User talk:Mathglot

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Lady Gaga on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" 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.

: {{shrug}} Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot, in your last exchange with me you indicated that you were oversubscribed and could not spend much time on the Alison Weir (activist) page, and so couldn't respond to my edit requests in a timely manner, and indeed these continue to languish there. But it would appear, unless I am misunderstanding the HISTORY page, that you were indeed able to find time to visit the page to undo an edit that represented a consensus between @User:Scratchinghead and myself to resolve a conflict occasioned by his previous edit of the lede without preliminary discussion or consensus seeking, a consensus you should have been aware of as you were mentioned in it (and pinged), as I had tried to include your concern about the loss of P/I focus in the final wording. Now you are starting the process all over again by truncating that consensus version without the slightest discussion on the Weir talk page that I can find, or any effort to build consensus for it. This feels like the start of an edit war to me, though I may be missing something which is why I am writing you here before I take it anywhere else. I look forward to your soonest reply.

Kenfree (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

: Sorry you see it that way, Kenfree. Yes, I understand how you feel. Sorry I can't be more helpful right now on a schedule that is more in line with the urgency you evidently feel about this. But I won't be bullied into changing my own priorities by an assumption of bad faith on my part by you. You have given me fair warning now, and if you want to take it somewhere else, that is certainly your right. If it is a noticeboard, please {{tl|ping}} me to it. Do be aware, though, that admin boards watch editor behavior to ensure smooth operation of the encyclopedia; they will neither adjudicate a content dispute, nor declare who has WP:CONSENSUS. For your own sake, please also be aware of WP:BOOMERANG: unlike chess, there is no advantage in making the first move. If you believe an edit-war is going on, the board concerned is WP:AN3. Other boards are listed here. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:: I answered your edit request for you, "out of sequence", as it were, but would appreciate more collegial interaction from you going forward, whether towards me or whomever. But looking at your comment above about undoing some consensus you had, honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. If you meant my reversion of Sh's use of Salem-News, that is an unreliable source that nearly was blacklisted. Whatever it was about, if you wish to discuss it further, please do so at the Talk page, where others will see it and can weigh in, not here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Scratchinghead's unilateral truncation of a lede I had worked very diligently on editing led to a conflict, which we happily resolved on his talkpage after some discourse and compromise. I explicitly included wording to satisfy your stated concern that P/I issue was getting lost in the shuffle, and I pinged you to draw your attention to the discussion. It is possible that my coding of the ping is incorrect, but I thought I had the process right. Please review this discussion here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kenfree&action=edit§ion=19 And thanks for completing the edit request. Kenfree (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::: Kenfree, I will get to it eventually, but this is exactly why user talk pages should not be used for discussing content issues, because other users won't be aware of it. (And even if third parties are pinged, that is still an exclusive club and still the wrong venue for it.) Plus, any compromise on article content reached on a user talk page is pretty much by definition, an agreement between two people (or an invited club) and in no way represents consensus about article content, and therefore nobody else is bound by it. It's unfortunate that that discussion was not held on the article Talk page. Please read WP:TALK for guidance about what goes where, but in a nutshell: discuss article content on article Talk pages; discuss user behavior on user talk pages. It goes beyond that, of course, but that is the essential distinction to keep in mind. If someone tries to discuss article content with you on your User talk page, you should guide them to the article Talk page instead. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ok, point taken...but my talk page is where Scratchinghead initiated his good faith conflict resolution effort. Next time I shall insist that we move the discussion to the article talk page. You make a good point. Kenfree (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please let me know after you've found the time to review this conflict resolution dialogue, because you will understand why I feel the need to request a reversion of your edit, but I will await your acquaintance with the precipitating discourse before I request it. Kenfree (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::: {{u|Kenfree}}, yeah, I get it; Sh shouldn't have started there either, but they did it in good faith, so no criticism, just advice for them not to start there next time. Your willingness to wait is appreciated, but I think you should just go ahead and initiate whatever dialog you wish to in order to revert some edit of mine (which I still don't know which it is, but it really doesn't matter, either, and you don't have to waste time trying to find it). If you think the article would be improved by reverting whatever-it-is, go find someone to do it, or better, start a discussion (or continue one that exists, hopefully with new people); no need to wait on my account. Plus, the exercise of finding more people to engage in a discussion would be good practice, because that sort of thing comes up all the time. And finally, because I am just one editor, and when I say I will "eventually" get back to it, that is probably true, but I will also eventually get back to my historiography draft which I started in 2022, so, you see my point. It's not "my" article by a long shot, and I am not even that interested in it, so getting others involved would be ideal. The article is still on my watchlist, so I will probably see new activity on the Talk page, and anyway, if it's about reverting some edit of mine, a courtesy ping is good practice. Best, Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Well I wish it were that simple, but as I reported earler, my effort to raise interest in the WP:TEAHOUSE was futile. It is your edit to the lede I wish to see reverted, as it obviates the part of the consensus Scratchinghead and I reached that includes both Weir's critism of media bias and her provision of countervailing factual information as the two sides of her activism. Both of these points were substantiated in the privided citations, but it is possible that Scratchinghead wrongly assigned them in his revision...Kenfree (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Anything is possible, and I hope you find a better solution than waiting around for me to have another look at it. I mean, you could wait like a patient angel for a long time, and then I go look at it, and think, 'Yes, looks good as is,' and then you wouldn't have anything to show for all that patient waiting. So I urge you not to wait, but engage; see WP:APPNOTE. I am only one of some hundred thousand active editors. Best, Mathglot (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:ONE Championship 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.

: Listed at WP:RSN. Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T:ACDS/T&redirect=no T:ACDS/T] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 13#T:ACDS/T}} until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "Wikipedia style and naming" 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.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Secondary School Certificate on a "Wikipedia proposals" 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.

Hey Mathglot, it’s been a while since we have chatted.

But there is this topic that might be of interest to you.

