Nkbok, not quite sure I understand, because if you really mean, 'my own pictures', then my favorite source is my camera. But I think you probably meant something else. Can you clarify? Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nkbok, I don't upload *that* many images myself, but by far the easiest, are images I take myself. These are almost guaranteed acceptance, because they don't violate any copyright. Searching for images online is harder, because of the licensing restrictions, but you could try Flickr. Users there have the option to place their images under CC BY-SA and other compatible licenses, and if you find one like that, you can upload it (like thousands have already been uploaded). But it is crucial to understand what copyright pertains to the original image, before you upload it. More information about this is available at Wikicommons; try asking specific questions at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm going through a report of unused templates, and {{Uh-page-numbers}} popped up. For most of the templates, I just TFD them, but I recognized your name as a valuable contributor and wanted to check in to see if you have plans for this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jonesey95, very thoughtful of you. I did have, and thought I used it, but I guess I didn't (or maybe I hand-wrote it first on a User talk page, and then built the template from it afterward; can't remember now). I'll move it to my user space. Thanks for the heads-up! Mathglot (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello 👋 guys,
My name is ziyaj, I'm in Somalia 🇸🇴
This website is my first website that I viewed
And I'm student, highly school,
And I'm gonna learn something on this web
Also i want a new friends. --Ziyaj (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Nkbok, and welcome! Images in infoboxes generally do not need captions, as the Infobox makes the context clear. If you think the page Greg Hands should have a caption in the Infobox, please start a discussion at Talk:Greg Hands describing your reasons why adding one would be an improvement. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Yitzhak Rabin and User talk:CabinetCavers on "All RFCs" request for comments. 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.
Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Incidentally, for curiosity's sake I tried running an article from the Spanish wiki through the OKA workflow with Grok, after first doing an entirely manual translation myself. I think the results were pretty good, but had some problems. I'm curious how many of the problems you would catch on review, or if you would notice the same ones I noticed. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)03:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker). Many links to disambiguation pages. No image in the infobox. Hyphens instead of dashes for year ranges. "Hernando de Magallanes" in the translated quotation. Nonexistent {{Siglo}} used. Untranslated text in |pages= of a citation template. "«" characters used instead of quotation marks. Nonexistent categories added. Many citation template parameter value errors. These are all things that human translators do in draft articles every single day, many of which I find myself tagging and correcting even after they go through the AFC process and are moved to article space. The prose is much better than that produced by a typical human translator. Pretty damn impressive in my book. If you hadn't told me it was LLM-generated, I don't think I would have had a way to know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, LWG, and thanks for this useful experiment. Tbh, I haven't got past the page title yet. It is interesting to note that whereas es:Nao has equivalents in 14 languages (Q516239, English is not one of them. Otoh, en:Carrack (Q220635) has equivalents in 44 languages, including Spanish (es:Carraca (embarcación)). An attempt at an unbiased search in google books shows support for both nao and carrack, with perhaps a lean towards carrack. I would have to go deeper to find what the page should be called in English, but if carrack is right, then that might call into question things like whether the two Wikidata items are really separate topics, and why Spanish has es:Nao and es:Carraca (embarcación) (and so do a number of other languages) but we don't. The last sentence of the lead paragraph of es:Nao shows that Spanish Wikipedia definitely considers them two topics.
The only 'body test' I did was to see if it got the translation of Malvinas right (which it did), but that's a pretty low bar. I can imagine some handy tools that might help, such as a template or script that would find the three longest sentences, and spot-check those, and just thinking about it, all sorts of other little 'sampling tests' (to avoid having to proofread or re-translate the whole thing) come to mind. Maybe we should have a whole, 'nother discussion about that somewhere; I bet people would contribute all sorts of useful ideas. Thanks for providing this example; more like these could also be a good way to add data to the pot. 7804j might want to comment, due to the Grok and OKA connection. Mathglot (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am concerned that all of the sources reference Rousseff's impeachment or Operation Car wash (meaning they're not economic or accounting sources informing about a form of fraud but reporting on a political scandal). Additionally, this article only exists in English and Portuguese, indicating that "Fiscal pedaling" is not an established or widespread concept in economics or politics, outside of Lava Jato.
