you did a great job improving the overall tone, neutrality and style of the article. Please enjoy this bubble tea as a token of my appreciation. Cheers, Cocoaguy ここがいい 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(untitled)

Hello Mathglot,

Thankyou for your words, and advice about ropes. It seems to me that what constitutes a constructive comment about an article will always be, to some degree at least, a matter of opinion. I have no objection to the term cisgender when used in an academic context. I have read a lot of academic papers on subjects ranging from metallurgy, salmo salar behaviour, autism and economic history, to name a few. I appreciate that academic writers vary in their ability to communicate with non-academic readers, and I imagine many would consider that it is not their job to make their research widely accessible, as opposed to narrowly accessible. Yet wiki articles MUST be based on published sources. The weakness in this article is an absence of scepticism about the ASSUMPTIONS that the quoted sources have made. This is not so big a problem if the <cisgender> term is recognised as having its main currency as part of an ongoing academic and political debate. When writers are not open about the assumptions that have made, each reader must come to their own decisions about the significance of any implicit assumptions. If this article is intended to be about a construct <cisgender>, it is always going to be borderline meaningless unless it clarifies whether cisgender is a subordinate construct to a <non-binary gender> construct, or one of a pair of poles that frame the <binary gender construct>. If the truth of the matter is that the jury is still out regarding the true nature of gender, then it is not unreasonable to point out that the subordinate construct <cisgender> is still just a matter of opinion. My point of view, that cisgender is often used in a name-calling way, is amply evidenced in published print. I am not a creative person, so when I called it 'my' point of view, I am being innaccurate. I have borrowed it, and I have not attributed it, because I don't remember the various places where I read it, or heard it. (I get most of my newsfeed from the radio) If wiki editors wish to censor contributions because they are challenging precious assumptions that are seen as axiomatic, perhaps Wikipedia might decide to publish the assumptions which it is comfortable labelling as 'axioms'? When Lavoisier published his 'discovery' of Oxygen, he was seen as a 'scientific' vandal by the older scientists whose body of work into combustion and related matters had failed to realise the fact that <air> was a mixture of several gases, some flammable and some inflammable. The sociology of 'hard' science is a very interesting subject area, but perhaps it is time we had a sociology of sociology? Kind regards, redalasdair@gmail.com 82.32.112.174 (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Moved user comment above from top of page to this position.

User comment above appears to be in reference to this commment of mine at User talk:82.32.112.174#January 2018.

"failed verification" of reasons for stealth behavior on Transsexual

In your edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transsexual&type=revision&diff=728441990&oldid=727603667), you claim that the statement that transsexuals "choose not to disclose their past for numerous reasons, including fear of discrimination and fear of physical violence" is not verified by the reference.

The following statements in the reference would appear to support this statement:

• Large majorities attempted to avoid discrimination by hiding their gender or gender transition (71%)
• Ninety percent (90%) of respondents said they had directly experienced harassment or mistreatment at work or felt forced to

take protective actions that negatively impacted their careers or their well-being, such as hiding who they were, in order to avoid workplace repercussions.

Do you nevertheless feel that the reference does not provide satisfactory verification of the statment in question? Fabrickator (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: You're right, it does support it. I missed it because the source is 228 pages long, and since no page number was given, rather than read the whole thing I simply searched it for the word 'stealth,' which did not turn up, so I assumed it failed verification. Thanks for finding the supporting references, which as we can see, do support the assertion. A better tag to place at the time would perhaps have been, {{page needed}} (and it's still needed), but I appreciate your comments here. I support removal of the {{failed verification}} tag. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Second-wave feminism/Timeline of second-wave feminism

Hi Mathglot. It appears you might be working on a draft for a future article at Talk:Second-wave feminism/Timeline of second-wave feminism. Talk pages of non-existent articles are subject to deletion per WP:G8. so that talk page is not really the best place for this. You should probably move this to either the draft namespace or your userpace. If, however, you feel that a Wikipedia article on this subject is justified, you can also just create the aritcle yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about G8, Marchjuly, I wasn't aware of it. Since there's already agreement at Talk:Second-wave feminism#Split proposal: Timeline that a new article is justified, I'll just go ahead with that option. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Just for refernece, however, the non-free files I removed from that talk page per WP:NFCC#9 should not be considered automatically compliant with any new article created.Each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy all ten non-free content criterion listed in WP:NFCCP. Non-free use in list articles like that timeline tends to be almost never allowed because such usage lacks the context required by WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS. Just for looking at how the files were being used, I don't see how their use would satisfy the relevant policy, but if you disagree than you will need to clearly show how they do by providing a non-free use rationale for each file for the particular way they are being used in the new article. Providing such a rationale, however, does not mean compliance and the non-free can be challenged per WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I did avoid using a few non-free images that I had found, but I must have missed the notification on some others when including them. I won't assume any of the ones you removed would be compliant, so I'll just leave them out. Thanks for having my back on this. Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

1928?