It’s this article, Michel Cadotte. I am currently working on adding more to it here. For context Cadotte was a fur-trader who is mixed between white and Native American.

It’s not perfect and I am currently citing a source written by a journalist, which I don’t personally like citing journalists that much. But I used this as a source because it clearly had reliability.

I also used the book as a source because it has a lot to say on the matter, which makes it likely there are also a lot more sources out there on the subject that have a lot to say on this. This also makes me think there is potential for a lot more articles on Cadottes family.

I know you have worked on articles related to French history including French Colonialism. This here is heavily related to those subjects.

I know a lot about history. My dad literally has a masters degree in history and I have access to a lot of sources on history here in Columbia, Missouri.

But the issue is that I am not too familiar with French related topics all that much. I know only 2 languages English being my first language and Spanish being a language I have a lot of familiarity in.

Another reason I come to you about this is because there is a good chance I may have a few biased on this topic.

My first potential bias is that I have Native American blood. My dad has it too and so does my family on his side. Many of my family members even live on reservations near the Great Lakes.

For most of my life my dad kept telling me I had Native American blood. But when I was in my teenage years I thought my dad was lying to me about this me having Native American ancestry. I thought this was one of those situations where a parent would lie to their kids to make them feel special.

But I recently found out he wasn’t lying when I found documents of his grandmother (found documents of his other relatives). I found out that she was living on a Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation in the early 20th century.

I lately talked to my dad about all of this. My dad shown me proof that he has visited reservations many times and that he does receives checks from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

He shown proof of deceased relatives and shown proof that he has meet them when he was young. He even shown proof that many living relatives of his live on reservations and are currently enrolled with tribes. So this isn’t one of those Elizabeth Warren claims.(Forgive me if some of these things I mentioned aren’t familiar to you, I don’t know you’re nationality.)

Also there is a possibility that me and my family are related or descendants of Michel Cadotte. My dad told me that I am a descendant of him. I can’t confirm how true this claim is too be honest, I know the whole Native American ancestry part is true thought.

I know the details about my dad’s family might seem confusing or odd. But keep in mind he was in the United States military for the vast majority of my childhood and many of his family were involved in the Army as well. I don’t have many memories of him or his side of the family.

Basically I am afraid my biases would probably have impact on the outcome of this article and potential future articles.

I just felt like I should work on this topic because there doesn’t seem to be many active contributors who wish to work on this topic.

What do you say? Any thought? Would this be a topic of interest to you?

Do forgive me if I made any mistakes in this comment, I am writing this to you before class starts.CycoMa2 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Basically I am concerned about being called out for WP:COI. When in all honesty this is a subject that I wasn’t too well informed about when I was in my youth.CycoMa2 (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:: CycoMa2, I can't respond in detail right now, but I can tell you that it's great that you are aware of your own possible biases, but just because you are of the same ethnicity as someone doesn't constitute a conflict of interest per se, so feel free to edit the article. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Me being the same ethnicity as this guy isn’t too much of the problem. It’s more of the fact that I may be a descendant of this guy, that’s the problem.

:::My dad literally shown me a family tree, Michel Cadotte is literally on his family tree. My dad believes that he is a descendant of this guy. His family also believes that too.

:::Another thing you gotta remember is that in order to be a member of a tribe you have to show evidence that you have Native American ancestry. If my dad’s family can be accepted as members of a tribe, then they probably shown them something as evidence.

:::I have heard stories of contributors getting banned for trying to fabricate their lineage, trying to make say they are descended from royalty.CycoMa2 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::: CycoMa2, I still don't think it's a problem, as it's not close enough to you, and because you appear to be hyperalert to the issue, but I am only one person. I highly recommend that you post a copy of your question at the COI noticeboard at WP:COIN. There, you will get the attention of a lot of editors who specialize in the ins and outs of COI. Feel free to link this discussion from the COI Noticeboard discussion, if you think it will help. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am sorry.

:::::I am sorry for wasting your time.

:::::It’s just have a feeling this topic might be emotional for me for some reason. I don’t remember my dad’s family that much.

:::::It’s all really complicated.CycoMa2 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::: {{u|CycoMa2}}, no apology necessary, and you are not wasting my time. If you feel like tackling the topic, I think it's fine, and if you would be better avoiding it, then that's up to you. You can get further feedback, if you want it, at COI Noticeboard. You are welcome to contact me any time. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, just wondering why you reverted my edit at Wikipedia:Glossary/Compact ToC, so my edits don't need to be reverted again. Thank you.

P.S. I suspect that you are trying to make it more compact, but it would be nice to know for sure. APenguinThatIsSilly("talk") 19:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

: Hi, APenguinThatIsSilly, thanks for asking. Your guess is right, and yes, basically that is the reason. It could probably be made even more compact, although I don't want to fiddle with it excessively in case there are habitual readers who go there and are used to it being a particular way. Specifically, there are only two entries for 'J' and one for 'K' and all three entries plus the 'J' and 'K' headers all fit on one page on a 15" laptop screen. (In mobile, there is no effect, as the templates are not shown.)

: It may fall under MOS:VAR, which is kind of a "you say toh-MAY-toh, I say to-MAH-toh" kind of thing, that is, when there are two equally good ways of doing something that are both okay, then you should preserve whatever the choice of the original editor was. That's kind of weak reasoning, and if there are policy or guideline-based reasons to change it, then that would overcome MOS:VAR and it could be changed. It's a judgment call, and you can't really say the way you did it is "wrong" in any way, but the original way isn't wrong either. If you feel strongly that your version is better, you could start a discussion on the Talk page and try to achieve consensus to change it.

: One other thing, though, is your original statement where you seem to be concerned about having your edits reverted. Don't be concerned—it is all part of the normal process at Wikipedia. For example: BE BOLD is an editing guideline that recommends bold action in editing, but part of being bold is that some of your edits are going to be reverted, so trying to avoid that is going to seriously crimp your style. I've been around for over ten years, and I got reverted yesterday, and it's no big deal. So I suggest you get used to the idea that people are going to have to have different opinions, disagreement is inevitable, and getting an edit reverted is not something to worry about, or to try to avoid. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Video game 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.