To be blunt, I am not sure that "fiscal pedaling" exists and may have been manufactured for political reason's against the Worker's party of Brazil.
The article in it's current state doesn't really address the controversy and complexity behind Lava Jato. Instead it presents fiscal pedaling as an established concepts in corruption by saying it "is a governmental creative accounting technique" and "gained popularity with the Brazilian Presidential election". Conversely, the Portuguese article better explains that the concept was invented during Rousseff's impeachment.
I think presenting this as an established concept -that is a form of corruption- misleads the reader by not acknowledging that the idea of fiscal pedaling was invented to discredit the Worker's Party in Brazil, whether legitimately or not
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Mathglot!
I almost forgot when you mentioned turbocharging the {{edit}} template… Two years ago I wrote its Latin version. Since the English {{edit}} template is quite basic and I would need to translate it anyway, I rewrote it from scratch. To do that, I implemented the URL parameters that are documented in the Edit API (most of them):
Extended content
&title=
&pageid=
§ion=
§iontitle=
&text=
&summary=
&tags=
&minor=
¬minor=
&bot=
&baserevid=
&basetimestamp=
&starttimestamp=
&recreate=
&createonly=
&nocreate=
&watch=
&unwatch=
&watchlist=
&watchlistexpiry=
&md5=
&prependtext=
&appendtext=
&undo=
&undoafter=
&redirect=
&contentformat=
&contentmodel=
&token=
&returnto=
&returntoquery=
&returntoanchor=
&captchaword=
&captchaid=
&discussiontoolsautosubscribe=
&preloadparams%5b%5d=, &preloadparams%5b%5d=, …
However, as I discovered later, not all URL parameters are supported via wikitext (although many are), and some are supported only in API mode. But I never had the time to test them thoroughly. Now maybe I have a bit of time to fix the Latin template. I will also have to remove some parameters that, although formally supported, are not really useful in an {{edit}} template. Long story short, while the English template migh need turbocharging, the Latin template needs a bit of discharging instead. How about we join forces?:) --Grufo (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, i had a little freetime and decided to contribute for a bit, i've done some hyperlink adding but i struggle to copyedit, particularly i struggle to see the non subjective point of view that must be corrected, in "model united nations" can you help me to see the issue please? --Lord Nohann (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sunusi Dan Yaro is a film director and media professional with a background in video editing and post-production. He began his career working as a video editor, where he developed strong technical skills in visual storytelling, content structure, and production workflow.
Over time, his practical experience across multiple productions led to a transition into film directing, with a focus on disciplined storytelling, production planning, and audience engagement. His work spans projects within Kannywood and Nollywood, contributing to productions recognized for both creative and academic relevance. His Film A Duniya has made many universities in Nigeria did so many research. Byteleads (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Byteleads, writing an article at Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve. In addition, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, so the article would have to be of encyclopedic interest, and not just a CV or resume. Finally, if you are Sunusi Danyaro, or are connected with him personally or professionally, then you will have to WP:DISCLOSE your relationship on your Talk page. If you still want to try to write the article, I suggest you start by reading Help:Your first article, and then WP:Notability to determine whether Sunusi Danyaro meets the minimum threshold of notability required for an article at Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. The project you asked for a link to has been in the making for a couple of years but lost impetus because others who were originally interested either changed their focus on their Wikipedia contributions, or left WP completely, or I took an extended Wikibreak for personal reasons, or the WMF is not interested for the reasons I explained elsewhere. KeyolTranslater is on the right track but is not aware of the history The project has stalled simply because I do not have the basic programming skills to add some simple CSS, js and/or script to a couple of templates in the UIs. It needs to be completed and offered to the community as complete proof of concept leaving only an RfC for a binary decision to run a trial (much in the same way as we did for ACTRIAL). It hinges around this flowchart (it's nowhere near as complicated as it looks) which I designed, along with the elements behind it, some of which are lightly based on other users' ideas which never gained traction. The main hurdle is the tweak to the registration page. If you would like to help or learn more, please leave a message on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Mathglot, I am a neuroparasitologist with 10 years of molecular genetics research experience. Neuroparasitology, as a field, is relatively new (last 10 years or so) and I have noticed there is not much on Wiki about it yet, despite an abundance of articles about its subject matter. I would therefore like to mainly contribute to biology-themed articles about molecular genetics, parasite-host relationships, and behavior manipulation. WCBeckerson (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Helloo Sir.
