User talk:Mathglot

Your advice pls

Hi, @Mathglot, id like to have your advice, I just saw that tgeorgescu reverted the article back before I upgraded it, now it's a full on hoax again including the article title. And, you know, that he adds made up claims sometimes.
I thought of reporting him to WP:ANI, with the hope that the article will be reverted to roughly this state, were most claims are verifiable (I can provide you examples if you want). Do you think this is the best way, or do you think there are better ways, to archive this goal? Would a partially blocked edit request be a better way? There, I could also incorporate ideas from people like you to improve the article, e.g. re-checking that everything is correct, with my now improved editing skills. The Other Karma (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: he adds made up claims sometimes (emphasis on "adds"): provide diffs or apologies.

Not everything has to be sourced to WP:MEDRS. E.g., the ethics of research is not a medical claim in itself. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Here you go, that claim can't be verified according to the review:
Diff1 The Other Karma (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, a systematic review from 2025 states that the evidence is too weak to support any conclusion, which IMHO means that the evidence is insufficient to posit that pornography is harmful to minors. And that is many years after the cited writings by Blumner, Levine and Heins.

Verbatim quote from Blumner: "Is it accurate to presume that as teens mature sexually they are harmed or corrupted by exposure to pornographic material?" tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. While your statements can not always be verified, the mostly not that wrong. The sources I used in my version also said what you are saying but verifiable, in other words. The effect research is based on correlation research, which is not causality. Regarding harmed or corrupted, you may be interested into the legal perspective, which you can read here. Law and social science refer to different things. The Other Karma (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

#"porn is forbidden to minors" is an ethical prescription, not a scientific fact pertaining to psychiatry. The psychiatrists will say it is the task of the lawgiver to decide such matters, since science has nothing to say about it. Psychiatry cannot say whether it is harmful or non-harmful, so psychiatry is neutral about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Quoting myself from the talk page of the article. According to the is–ought problem, "porn is prohibited to minors" is by no means the same as "porn is harmful to minors".

A more adequate claim would be: members of Parliament assume without any empirical evidence published in mainstream scientific journals that porn is harmful to minors. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: Use <s> and </s> to retract your claim, otherwise it makes me look like replying to figments of my own imagination. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thx for the info, didn't know that that's the way to go. The Other Karma (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

User:The Other Karma, a number of different types of claims or questions are being made here, including: a) article content verifiability; b) proper article title; and c) user conduct (making up claims). Items a and b belong on the article Talk page; and c belongs on User talk of the editor in question (with evidence). So my advice is, move your questions and comments to the appropriate location; most importantly, the content issues. If you do, ping me if you wish, and I will respond there.

As far as c goes, I would advise being very careful with what amounts to an accusation of user misconduct. When another user disagrees with you about article content, even very strongly, your first assumption should be that they have the same goal as you: improving the article, even if they see a very different path to that goal than you do. Given that the accusation is already in the air, you need to either place it on the user talk page backed with evidence, or withdraw it. Also, bear in mind that an unsupported accusation may be seen as a personal attack which is a Wikipedia policy violation that could lead to a WP:BLOCK. Comment on content, not the contributors. Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The accusation can be seen as withdrawn. The Other Karma (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The Other Karma, sorry to insist a bit, but would you be willing to write, "I withdraw my accusation" below? I am very sorry to appear nitpicky about words, but I recognize that English is not your native language, and I think you are missing a subtlety of English that is rather important here. Written the way you did in the passive voice, with "can be seen as" and an unknown agent (who sees it that way?), others might interpret your statement as a coy wordplay incorporating a refusal to actually withdraw it, while appearing to do so. I'm sure that was not your intention, but those who assume you to be a native English speaker might wonder. Rewriting it will unequivocally clear the air. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah no problem. I herby withdraw my accusation. The Other Karma (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! Mathglot (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:NatWest 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 10:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sydney Sweeney 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 11:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello and thanks!

Thanks for your help at the August Bay Area Wikipedia user group! Scottmace (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Scottmace, you are more than welcome! Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

"Template:Contentious" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Contentious 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 23 § Template:Contentious until a consensus is reached. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 12:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 06:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 09:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chukai 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Unlinked. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Nice meeting you in person! Let's keep in touch. As a reminder, Gen-Mina people. BaduFerreira (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Likewise! Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 09:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Review Request for Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites

The following discussion 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.