: {{shrug}} Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers on a "Wikipedia style and naming" 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.

:{{shrug}} Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Siege of Masada 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.

File:Merge-arrows.svg An article that you have been involved in editing—Storrs, Connecticut—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Newsjunkiect (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

: Proc closed; user is indeffed sock of User:Jonathanhusky. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Courtesy link|Westend Synagogue}}

I learned to attribute in the first edit summary when translating text, and on the talk page. What can be done when the first was omitted? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|Gerda Arendt}}, quite right, it should be attributed in the first edit summary, as you have been doing. If forgotten, it can always be added later (and must be added later, even if years have intervened) following the description given at WP:RIA. If you notice such issues at an article, you can flag the article with {{tl|unattributed translation}}, and if you want to let a user know about the situation and how to fix it, you can use {{tl|uw-translation}} on their Talk page. {{ec}} Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:: If I'd see a bare url, I'd fix it, rather than writing a tag (if it's still there, - often the link doesn't even work any more). Could I - the same way - go and write the recommended Note in some edit? Or should the one who made the edit do it (who may have left since). - Why tag when a "repair" seems almost simpler? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::: {{re|Gerda Arendt}}, missed this comment somehow. Anyway, yes, you can certainly attribute someone else's translation, as long as you are certain what was translated, and from where. In that case, like the bareurl case, it may be easier just to fix it, and it's better or the encyclopedia to just fix it. If you have only partial information, or no information, it's better to place the template, so that it gets placed in a tracking category, rather than do nothing, or guess about information you don't know and do it wrong. By all means, follow WP:RIA and add the missing attribution when that is a feasible alternative. Thanks for asking. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for having moved the article back! - I think the "expansion" template - if even justified - is not part of the concerns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

: Yes; the Expand template is very much the least of the problems there, very much in last place. Not even a problem, really, just advice. (I wasn't the one who added it.) Mathglot (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I find it confusing that we now have an article in article space, and one in draft space (from the Robin move). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

{{tracked|T25044}}

: {{re|Gerda Arendt}}, that is unfortunately the confusing result of faulty behavior by Mediawiki. See WP:VPT#Corrupted history at Westend Synagogue for how it confused me, and the details. It is being tracked as a bug in {{Phabricator}}. The Draft should be deleted (and will be automatically in six months). I can try to G7 it, and it might get deleted sooner. Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Understand, thank you for explaining. For the time being, could you make a fat not in the draft that it is to be deleted, and should not be edited? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Graham87 is my expert for tricky article histories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::: {{re|Gerda Arendt}}, I did something similar already; see Draft:Westend Synagogue round robin delete candidate. Feel free to change it however you like. {{ec}} Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::: All of the worthwhile and interesting history is at Westend Synagogue. The history at the draft is of no interest, and there is no reason to maintain the draft because of it. (I mentioned that in the draft as well.) Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I noticed this on the technical village pump. You could always just redirect the draft to the article namespace ... but that's as far as I want to get involved in this ... Graham87 (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: That's a good idea. {{done}} Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Christopher Columbus 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.

Perhaps you could drop me a line as to when it would be acceptable for me to make wikilinks and correct spelling mistakes? DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

{{tracked|T390105}}

Re short descriptions: I think one (frustrating!) reason people so often write definitions, summaries and the like is probably that the Android app first describes adding short descriptions with "Summarize an article to help readers understand the subject at a glance". Then, if they tap for more information, it sends them to the wrong page, namely [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Android_Suggested_edits#Article_descriptions this Mediawiki page section]. That then gives them the wrong advice. It does include a link to Short description, but right at the end, where they'll only see it after scrolling down. So most users of the suggested edits feature probably never even see the English Wikipedia guidance.

Short of the app linking to the correct page, the Wikimedia page needs to say as soon as people land on it that it's the wrong place for information about English Wikipedia SDs, and send them on to the right one. At some point I'm thinking of making an edit request there to that effect.

This is all particularly galling for me since I wrote the current opening paragraph of Short description a few weeks ago (after discussion, obviously) in an attempt to improve matters—even if I did then fall into one of the traps myself today, with that template description.

By the way, apologies in advance if I leave any reply here that's not threaded properly—I can't load this page in desktop view (with Convenient Discussions installed) because it freezes in my phone browser, so I'm having to use the app instead. This has happened a few times with big talk pages. Musiconeologist (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|Musiconeologist}}, you're not wrong, and if you want to take it on and try to get things changed, that would be great, but I have too much on my plate, and as I mentioned at Template talk:Hr, I think it's probably hopeless. From what you've described, it's even worse than I thought. I have to pick my battles. However, if you take the lead and need a vote or word of support, you can certainly count on me for that. Please do {{tl|ping}} me to any discussions you start. If you can make some headway, that would be excellent. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:: I started one, here. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::: Now tracked as Phab {{phab|T390105}}. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Musiconeologist}}, above you said,

: {{talk quote|Then, if they tap for more information, it sends them to the wrong page, namely the Wikimedia one.}}

Can you link in your reply the wrong page that it sends them to? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Mathglot Added to the message, and here it is again for ease of reference: It's [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Android_Suggested_edits#Article_descriptions here]. (Apologies for the external link—I don't know the correct prefix for an interwiki one.) Musiconeologist (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello sir. I am a newbie and need to learn more about how Wikipedia works. I have decided to ask you after much contemplation. Sometime back I was reading the page on transman, and I left a note about what I thought was inconsistent with a similar entry on transwoman. I am not an expert in these kinds of subjects. Later when I checked up, the entry had indeed been corrected as I had indicated. I was happily surprised, because mine was an innocent comment. What I had indeed expected was some advice to me on the talk page itself, which could make me wiser on how Wikipedia works. However when I tried to trace the discussion on talk page, it said something like this "the talk topic could not be found; it may have been renamed or deleted or modified." I am a bit at a loss to understand what actually happened. Since I am keen to learn, I want to know what exactly happened. This will help me understand Wikipedia better. Many thanks for your time. Neotaruntius (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