Hope your doing well.Sir I am a student from Balochistan and I want to writer articles about my hone town kolowa(which is now dividedin two parts) is a historical place kf Balochistan and many historical persons wese from here.So I want some suggestion about doing it and also suggest me how I do this,adding pics,giving refrence all these.
Waiting for your reply. --Shayhak Baloch (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Shayhak Baloch, and welcome! You can write about your town if you can find enough reliable, published material about it. Writing a new article is a difficult task for a new editor; you should consider starting with simpler tasks. If you want to see what is involved with creating an article, please see Help:Your first article. Also, did you know that there is an Urdu Wikipedia? See for example, ur:بلوچستان. Maybe you could start by writing about your town there. Is this the same Kolwa that is in the Awaran District? Mathglot (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
dear Mentor, Im happy to have you around for the help! what is the first thing I should look into editing a wiki page? Thanks. --Mousans (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Mousans, if you are editing an existing page, you should understand that there are two editing tools you can use, the Visual Editor, and the Source Editor (also known as the Wikitext Editor. Most people find the Visual Editor easier to learn, but I prefer to use the Source Editor. You can try both of them out, making test edits in your sandbox to see how they work.
The next thing, is to understand that everything you add to a Wikipedia article must be verifiable—you cannot add your own ideas, opinions, or even your certain knowledge; everything must be backed up by reliable sources, such as books, academic journals, reputable magazines, and certain websites with a reputation for fact-checking, peer-review, neutrality, and reliability.
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding this comment: I'm a bit confused why you chose to suggest that some procedural change needs to occur for the discussion, when no one else has expressed a concern and you don't feel that a change is needed. It just feels like a diversion from discussing the original proposal, and will incidentally make the discussion even longer. isaacl (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Isaacl, perhaps I should not have. There were already several mentions iirc about close or snow close, and I sometimes bend over backwards to represent views "fairly" even if they are not necessarily my own in the interest of serving the general interest. Maybe that is going overboard, and maybe I shouldn't do that, I dunno; and of course, maybe I misread what is in the general interest so I should just shut up. In a related example, I will not infrequently try and help a newbie make a better argument in opposition to my advocacy, if they have less knowledge of our P&G than me and are missing some good arguments to rebut me that they ought to know about. I feel it is better to develop a new editor than to "win" any particular dispute. Maybe I shouldn't do that either. Thanks for this message; it made me think about how I approach some things. What are your thoughts? Think I should change anything about my approach here? Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you'd discussed the advantages and disadvantages of ending the conversation early based on whether or not there is near unaminous opposition to the proposal, then it would have been a continuation of that aspect of discussion. But you raised a novel concern about discussion length that you didn't personally share, with a remedy which you didn't support that no one had suggested yet with respect to that concern. Given that English Wikipedia discussions aren't typically curtailed solely on length, I don't think it was a good idea to raise it as a option if you weren't going to make an argument in support of it. Personally I think it would have been better to wait to see if anyone raised that particular line of argument before countering it. If no one does, then no one has to spend any time considering it. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
isaacl, that's fair, and you make a good point. I will take you up on it, although my old patterns may reassert themselves occasionally, but hopefully I'll remember. Thanks for the input. Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've got a question relating to citing:
How does one go about citing a paywalled source that they don't have access to? I've got a draft sent for review, and while it does link to a good few reliable sources, there's still a few more sources I can find that I'd like to view and see if they reference any new information about the topic.