---

Hi Mathglot, thank you for your 25 August 2025 edits to Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites, adding links and noting broken links in refs 3, 4, 6, and the website parameter. I’ve updated the references, verified the website[](https://ctcsisters.com), and added sources. I attempted to add an image (File:MotherEliswa.jpg) but reverted due to rendering issues causing a second box. Could you review the draft and advise if it’s ready for mainspace or suggest improvements? I’ve also asked User:Pbritti and User:Peaceray for feedback. Thanks for your support! Desertstorm1000 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Desertstorm1000, you should ask in one place, and that place is the Draft talk page. I will respond there. Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Draft talk:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites

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.

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

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox college coach 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 07:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

RE: Hamburger Talk Page

I really feel like civility is a two-way street: and so far it has not seemed to be going my way. Somehow, on far larger articles, I find that there is little or no resistance to making changes or discussing potential changes in an amicable way.

While I understand your position, I don't agree with it. Specifically because my experience so far has been having my positions which are well-researched and sourced to be simply ignored as it's more convenient to the goals of those editors.

I don't find the same level of acrimonious behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia. Getting simple replies to simple facts is like getting blood from a stone and it shouldn't be.

To use a prescient example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chicken_sandwich#c-Belbury-20250917191600-Strongwranglers-20250917185700

"I don't see how it matters what anybody calls anything."

This is a dismissive and frustrating comment which is intended to shut down further discussion.

No one is going to ask this user to be sensible, and apparently if I do, users will come to my talk page and post notices.

Can you explain a good path forward here? I am perhaps blind to it.

Strongwranglers (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Strongwranglers. Civility is very definitely a two-way street, and I am sorry you feel that it has not been going your way lately. The way I usually deal with it if I feel on the short end of that stick, is to ignore it the first time, maybe try to understand what motivated it the second time (are they new? did someone else just bite their head off on some completely unrelated matter, leaving them prickly and more prone to lash out?) and maybe just forgive if there was some underlying reason; we are all human after all. If it is a pattern that keeps happening, then the Talk page of the user concerned is the proper venue to raise it with them: User talk pages are for WP:CONDUCT-related stuff and other notices; article Talk pages are for improving the article, and not for discussing editor behavior.

This means we should avoid saying anything about editor behavior on article Talk pages as much as possible. The oft-quoted line around here about what is appropriate on an article Talk page, is this:

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

One way to monitor this yourself, is before you hit the Publish button on an article Talk page, hit Preview first (you should be doing this anyway, to catch typos and stuff) and count up the number of times you wrote you or your: the ideal number is zero. (This is only a rough measure; of course you can say, "In your comment of 32 Octember, you wrote: bla bla..", but you get the point.) Stick to stuff about article improvement; keep comments about editors, if they really must be made, confined to their User Talk page.

I understand you don't agree with my position, and that is perfectly okay (even if I am not 100% certain which position we are talking about, but it doesn't really matter: disagreement is fine, regardless). The way that article content disagreements are settled, is by collegial discussion at Talk pages, with consensus among multiple editors being the deciding factor, ultimately. Sometimes things will go your way, sometimes they won't; in the latter case, it's best just to move on to something else.

One thing that was a possible yellow flag was this:

having my positions which are well-researched and sourced to be simply ignored as it's more convenient to the goals of those editors

I don't want to read into that more than you intended, but just because you have done some good research and sourced some content, does not mean that everyone will necessarily see it that way. Also, sourced material is not inviolate just because it is sourced. Have a look at the very important principle of WP:DUEWEIGHT—this is not something that new editors usually get into right away, but it is a crucial one, because just because one editor finds one or two or five reliable sources that say 'X', doesn't mean that someone else can't find ten or twenty sources that say exactly the opposite. In a case like this, WP:DUE tells us to go with the majority view about an assertion (and if there are important minority views, then cover them, too, in rough proportion to the number of sources espousing it).

There is also a possible yellow flag in your statement, depending on how you meant, "more convenient to the goals of those editors". Presumably, their goal is to improve the article, and thereby, improve the encyclopedia. If that is their goal, then disagreement with you about something is just a content disagreement, and we talk it out, invite other editors to comment, and try to reach consensus. (If that doesn't work, there are other methods of dispute resolution.)

If you meant that those editors have goals other than to improve the article, such as some private agenda, then you need to step carefully, especially as a new editor. Our initial attitude towards the actions of any other editor should always be to assume good faith, even if their actions initially seem nefarious or inexplicable; it could be that they are trying to improve the article, but in some way we just don't see yet. So, always give every editor the benefit of the doubt, even if what they are doing seems really hinky. If, over time, you become convinced that something is going on, you need to be pretty sure of yourself before making any accusations. How to deal with vandals or editors with other agendas is rather tricky, and I recommend avoiding that for now, as more often than not, a new editor (and even experienced editors) will end up getting themselves in more trouble, than the person they are concerned about. One thing you can always do, is ask a more experienced editor to take a look at something and see what they think. Which is exactly what you did here, so bravo for that—good instincts! Which is a great següe...