: Hello, {{u|Neotaruntius}}. The only edit I can see by you on a related topic is this edit at Talk:Trans man yesterday at 10:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC). The fact that the article was changed in the way you hoped was a coincidence, and part of a major change to the lead prepared by a third party, and since undone. Later, when you looked for your message on the Talk page, you got the "renamed or deleted" message. The reason is, that your message was a reply to an old thread from ten months ago which started in a way that some might see as offensive; as long as that thread slept quietly, no one really noticed it, but when you replied to it, it brought the thread back to the attention of page watchers who have it on their watch list, and one of them deleted the entire thread, including your comment, because of the possibly offensive comment from ten months ago. Does that make sense, now?

::Yes, Mathglot. It does make great sense to me. Less than 24 hours back, I was completely in the dark about it. I did suspect, I may have done something seriously wrong - otherwise, why would the entire thread go away. Today after much contemplation, I decided to write to you. Honestly, I did not expect such an encouraging/reassuring message. Now I do know -thanks to you- that certain subjects are extremely "touchy" and newbies like me should keep away from such topics. So naive was I, that I took it as rather a "sexual education" article, rather than something, which plays on many people's nerves. Thanks Mathglot for all the directions you gave me. I am surely not going to bother you too much. Only when I cannot have my problems solved, will I turn to you. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

: I have restored that thread so you can find it again: it is here: Talk:Trans man#Definition Error. I also responded to you there. However, it might be in danger of being deleted again by someone else, for the same reason as before, so I don't recommend replying to it there. Instead, if you still have questions or comments to make about the Trans man article, you can start a new discussion at the bottom of the page. Does this help? Lastly: no need to call me 'Sir'; just, plain, 'Mathglot' is good enough. And, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes Mathglot. I did notice that. Yes, it is indeed a great help to discuss anything on your own pages. I will do that. I believe "pinging" means alerting you immediately. So should I use those curly bracket messages {{}} that you gave at the top? I believe I do that only when I write something to you on MY talk page, right? Sorry, I sound so ignorant. But thanks a ton for being so friendly and educational. Neotaruntius (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::: Yes, that's pretty much it; in particular, {{tl|ping}} is a shortcut for the {{tl|Reply to}} template, meaning, they both do the same thing, which is to leave me a little notification under the bell icon at the top of the page that someone, somewhere has pinged me. You can also ping, just by putting someone's username in brackets, like this: User:Neotaruntius, and that should send you another alert. This page is the only place on Wikipedia that you *don't* need to ping me, because every time someone writes on this page, it automatically pings me; but if you want to attract my attention from any other page, then ping me. (The same goes, of course, with any other editor.) No need to apologize when asking questions, that is how you learn. While you are always welcome here, you should also learn about the Wikipedia:Teahouse. That is a forum created specifically for newbies to ask questions about Wikipedia. A lot of experienced editors hang out there, and you are likely to get a faster response there, and also perhaps several responses from users with different perspectives on your question. It's a great place to ask questions, you should definitely try it out! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks Mathglot. This is indeed very helpful. Very clear. In fact, so that I have to trouble you least, I checked up the ping page on Wikipedia, so I could get basic information already. I ended up with this - Ping (networking utility). Thankfully I am aware of it. But even under "See also" section, I could not find the "ping" we are discussing. I do however understand a lot about ping now, thanks to your excellent explanatory powers. I will definitely visit teahouse that you suggested. However I love your "personalized" messages so much. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: {{u|Neotaruntius}}, that 'ping' you read about has nothing to do with Wikipedia's {{tl|ping}}, which is a redirect to {{tl|Reply to}}; that's the one you should read up on. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory 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.

Hello there. Chilean colonization of the Strait of Magellan is the original name of the article before Janitoalevic [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilean_colonization_of_the_Strait_of_Magellan&diff=1220882327&oldid=1202937838 moved it without consensus on April 2024]. The article describes a process of colonization, with expeditions, settlers and economic development. That it is just a "takeover" is least to say debatable. Therefore if you still think it should be renamed you should do it properly in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. It is not just to try to establish a controversial move as status quo as you appear to have done here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilean_colonization_of_the_Strait_of_Magellan&diff=1269587776&oldid=1264972796 ] Declinómetro (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:The original name of the article remained from its creattion in 2022 or earlier until user Janitoalevic [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilean_colonization_of_the_Strait_of_Magellan&diff=1220882327&oldid=1202937838 moved it without consensus on April 2024]. The article describes a process of colonization, with expeditions, settlers and economic development. That it is just a "takeover" as it has been cliamed in the edit summaries is least to say debatable. My original restgoriation was reverted in January, but I insist on this since is not fair play to try to establish a controversial move as status quo as it was done [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilean_colonization_of_the_Strait_of_Magellan&diff=1269587776&oldid=1264972796 here]. Regarding the argument of what Chilean sources usually call this I would take this with some distance given that each state has an interest in portraying its expansion in certain way, take note that we use here Occupation of Araucanía and not the classical Pacification of Araucanía, and there is also a difference of scope since this article covers the contruing arrival of settlers (colonization) while a "takeover" is to be understood as a temporarily limited event. The title of this article aligns with Spanish colonization attempt of the Strait of Magellan, German colonization of Valdivia, Osorno and Llanquihue an a future Colonization of Aysén article. I dont think anybody would call these "German takeover of Valdivia, Osorno and Llanquihue", "Takeover of Aysén" or "Spanish takeover attempt of the Strait of Magellan". Declinómetro (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography 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.