Hello. I don't understand your reasoning here. Although the word has been reclaimed and is often used positively, this is far from universally so. In any event, how can Category:Misogynistic slurs and Category:Pejorative terms for people apply but not Category:Sexuality and gender-related slurs? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Okay, I reverted. Btw, thanks for the heads-up on the other categories; the latter two are super-categories of the former; I've removed them. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered about that but didn't really have time to look into it closely enough. Thanks! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

periodontitis Biofilm microscopy

I did put different text with some changes and removed Youtubes. Now, can I use this text as added section of periodontitis??? Without it being removed by I do not know who! And not starting a edit war for which I am always the looser for many years? How come the other part can remove it and I be the looser and I presume others don not know anything in science about microscopy of biofilm in periodontitis???? ThanksTdebouches (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Response at your talk page, at User talk:Tdebouches#Biofilm Microscopy 2. Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Gender socialization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consolidating conversation in one place.

---

Hi there. Don't you think that the very genesis of gender roles is significant enough a question for the matter of gender roles to appear in the lead section of an article about gender roles? 77.126.47.196 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

duplicate content: see here for unified discussion.

Hm, in light of your recent message to me... I'd like to point out that the "Theories of gender as a social construct" section already tackles the social reproduction of gender roles, i.e. gender socialization. It uses the term socialization multiple times, though not gender socialization specifically. If the term gender socialization was used in that section, would you view its introduction in the lead section as summarization? 77.126.47.196 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Probably, but I'm mobile right own and it's hard for me to jump back and forth. Being bold in your editing can be a good thing, but as a new editor you should go slow while learning the sometimes arcane policies and guidelines around here. Articles related to gender are an especially difficult area in which to learn the ropes because they are scrutinized much more carefully, and missteps are curtailed much quicker and perhaps more severely (see WP:ACDS), although as a new user, you should get some slack from other editors, maybe once or twice, although no guarantees on that score. It would be a lot easier for you if you edited some non-Gender related articles first, while figuring out how things work around here. I'll ask EvergreenFir for a second opinion and to have a look generally, and see if they have any additional advice for you. Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Aarrgh, I hate splitting threads among two talk pages can we please just keep this in one place? Copying content to your talk page... Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Chinese Famine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Translated article on gender

Dear Mathglot. I now see you left a message in December. The Wikitrad project is not moribund. We started working on the project in September. So we will keep translating the original article even though we will not publish it in the end. Thanks for your message and collaboration. --Mcptrad (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)  Done

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Responding to your message

Hi, I did add an edit summary to the edit I wrote. I only added the first two sentences of that specific section, where I also included a citation. The rest was not written by me. Thanks. If you have any other suggestions, I would love to hear them.Kaitlin 121 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

repondre aux messages

Moved to User_talk:Tdebouches#Dites, donc... at 09:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peru, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aymara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Periodontitis

Attendez j ajoute un paragraphe sur ce qu on trouve a la microscopie dans periodontitis et je suis ... permettez moi l expert mondial en la matiere... et je me le fait enlever par...???? A chaque fois! C est insensé! En plus il est là en francais! Si ca n etait que du mauvais anglais on pourrait courtoisement me corriger! Mais tout enlever!!! C est de la dérision et de l acharnement a la meconnaissance. Tdebouches (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)  Done

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Belarus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Belarus. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of {{{briefreason}}}. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gbawden submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Mathglot to be Editor of the Week for his consistent civility and helpfulness to not only new editors but all editors on WP. I first came across their work at User talk:David-waterways where they gave solid advice to a new user. They also made the user feel welcome and valued and I believe this encouraged the user to continue and improve rather than simply give up. From viewing their talk page I see that this behaviour is consistent throughout their talk page, and taking a look at User talk:Yoselin C. Mathglot once again gave solid advice in a welcoming, non judgmental way to a new user. Editors with this level of civility and friendliness need to be celebrated.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 21:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)