Regarding the issue at Talk:Chicken sandwich, I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint you, at least for now. I did actually notice that one, and found it initially confusing, and as I went through it there were a lot of moving parts, and I realized I didn't want to get involved. No special reason, mostly just the volunteer thing, and how best to allocate my time, but also, I am wary about opining on what some other editor meant; best is usually just to ask them to clarify. Still, I think you did exactly the right thing by asking me here; maybe I'll get into that one later, but no promises. What I think you could do at this point, is follow that good instincts by asking someone else you trust. One way to appeal to a random experienced editor is by asking your question on your own Talk page, ideally in a new section, and adding the token {{Help me}} somewhere in your message. Another way, is go to the WP:Teahouse and ask your question there. Now that I think of it, the Teahouse is usually for basic editing questions, and the Chicken sandwich issue is a bit more involved than that, so in this case, I think I would recommend to you that you ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk instead, which is for more complex issues.

I know this doesn't answer all your questions, but I hope it helped, anyway. And feel free to write here anytime. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This was a very thoughtful reply, thank you very much. I'm going to chew on this for a while, I think you made a lot of good points.

"a new editor (and even experienced editors) will end up getting themselves in more trouble, than the person they are concerned about", yes: I find that to be the case, and it's not really my intention.

I've seen some posts here and there about the RFC process: do you have experience with that working out generally?

I really appreciate that you went out of your way to respond to me like this, it means a lot to me personally. Strongwranglers (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Strongwranglers, Glad whenever I can help! I can see that your intent is entirely to improve articles, and that is the bottom line for a path to becoming a good and productive editor. There's no question that the culture is different here, and takes some getting used to. There will be some bumps in the road, especially when you are new, but that is entirely to be expected; we have all been there. And making mistakes is the best way to learn, otherwise when does it ever happen? So, I wouldn't worry, just watch and listen, take on board what seems like good advice, and ask directly at any of the many forums for questions whenever you need help.

Wrt to your specific question: yes, they often work out in the sense that they find a consensus based on wide community input where earlier dispute resolution methods were unable to; but sometimes even an Rfc does not reach a consensus, and then the status quo ante remains. An Rfc is more or less a DR method of last resort. Why 'last resort'? Because it is extremely costly in terms of our most precious resource: volunteer time, as they run for 30 days and attract the views of numerous editors who might otherwise be out there improving some articles. An Rfc may be appropriate when you have tried everything else: Third opinion, WP:Moderation, invited WikiProject members to opine, and after you have talked it to death on the article Talk page with reams of comments that have thus far have deadlocked or failed to produce a consensus. Then and only then might it be worth starting an Rfc (see WP:RFCBEFORE). Wrt to Talk:Hamburger, we are not near that point yet. I even have some of my own points to add (future flash: What about Burger?) which I have not had time to yet, mostly because I have been talking with you! So, stayed tuned for that in a day or two, and feel free to invite participation in the discussion by notifying WikiProjects to attract the eyes of additional editors. If you wish to try that, please read WP:APPNOTE first, as any notification of editors in a dispute must be seen to be neutral (i.e., you can't just invite 'your team' to join in).

One tip: I have been pinging you so you know there is a response here, but I might forget, and in other discussions elsewhere, others may not ping you. Do you see that 'Subscribe' link at the top of this section? If you click that, you will be notified any time someone leaves a comment. I normally subscribe to any conversation I participate in (except those on this, my own Talk page, where the Mediawiki software automatically notifies me. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S., I just got pinged from the ANI discussion about you. It's unfortunate you landed there, but I understand why. Be aware that there are tons of admins who hang out there, who may become aware of you due to that, which isn't something you want to encourage if the press is mostly negative, as it is now. The best thing to do is try to calm the waters, but unfortunately they seem to have got your goat, and you feel compelled to defend yourself, and it is coming across as pugnacious. That's not by itself a policy violation, but some are throwing around words like WP:DISRUPTION and WP:POINTY. I may try to say something very brief to calm the waters there, but really it should be you doing that, and it seems more like you are throwing fuel on the fire, right there at ANI. I don't get it; this is only likely to get admins to pay more attention to you, and for all the wrong reasons. Any way you can just cool it there, and disengage? I don't think you are headed for a WP:BLOCK based on its being your first time there and the fact that the editor who started the thread did so prematurely, but since they did, your actions in the thread (and theirs) are under increased scrutiny, and it's hard to predict what some admin might do. So, I would back off if I were you, preferably right now before it gets worse, and preferably with a very conciliatory message if you can manage that. ANI is not where you want to be, and definitely not the place to be feisty and pugnacious. You will get some latitude as a new user, but not infinite latitude. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fundamentally the right of other users to be able to file reports. Consternation is not condemnation though, to wit. I think it's warranted to defend myself in this case, the overall claim is about an edit where the total edited content was... 1 word.