Hello, Mathglot,

This article had already been draftified once and the draft creator moved it back to main space so it should not have been draftified a second time according to WP:DRAFTNO. Please follow the guidelines of WP:DRAFTIFY that state when draftifying an article is appropriate. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|Liz}}, I understand what WP:DRAFTNO says and I have complied. I have undone my recent changes to the article (mostly to remove the Afc Draft header I had added) and moved it back to mainspace. (I briefly had it placed as a userspace draft, until I saw that WP:DRAFTOBJECT forbids this as well.) That said, it is not close to ready for mainspace, and I guess I will have to start a Talk page discussion on what to do with this woefully inadequate article.

: I must say I find it very odd that the guideline appears to support even a newbie editor who objects to draftification of their page by two senior editors with a combined tenure of 23 years and 450,000 edits by the simple expedient of placing it in mainspace twice. This reading essentially gives a newbie whose article hasn't a prayer of passing Afc, the unilateral right to keep their page in mainspace (in whatever condition it may be in) by triggering the "controversial move" part of the guideline completely on their own accord. This seems to me a topsy-turvy world, and appears to make a mockery of WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability, not to mention WP:Afc who never got to weigh in. I understand the nature of controversial moves and have doled out advice about it umpteen times, and I suppose I will just have to start a discussion at the Talk page, if I can find the time. However my sense is that the scales are too heavily weighted in favor of newbies who don't know the basics pushing junk into the encyclopedia, and I am not quite sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Taking it to Afd is costly in human resources, and is another illustration of where things are out of balance.

: Sooner or later a newbie will hook up a pipeline of junk foreign articles to machine translation, and spit them into mainspace several per hour, a hundred or more per day, unnotable, and sans citations. (This is already in progress in a preliminary form, and as someone who attempts to track translations I know multiple editors who have translated from over 20 languages, much faster than I can translate an article, although not yet at bot speed.) Some of them may get Draftified, and then they will just move them back to main per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Then we can send them all to Afd, and see what happens. The current imbalance in favor of keeping things in mainspace will either pollute the quality of the encyclopedia or will break Afd. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::The guideline is the guideline, even if I myself draftified the article, I agree that we should not be re-draftifying in most cases. You're always welcome to propose new guidelines, or tweaks to existing ones, but until such time, we should typically follow best practices. We can reasonably disagree on what belongs in main space, I often do, but, unfortunately, that means we simply must send things to AfD sometimes. AFC is not the authority on the matter either, they/we are simply a group of folks who help try to guide and help people with creating and assessing their article. For the time being, I've sent the article to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::: Hey man im josh, thanks for the comment. If we are talking about in most cases, I don't necessarily disagree; my point about the imbalance is that this is not "most cases". The other thing, is that if there were a guideline to tweak, maybe I would propose that, but in looking into that just now, I noticed that WP:DRAFTNO is part of an explanatory essay, and not a guideline at all, as it states very clearly right up there in the nutshell box, so what are we doing deferring to it, especially in a case that is not one of most cases? This seems seriously wrong. If, on the other hand, deferring to that essay has become standard practice, then the essay status should be readjusted and be named as a guideline. Had I noticed this earlier, I possibly would have ignored the advice to follow it, because following the advice in an essay is of the lowest level of compulsion that exists at Wikipedia, and you don't need to invoke IAR to ignore it, you just ignore it and do what's right for the encyclopedia.

::: But, I didn't notice it before, and now it's at Afd, where it probably belonged in the first place, so now we'll follow that path. I honestly thought I was being kind to the author by draftifying it; the point was, to give them more time to come up with citations and establish WP:Notability. Putting it back in mainspace is lose-lose, and over-deference to essays is WP:BURO, to put it kindly. Thanks for listening. Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok so what's the solution? When does it become move warring? When should we stop and what should we demand? It's one of the "rules to get along" which isn't the strictest of "rules". As for being kind by draftifying, I completely agree. It's much kinder to say "this needs work", as opposed to "what you wrote should be deleted". I'm probably the biggest advocate of utilizing draft space, but the problem we repeatedly run into is that some people will just continually move the draft back to main space, and notability can be subjective. It's a problem I run into and feel strongly about, and I've draftified, I think, over a thousand articles in the past year. I don't have the answers but I am always open to input. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: {{u|Hey man im josh}}, move warring is a problem, and not sure what the solution is yet, but I am thinking about it. But it cannot be that we are hamstrung by the rules into making things worse for a newbie, i.e., now his article is at Afd (which I support as the only viable choice under the circumstances) and he has seven days to fix it or convince people it is fixable, vs. a latitude of six months minimum, in Draft (and probably similar in User space, or until someone notices; possibly never). WP:DONTBITE and WP:Editor retention must trump WP:DRAFTNO somehow; currently Afd seems the only way, but the net effect on the project is negative. Maybe a carve-out at WP:DRAFTS, not sure; will continue to think about it. Mathglot (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Unsolicited commentary alert: if an editor moves his drafts back into mainspace and ends up at AfD (with the impact of getting 6 months reduced to 7 days) maybe he'll learn the next time. As for your example with editors peppering Wikipedia with articles, the remedy isn't to change our guidelines, but to block such editors. I truly urge you to step back and try to see this from another angle, Mathglot - to me as an uninvolved editor this does not seem to be the problem you think it is. This is offered purely in the interest of trying to help out a fellow editor that might be stuck in a too-narrow POV, it happens to all of us. If you don't appreciate this comment just delete it and I won't bother you again. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Good points, and you are always welcome to comment here. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Mathoglot. I seek your help again for a matter. I have been reading a page on Theriogenology, when I suddenly realized that there exists a prominent journal on this subject. There is no mention of this in the page and I thought it was worth adding this information. However I simply do not know how to cite it. The information pages, which confirm the existence of this journal are (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?sort=pubdate&size=200&show_snippets=off&term=%22Theriogenology%22%5BTitle+Abbreviation%5D (2)https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/theriogenology. Can you please advise? Thanks. I think specific and pointed queries like this can only be solved by you. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|Neotaruntius}}, you flatter me too much. Please do me a favor, and post this question at the WP:Teahouse. I guarantee you that there are many editors who will be able and happy to help you there, and that is a better starting point for this type of question. If you do not get a satisfactory answer, I promise to help you, but I am only one editor, and there are many who can help you with this, and it's almost always better to get a sampling of advice from several. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks Mathglot. I will do that right way. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks Mathglot. I did exactly as you told, and would you believe it, I got two replies within a few hours. Good lead. I did not realize that by asking you again and again, I might be putting too much pressure on you. The praise was quite genuine and innocent. Neotaruntius (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::: {{u|Neotaruntius}}, I am glad you got quick responses at the Teahouse. Just to be clear: you are always welcome to post your questions here; I just think you would profit more by starting at the Teahouse, and it looks like that worked out on this occasion. Don't hesitate to come here if you don't get satisfaction there. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks Mathglot. I did receive two replies, but as you can see for yourself by going to Query from a Newbie, none helped. I would have believed, you might have given a sharper, quicker answer [no flattery implied]. But this still is not a veiled request to you for a quick answer. I need to learn via normal channels. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you prefer the approach of {{diff2|1281772323|my reply}}, Mathglot? Regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|CapnZapp}}, agreed with you pretty much right down the line, but just figured nothing was going to come of any of these multiple discussions on the topic, so why throw good time after bad? Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I read your (now deleted) comments, and let me just say I understand where you're coming from. My best (honest but perhaps rough) advice is to add another step to your Wikipedia efforts: "Did anyone actually ask for this?" I merely mean that I totally understand how one might want to use one's knowledge and ideas for good, but holding off until someone actually asks for it can do wonders when it comes to actually getting any satisfaction (if not recognition) out of it. Anyway, here's an award that might or might not reflect your feelings right now (hopefully taken the right way):