However; these sources are paywalled, and I can't afford to pay to access the source, especially considering I don't know how much they actually discuss the topic or if they offer new information.
On top of this, I don't have the ability to access the Wikipedia Library due to not meeting the requirements to join it, so I cannot access them this way.
Really stumped on how I should do this, or how/where I would go to request other people to look in my stead. Would appreciate a few tips on what to do from here. --ThyCheshireCat (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, ThyCheshireCat, and thanks for your question; it is good one! It's good that you are already aware of The Wikipedia Library, though you cannot yet access it. There are a few possibilities:
Ask someone at the WP:Teahouse if they can check it for you. (A good section heading saying what you want may increase your chances.)
Do you have a public library card, or even better, a university library card or university login that works? That will get you tons (millions) of paywalled articles. (If you are an alumnus, you may have access without knowing it, or maybe they will grant you access if you explain why you need it. Contact your alumni office.)
Call a friend—if they have university access, maybe they can help.
Install the Unpaywall extension in your browser. This is a very cool widget that will tell you whether something is available somehow, or just not available.
There is one dicey method, but this is only an adjunct, and cannot be used alone. Chatbots like Gemini and others have access to paywalled journals (they must be paying for them to train their models better), but they won't just hand the source content to you. However, they can answer questions about what they know. If you have a very specific question about some source you cannot access, try asking a bot. Trouble is, they won't give you a page number, and you can't be sure that what they are saying is accurate, though it probably is; but you cannot cite it, obviously. But, if it confirms what you suspected, or gives you new, interesting information, you can redouble your efforts to get the original source by one of the other methods, and if it doesn't, maybe that source is not as promising as some other ones.
Try the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (WP:RX for short). This should be your last stop, not your first one, as there are fewer volunteers there, and their time is precious, but they are glad to help for the really tough cases.
I would be interested in hearing how you did—what worked, what didn't, and especially if you found some other method I don't know about. Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Question from Tobias Hare (18:55, 1 February 2026)
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
How do you in the first place "create" a Wikipedia page?
how do you place images in the created page change text font text size and reference pages when you write something out does it automatically get referenced? And are there any tricks here where you can ask for polls surveys from people get data about where people click? --Tobias Hare (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Creating a page: the easiest way to create a page is by clicking a red link, like this one: Basic Underwater Basketweaving 101. (Feel free to click that red link, but don't hit the Publish button.) However, until you have a minimum number of edits, you have to ask someone else to create the page for you.
Text size and font: normally they are determined automtically by the software, and editors rarely have a reason to change it. Can you give me an example of some words or a sentence where you would like to change the font style or size, and the reason why?
Referencing: I don't know what you mean by "reference pages when you write something out does it automatically get referenced". You can start by reading Help:Referencing for beginners, and then ask your question again.
Click data: can you describe what it is you want exactly, and how this will help you improve articles here?
Tobias Hare, the blue things are called wikilinks. They are part of the internet's system of hyperlinks. When you click a wikilink, it takes you somewhere else on the page, or to another page. They are not added automatically. You can create a wikilink yourself. If you are using the source editor, then you create a wikilink by placing the title of a page between square brackets, like this:
[[Liberation of France]]
The brackets turn the link blue, and make it clickable, like this:
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there! The flowchart which you recently queried is the overview of a very simple, fully interactive system I have designed (using some older input from others) which will entirely obviate the questions from new users such as 'How do I create an article?' Much easier and far less complex than the Growth Team's mentorship program, it will also reduce the pages in the New Pages Feed to a truly manageable backlog. If you are interested in knowing more, please let me know. It is the culmination of 16 years of work on NPP since I initiated the development of Page Curation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've told the user who misplaced their comment to put it somewhere else. However, I will move it myself again if they don't respond to my request within a certain time (see the footnote against replying directly to my opening statement in the RfC) NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk·contribs) 01:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