This is what I'm speaking to when I say that I haven't had users extend the olive branch to me. Strongwranglers (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Help creating a first article

Hi Mathglot (talk · contribs): sorry to bother you, but you've been exceptionally clear-minded and helpful during our interactions so I was hoping to seek sage advice.

I am about to create my first article for Wikipedia for Chap's pit beef:

https://eatlikebourdain.com/anthony-bourdain-in-baltimore/

https://www.baltimoresun.com/2023/09/07/chaps-pit-beef-photos/

It's a semi-famous restaurant which is referenced in a few TV shows, such as The Wire, and cross-references Pit beef.

https://www.wmar2news.com/localeats/after-35-years-chaps-pit-beef-in-baltimore-is-moving-right-next-door

^ Would referencing the facts in this article be a good start?

Any thoughts on how to proceed? I think it's a really great article to add to wikipedia since the restaurant has a historical presence in Baltimore and many TV shows and media, etc. Strongwranglers (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Strongwranglers. Your first stop should be the help page at Help:Your first article, which kind of walks you through the whole procedure step by step. The most important issue for you will be to ensure that the topic is notable, before you spend too much time trying to write it. Because if the topic isn't notable, no matter how long of a beautiful article you write, with citations all over the place, it will get taken to WP:Afd and deleted, and all your effort gone to waste. So a good approach, is to carefully read WP:N and Help:Your first article, and convince yourself that it is notable. (The real goal, is to convince everybody else that it is notable, but you have to believe it yourself, first!) The way to do that is explained pretty well at those two pages. You could also look at the essay WP:THREE, just an opinion essay (i.e., neither guideline nor policy) but worth a read.

Once you have read those, c'mon back here (or to the Wikipedia:Teahouse) and you'll probably be equipped to ask very specific questions touching on notability and related subjects, and I'll be happy to help. By the way, if you start it as a Draft, then you can start by adding references, even with no article yet; you can leave raw notes there, or whatever you want (except no copy/paste of copyrighted text). Then you can build the article from your references. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

Long time wiki reader, newer with editing, and I stumbled upon the, I suppose, altercation regarding the Hamburger talk page. Just wanted to say you handled it really amazingly, and you are an inspiration for someone who's new to all this. You seem very patient and considerate, and soley encouraging the growth of Wikipedia, and that's really super to see. Am I doing this right? Haha! Informaldejekyll (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:HMS Caledonia (1808) 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 19:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Timestamps

I wish you'd quit changing your timestamps (example). When you do this, Echo/Notifications can't find your comments, because it's looking for the original timestamp, which is no longer on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. I have been changing them, both to show the timestamp of my latest change (if there has been no response), and also to avoid making it seem that I wrote something earlier than I really did. Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Integrate-Transfer-Launch Complex

I've moved this article back to Draft space as it was clearly not ready for article space. Most of the article was still outline notes. Please be more careful next time. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Huntster, you're right, my apologies. I missed that, but have moved all the incomplete stuff to Talk, and as the topic is clearly notable, moved the good-enough core that remains back to Mainspace, where it will be easier for other editors to find it and continue to develop it. Thanks for catching this. Mathglot (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Libel 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Premature; removed header. Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 09:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of Template:Cite EB15/title check

Template:Cite EB15/title check has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Article titles 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC about updating U.S. state highway naming conventions to avoid unnecessary disambiguation: commented. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pointer (computer programming) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment, and at Talk:C data types 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 00:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Video game reviews 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 04:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Mathglot4

Hello, Mathglot,

I'm not sure why you created this user page as there is no editor who is registered under this username. It is therefore deleted under CSD as a nonexistent editor page. If you want to create alt accounts for yourself, please register them and mention them on your User page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Liz, that was a mistake, sorry. It was supposed to be User:Mathglot/sandbox4; somehow I must have cut/pasted wrong somewhere. Mathglot (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sébastien Lecornu 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 11:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Removed Rfc header; not discussed at all. Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Query about "There is 1 Wikipedian looking for help."