Image:Mouldy bread.jpg|The Mouldy Sandwich is awarded to those who tirelessly work on bettering Wikipedia.

Take care, CapnZapp (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|CapnZapp}}, lol; that's a stress-reliever, and I needed it; thanks! Hopefully things will turn out all right at the template, which is to say, no worse than they are now, because it's just a logjam and clearly nothing is going to happen to the code as a result of it. In which case, there is no point in discussing. I am backed up on so many other things, I should topic-ban myself from even reading that page. Anyway, thanks again for the encouragement. If something really, really dire comes up (on the order of nominating the template for deletion) then ping me, but otherwise, if the house isn't on fire, I need to move on to other things. Happy trails, Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather on a "Wikipedia style and naming" 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.

I am giving you the opportunity to retract your aspersions cast on Talk:Free play accusing me (not even questioning if it was made with AI, outright saying "it is LLM generated" in multiple places). This is not supported by any evidence (no, GPTZero scores are not evidence per consensus) and the suggestion that because I made a bot that involves different AI models unrelated to generating articles than my articles and FL/GA reviews must be AI generate too is absurd. It does not require knowledge of AI or AI training to use AI to generate articles, and had I actually used AI (using my knowledge of it used to create the bot) it would not have had the issues you describe - neutrality, sometimes sources don't exactly say it - these are human mistakes I made. Your accusations are deeply upsetting to me because I worked very hard to create that article and I hope you understand that they are not based in evidence and that I did make the article. I hope this is just a misunderstanding and we can move forward together. :) MolecularPilot^Talk 02:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{tps|j}} If you're talking about this remark, it's pretty clear you are going out of your way to read Mathglot's remarks in the worst possible light. They have legitimate concerns about the article and per talk are clearly not alone in that regard. They could be wrong in their suspicions about LLM generation—but I doubt it given the empirical evidence in the article history, sorry. Assuming you didn't, you still have every reason to address the root of their concerns (the state of the article) instead of demanding penace for what were polite, good-faith comments you frankly have not convinced me aren't founded. Remsense ‥ 论 03:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|MolecularPilot}}, Thank you for your message. You may be right that "{{xt|This is not supported by any evidence}}", as it is virtually impossible to prove LLM usage one way or another. Though I wonder if your message is partly an indirect or preemptive response to something else you have seen at the Talk page, namely the possible major article cutbacks that may be in the offing due to massive problems with verifiability throughout that you were previously informed about more than once, but did not fix. So let's talk about that for a moment.

: As you have seen, several editors, including me, are in the process of examining your article Free play and checking the WP:Verifiability of the sources and so far at least, it is looking pretty grim. Your Good Article nomination failed in a big way due to major referencing issues, even though the reviewers gave you extra time beyond what is normal. You never fixed them; those major problems still exist. But that doesn't mean that the article gets to remain in its unverified state forever. Every time I check one of the assertions in the article against the citation, it fails verifiability. The assertion I happened to check shortly before your message landed here on my Talk page was the first part of section {{slink|Free play|Physical|nopage=yes}} at the article, which reads:

:: {{talk quote|The impact of free play on a child's development is multifaceted as it cultivates both gross and fine motor skills through movement, manipulation of objects, and experimentation with physical capabilities.{{remote ref|Clay|2023|article=Free play|rev=1282699149|note=5}}}}

: That is cited to Clay-2023, but I just tagged it as {{tl|failed verification}}, giving as a reason that "{{xt|the terms 'gross', 'fine', 'motor', 'movement', 'manipulation', 'object', 'experimentation', 'physical', and 'capabilit-y/-ies' do not occur in this source.}}" That is, it is not even close to being supported by the source.

: Going through the article and examining citations one by one takes time, and adding tags and explanations takes time. I will keep doing it for a short while more, but I must tell you that there is a strong likelihood that your article will not survive in its current form, and it is not impossible it will end up as a single well-sourced paragraph, as already mentioned at Talk. It is absolutely essential that you grasp the core Wikipedia concept of WP:Verifiability; please note the following excerpt from the verifiability policy (bold in the original):

:: {{quote|All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.   . . .{{br}} Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.}}

: Note in particular, the words "directly supports" which have additional explanatory notes. Very little in the Free play article meets this standard.