NeoSyria, you should adhere to all talk page guidelines as well as guidelines for conducting an orderly Rfc. It is not up to you to decide that someone else's comment is misplaced, but if you believe it is, asking them to move it is the right approach. The user is not obligated to respond to your request, and if they do not, I would advise against moving their comments a second time. You could ask an admin if they think it would be acceptable for you to move it. (You can use {{Help admin}} from your Talk page to do so.) I think it is not acceptable; you have moved far too many comments already, possibly tainting the Rfc by your moves, and I see nothing in the guidelines permitting you to do so. Mathglot (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1 I've asked an administrator. I'll wait for their imput. I've collapsed the comment and its replies, and it would be an appropriate approach for now, considering that none of the comments directly replying to me deserve priority over every other comment. NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk·contribs) 07:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
NeoSyria, wise choice. Didn't see it in your contrib history, so assuming you asked the admin via email or irc, unless I missed it. By the way, you seem to keep shooting yourself in the foot; despite what I am convinced are your good intentions, you went ahead and interfered at the Rfc again (diff), this time collapsing what may be two votes, or at least, two comments, even though you asserted hours earlier that you would no longer be commenting at the Rfc (diff). Sheesh! Hopefully, this time for sure? By the way, for the sake of transparency, you should really add a link to this discussion in your message to the admin. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
you went ahead and interfered at the Rfc again (diff), this time collapsing what may be two votes, or at least, two comments, even though you asserted hours earlier that you would no longer be commenting at the Rfc again I haven't made any extra comments with my signature since that comment on that RfC, and I stand by my statement that it was appropriate per the link to the guideline you provided. Didn't see it in your contrib history, so assuming you asked the admin via email or irc, unless I missed it Yes, you did miss it; I didn't use email or something else. NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk·contribs) 17:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Electronmore, good spot, and you are absolutely right! All citations must be to reliable sources, which generally means some form of peer review and editorial control. By definition, any website where you can publish your own edit with no peer review or editing is not reliable, and that includes Wikipedia, since anybody can publish their own edit. So, you are correct: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so you cannot use it in a citation. I have gone ahead and removed that citation; thanks very much for bringing it to my attention! Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Question from Crow DeMonico (20:08, 5 February 2026)
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.
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.
Friendly reminder: Wikipedia is not a battleground
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I went ahead and made some adjustments to the Talk:Noam Chomsky page in the spirit of Wikipedia is not a battleground – namely, just collapsing the entire argument between you and the anonymous user as well as the part of their first comment which incited the argument. The tone of all of it was quite hostile and none of it had anything to do with improving the article and it seems most fair to me to just hide all of the above. You seem in general to be an earnest editor and to me it seems like you may just have some strong opinions on the matter of Chomsky which are difficult to contain when you encounter opposition, which I can understand. Nevertheless, it's always good to remember:
Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, disparage, harass, or try to intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. (WP:BATTLE)
I left no further comment on the Chomsky page (other than a new unrelated section of my own, which is why I was there in the first place): just collapsed the argument and the inciting contentious opinion.
Tobias Hare, I would have, but as you only waited 20 minutes after asking me before submitting your draft, there seems little point to doing so now. You might as well wait for the Afc reviewers' feedback at this point, which will be a "Decline", along with some recommendations about what to do next, and perhaps some on-page Afc comments. In general, I can say that you are moving too fast and taking a lot of shortcuts. I already included four links in section §Your Youtuber article has been moved to draft space on your Talk page; you should review those, and slow down. Best, Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It got declined can you tell me what went wrong then the
person who told me was vague they said the tone wasn't right for wikipedia
@Mathglot My Request just got declined can you help me out now? I really don't know what sources to change aswell as the parts where my tone doesn't match wiki's tone.
This is the comment the reporter gave me
"Submission declined on 8 February 2026 by Bonadea (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." Tobias Hare (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the email, i have already wrote the articles by only truth and i published it already, so once the management of Wikipedia, approves it and put it online, then i will be happy, i have given all my books published links as well, thank you so much. have a nice day and incase if i need anything i will definitely ask you. Have a nice day Mhassan.writer (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Mhassan.writer, I did not email you. Probably you got an automated email notification from Wikimedia letting you know that I had written a welcome message on your Talk page. I assume that your comment above refers to the draft at User:Mhassan.writer/Draft. There is virtually zero chance that your draft will be approved in its current form. You should start by reading WP:Notability to see if the topic 'Masud Hassan' is suitable for an encyclopedia article. Then, read Help:Your first article and follow the step-by-step instructions. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
OberstFischer1945, can you be more specific? Exactly what topic are you researching?