Dear Colleague;
I noticed this at the top of your user page and immediately thought it is such a good idea. I therefore copied those 4 lines of code from your user page into mine, but the message was not displayed at my user page afterwards. Is there something else required to make this work as shown at your user page? Thank you very much for letting me know, whenever convenient.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 15:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Pdebee. No, that is all you have to do. What happened is that after you copied it, there were no longer any editors needing help, so the number of users in the category dropped to zero, so it did not display anything on your page, which is the default, and what it is supposed to ddo. Normally, that category is empty, but when someone has a question, it gets populated.

However, having parser code on one's user page is less than optimal, and there was also a possible caching condition. So I was inspired by your message to create a template to make this much easier to use, and also configurable. That includes a parameter you can set so the box displays even when the category is empty. Please have a look at template {{Wikipedians looking for help}}, and use that template on your page instead of just copying the code. Please let me know if you have any problems with it, or suggestions to make it better, including any parts of the documentation that are not clear. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot;
This is brilliant! Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to develop such a neat solution. I also appreciate your explanation about this facility's earlier design and for turning it into a template, with the helpful options. I had purged my user page after copying the original 4 lines of code but maybe that wasn't enough to clear the cache. I have now applied your new template to my user page with the "zero=yes" option so that it's always displayed, and it works perfectly.
Thank you also for inviting suggestions; the only nice-to-have I can suggest would to add an "align=left/right" option; this is only because of the way my user page is designed, and I have a bit of blank space on the left () where the template would fit nicely; perhaps other users might find such an option useful too. In any case, very many thanks for your time and consideration, and also for all your other contributions to our encyclopaedia.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 10:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedians looking for help. (refresh)

Pdebee, try {{Wikipedians looking for help|zero=yes|style=float:left}}{{clear}} which gives what you see here, but an align option might be worthwhile. Please add it to the Template talk page if you still want it. Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, Mathglot;
That was quick!! Thank you SO much for your prompt reply and excellent work-around, which works very well on my talk page. Because of the way my user page is designed, I also found a way of aligning left as follows:
{|align=left cellspacing=0
|-
|{{Wikipedians looking for help|refresh=yes|zero=yes}}
|}
Thank you also for suggesting I could place the formal request at the Template talk page.  Done
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		Hello again, Mathglot; I wanted to thank you once more for taking the initiative of creating the {{Wikipedians looking for help}} template. Its availability has the potential of increasing the number of editors monitoring the Help desk. It was an inspired contribution; thank you. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 17:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Pdebee, you're very kind; thank you so much! Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, Mathglot;
Just to let you know that I created a userbox embedding your WLFH template; it is also at my user page, and looks like this:

There are no Wikipedians looking for help. (refresh)

As you can see, it doesn't have the classic userbox shape, largely because embedding the template causes it to be framed in its own border, which looked a bit strange within the userbox's outer border. Making the latter invisible located the image of the little character outside of the template's own border, implying the isolation of the Wikipedian looking for help. Of course, other users will be able to adjust the userbox to their own preferences, but I thought this initial design looked somewhat appropriate.
The userbox is now also available at the New Userboxes page and in the relevant section of the Userbox galleries, where I hope it will help motivate other editors to join the Help desk. In any case, I hope you like it.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025 Anaconda shooting 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Removed Rfc header; wrong venue, no before. Mathglot (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hindi

Re your ES - thanks for handling the problem. Narky Blert (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Mathglot. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 08:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

"Increase the frequency of Today's Featured Lists from 2 per week to 3 or 4 per week" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:North Macedonia 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Political Correctness

Hello Mathglot.!! Thank you for taking the time to assist with the Political Correctness article. I took your advice and read MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE. My concern remains that the lede states “generally used as a pejorative” while the body does not address any non pejorative uses, I brought up the topic here at the Teahouse and there seemed to be some agreement. Any suggestions on how to best address this discrepancy? I remain grateful for the thoughtful engagement from both you and Pincrete. Best, Slyfamlystone (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed you were working on the “Wikipedians Looking for Help” project. If there is anything I can assist with, including tedious stuff better suited to a relatively novice user, please let me know. I’d be happy to help.

Elinruby

Hi @Mathglot: Did you ever hear what happened to Elinruby? scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Have not heard from him in ages. He was at the very brink of an indef several times imho, and I’m hoping this is just a wikibreak to destress and come back renewed and fresh. But I don’t really know. Seems to me he was maybe affected by some of the wildfires and maybe had some RL issues to deal with in the aftermath, but that is pure speculation. Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)