: Now, coming back to your initial complaint: I am very sorry if you are upset, it was not my intention, and for that, I apologize. However, my priority is the integrity of the encyclopedia, even it it ruffles some feathers in the process. Unless there are major improvements to verifiability in *very* short order, I am very much afraid that you will be far more upset when the article content you worked so hard to create is removed on policy grounds, possibly on a grand scale. But I cannot help that; my prime allegiance is to the encyclopedia, not to you. I was not the first (or the second) to believe your article was LLM-generated, and my opinion about the use of LLM is my opinion. The best I can do in response to your message is to affirm that it is never my intention to hurt anyone, and it pains me to know your reaction, and for that I am sorry. I have done a fair bit of work observing LLMs, including here at Wikipedia, and am the prime author of one of the project pages about it, so I have seen LLM usage all over the encyclopedia, and in multiple languages. Still, even with all that, it is just an opinion, nothing more. You say you didn't use an LLM, and I have no way of knowing for sure. It remains my opinion, however wrong I may be; that is the best I can do. I cannot very well retract an opinion if it is something I actually believe in, without dissembling, can I?

: But keep in mind what's really important here, which is the article. Its poor state of verifiability is not just an opinion, but something that I know for sure. It is something multiple editors have observed, and it is something that can be demonstrated, such as with that tag I added. Given more than ample opportunity, you haven't acted to support verifiability, for whatever reason; maybe no one explained it to you properly, I don't know. But the article will soon be in a 100% verified state, one way or another. I'm sorry you were upset by things I said or did, and I hope this refocuses your attention on what is really at stake here. Verifiability, verifiability, verifiability. All the best, {{ec}} Mathglot (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your very eloquent and kind reply. I am sorry for sending you such a snarky message above, when I read your messages (not the diff that Remsense provided, it was a, b, in fact the message at the diff Remsense linked was very considerate and I apologise for not thanking for your assisting with verifying everything), I was quite upset and treated the as a comment on me as a person. Now, reflecting back, I understand these were not directed at me but were directed at the content of the article - I can understand why the way I wrote it can seem suspicious and your suscipsion is very reasonable. I know that I wrote it myself, not an AI, in my own memory - and that is enough for me. You can, and should, think whatever you want. It was just a little saddening to see so many people, and now Remsense too above, accuse me of using an AI, but, having processed it, knowing in my own heart that I made it is enough, and I do see where the suspicions came from due to the WP:BACKWARDS way I made it as it was a topic covered in psych class, and I understand your perspective. I do not mind if any of it is removed, rather, I am simply grateful to you for taking the time to help with the verification of it. I thank you so much for all the time you have put in, and would be more than happy to assist in any way (I already have a re-write locally that I've been working on since I stated that in the GA review, I have just had a lot of bad luck and stuff on my plate IRL so it is not ready yet). Thank you again! :) MolecularPilot^Talk 06:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::: {{u|MolecularPilot}}, no worries. It sounds like we are both focused on the important thing, which is improving the encyclopedia, by improving an article. Glad we are on the same team! Take care, Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union 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.

Hi Mathglot, a question, since you have expertise in working with other languages: there is a new article about Kilmar Ábrego García (a Salvadoran immigrant deported from the US and sent to a horrendous prison in El Salvador due to what the Trump administration says was an "administrative error," where the US government now claims that it cannot get him back to the US). English-language news isn't including the accents in its reporting, and my understanding is that we should therefore use the unaccented name in the article title. My question: should we be using his actual name in the display and the body of the article, or should we use the unaccented version throughout, since that's the common name? Or should we mostly use the unaccented version but write something like "Kilmer Abrego Garcia (born Kilmar Armando Ábrego García)"? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

: Hi, FactOrOpinion, and thanks for asking. (Heard about that case; awful.) Will get to your question in a sec, but first: assuming you don't know this person, or Serbian, how would you pronounce Đilas, as in 'Milovan Đilas'? (No peeking). Got it, now? Hold that thought.

: Back to your question: I would definitely use the common name, according to what WP:AT states. and whatever data you can find in English reliable sources, as you appear to be doing. That seems like a no-brainer to me. That said, I may not be the best person to ask, because I appear to be distinctly in the minority on this. The view I just expressed is the same as I would say for hundreds of articles at English Wikipedia that not only use accented letters in English that do *not* match usage in English sources, but also often even use letters that are less recognizable in English and may give readers pause how to pronounce, like 'Đilas'. I've always had a suspicion why things are the way they are which I can get into if you're curious.

: Did you hesitate at all in the example above, thinking about how 'Đilas' might be pronounced? (The way my luck is going today, you were probably born in Belgrade.) In fact, the article used to be called {{no redirect|Milovan Đilas}} (in two separate runs) and was renamed twice back to the correct-in-English Milovan Djilas, even though there is no 'j' in the original Serbian; that is, Djilas spells it 'Đilas'. There is a worthwhile discussion about this at Talk:Milovan Djilas (2008 – 2021!) which I recommend as groundwork.

: Bottom line: if English sources are not accenting it, per WP:AT neither should we, but don't be surprised if some eager diacritic-gnome swings by afterward and "fixes" it. What happens then, depends on how much energy you've got. (The gnomes won't complain, when the person is mega-famous and they actually have read about the person themselves, as in, Novak Djokovic, which of course has no 'j' in the original either; see :sh:Novak Đoković.) I think there is massive flouting of WP:AT in this regard, but it felt unwinnable, so I kind of gave up. I looked at Milovan Djilas just now for the first time since I last moved it in 2021, fully expecting it to have been changed back to Đilas again, and happily surprised to see that it has remained at 'Milovan Djilas'. So, maybe it is worth taking the time to do the right thing, after all. One little pebble in the ocean, anyway. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I'm American, and though I've lived/traveled abroad, I don't speak any Eastern European languages. I didn't peek, did ponder briefly, and didn't guess the correct pronunciation, though in retrospect I should have thought about the pronunciation of names I know, like Novak Djokovic. I took a look at Djilas's article just now and see that it presents the Serbian spelling for his name in parentheses, so that is what I'll do for Ábrego García. As an aside, it was interesting to learn that Serbian uses both Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. I think American sources are more likely to spell a Spanish name correctly if the person is well-known in their field (e.g., Gabriel García Márquez), though for WP that results in García sometimes being spelled with an accent and sometimes without, as in the article I asked about. As for your suspicion, sure, I'm always curious. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::: FactOrOpinion, that sounds like a good plan. (Wouldn't use born, that sounds like a name change.) The 'sh' ISO-639 code at the beginning of the Serbian page you visited, is actually on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia (which has two scripts you can choose from: Cyrillic or Latin because of digraphia). There are also separate Wikipedias for Serbian (written only in Cyrillic) and Croatian (written only in Latin script), but they are all the same language, as much as Hindi (written in Devanagari) and Urdu (written in Arabic script) are the same. So, Milovan Djilas gets to have three articles about him in the same language (or four, if you count the two scripts you can view the Serbo-Croatian one in). Agree with you about the effect of celebrity on American sources. Fading; more later perhaps. Mathglot (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: FactOrOpinion, One other thing I thought of, is that I think that monolingual English speakers are more likely to use accents in languages where it corresponds to the tonic accent; that is, the emphasized syllable, as in Spanish, but unlike French or Hungarian, where it merely changes the sound or length of the vowel, and probably more in fr than hu due to some familiarity with French accented vowels due to borrowings like passé or naïveté where English speakers know how to pronounce it. But that’s just conjecture on my part. Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::That makes sense, though my experience is that monolingual English speakers and most English news sources seldom use diacritics, even when the accent tells you which syllable to stress. But my experience with monolingual English speakers is mostly in the US; when I've lived/traveled elsewhere, I wasn't in Anglophone countries, so I don't know how typical my experience is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, someone moved the Abrego Garcia page to Ábrego García (and as I look at reporting in Spanish, it's now not even clear to me whether it's Ábrego or Abrego, as I'm seeing both). Detention of Rümeysa Öztürk, a grad student visa holder also caught in Trump's deportation efforts, likewise uses the Turkish spelling of her name rather than the common name. I think I'm going to ask at WT:AT to see whether consensus has changed when it comes to people's names. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Iqrit 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.

{{Courtesy link|WP:Teahouse#Two Unrelated Questions about the Education of New Users}}

@Mathglot, I think the fellow who posted the topic "Two Unrelated Questions about the Education of New Users" in the Teahouse recently — and to whom you replied several times — would likely be a very good candidate to add to your collection of possible "pain providers." Augnablik (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|Augnablik}}, Can you elaborate? Mathglot (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::You remember how you've encouraged me to track what you call my Wikipedia "pain points" — issues, difficulties, challenges, etc, as a newbie and then a toddler, now probably a tween?

::Well, with that in mind I was impressed with the comments of an editor by the name of Robert McClenon in connection with the topic I mentioned that he posted, and thought to call your attention to him as a possible 'nut her pain point provider. Or perhaps better yet, someone to help write good instructional material for newbies. Augnablik (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::: {{u|Augnablik}}, Yes, of course I do and I knew exactly what you were referring to wrt pain points and having better doc for newbies. In your OP, however, I couldn't tell which side of that you were coming down on, because the term pain provider sounded to me more like a complaint that the editor in question was causing pain rather than alleviating it, hence my request for elaboration. I now understand your comment as meaning that {{u|Robert McClenon}} would be a good person to write clear doc for newbies, and I couldn't agree more. (I hope you see why using the term pain provider sounded to me like you were making precisely the opposite point.)

::: Robert is a very experienced editor with great analytical skills, and a frequent volunteer host at WP:DRN who helps guide users locked in content disputes to come to some agreement; a rare skill. That kind of understanding plus his other skills imho do align with the type of background of someone that could write great documentation for newbies. Being a volunteer project, I do not know if that is within Robert's interest area, but I'm happy to introduce the two of you, so you can find out.

::: In the meantime, I hope you are keeping that tickler list of pain points linked to poor or missing doc and will publish it at some point so the documentation can be improved, or indeed, now that you are not quite so much of a newbie, just jump in and fix it yourself. You can also raise a discussion any time requesting new or improved documentation on a particular topic, either at the Talk page of the feature needing improved doc, or at a centralized venue if there is no doc page yet or you cannot find one. Sometimes the doc may exist already, and we just need to make it easier to find it, e.g. via more redirects, more expansive "See also" sections interlinking related features, or adding it to index pages or categories. Mathglot (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, my … yes, of course I see why you were confused! The pane is now clear.

::::I'm happy to know that Robert is a well-established contributing Wikipedian. Perhaps he could be of particular assistance with NOTABILITY documentation, if and when this discussion ever ends. It would be a pleasure to connect with him at some point. Augnablik (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: {{u|Augnablik}}, which discussion is that? Link, please. {{ec}} Mathglot (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Oh, I see you removed the word discussion. Mathglot (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I'm afraid that 'assistance with NOTABILITY documentation' is way too general to be acted upon (at least, it would be, for me). Can you be more specific? I assume you have particular pain points in mind. Mathglot (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, I don't think it's worth pursuing, Mathglot … it was sort of a fun way to end the conversation, considering the way the Notability discussion has been going and the clear evidence it's shown that this particular topic is in great need of being made much clearer in its documentation for newbies — and even older-in-Wiki editors. Augnablik (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Forspoken on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" 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.

: Clarification requested. Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)