As an additional note: are you using the word notable in the Wikipedia sense of WP:Notability, or just the normal, English sense of something that is worthy of note; remarkable; memorable? If the former sense, there is a paradox involved, namely, if you are already sure that it isn't WP:Notable in the Wikipedia sense, then it is pointless to look for sources, as a non-WP:Notable topic cannot have an article, and if one is written anyway, it will be deleted. So it is pretty important to use the word notable carefully at Wikipedia, so other editors don't misunderstand you. Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Mathglot How are you! The English Wikipedia is so interesting, so great, you can travel forever at a glance? Why is this so interesting? It has sparked more than endless interest throughout my career and studies, and it continues to do so! Can you explain? Thanks in advance! Thanks! 😇🫠😊 (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is generally done so that tools that look for uw-vandalism1 or uw-* template comments count user-warnings correctly, without having to special case every single other tool's warning templates. See ClueBot NG's parser for example. — NaomiAmethyst00:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
NaomiAmethyst, thanks for the message, that helps explain things. In that case, we may need to have a bigger conversation about this at a more central venue, as the advantage (not really an advantage, I don't think, just a code-saver) there causes disadvantages elsewhere, so we might want a discussion about how to keep everyone happy. See, for example, Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#Impact of templates misidentified by their hidden tags, and some of the footnotes in the table top right at WP:WT. P.S. I expanded the section heading above so I can find this after archiving, hope you're okay with that. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
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.
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.
Hi, Acetate K3. That's a very good question. The basic answer is "no", per MOS:COLLAPSE (some exceptions for Infobox content). There are some alternatives to collapsing a long section which are allowed, such as spinning it off into its own, stand-alone list article. Some examples: List of characters in mythology novels by Rick Riordan, List of characters in the Family Guy franchise, and List of EastEnders characters. Note that a list article must adhere to all content policies, in particular, WP:Notability. For a short or low-profile series, this may be harder to establish than for a mega-phenom like East Enders (which is so huge, even individual characters have their own Wikipedia articles), but if you can establish Notability, a list article is an option. On the downside, after taking out all that material from the main article and moving it to the list, what do you have left? If what is left is quite short, other editors might object to splitting it. You might want to sound people out by asking on the article Talk page, before doing all that work. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Daniellystco. do you mean, you want to write a Wikipedia article about yourself? Writing an article about anybody is one of the harder tasks at Wikipedia. Writing an article about yourself is even harder and strongly discouraged. Unless you are pretty well known can establish WP:Notability of the topic, your article will probably just end up getting deleted by an administrator and your effort will be down the drain. It is much better to start slow and make small changes and improvements to existing articles when you are starting out. I left you a 'Welcome' message on your Talk page with some links, to help get you started. Mathglot (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Konor1234. Are we talking about User:Konor1234/sandbox, which was just rejected at Afc? It is completely unsourced. Some might say you don't need to source your opening sentence, "Poop is brown" per WP:BLUESKY. But, I would say, you do have to source it, because poop isn't always brown. Sometimes, it is black when there is latent blood present, and sometimes it is more greenish or yellowish, as in the case of meconium. So please add a citation to a reliable source that supports it.
Okay, have we had our little fun, now? Do you want to get serious now about being a Wikipedia editor? Because if you do, you get a pass for starting out that way once, and if you seriously want be a productive editor here, and I'll help you do that. But if you don't, we can arrange for an admin to block you from editing. Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Like the first user page I made is English, I really want to make an arabic version seperately (I mean it like it not being on the same page with the English one) but I just don't know how. سلام2005 (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but you still need to answer my question, first. Did you know that there is an Arabic Wikipedia? For example, here is the Arabic Wikipedia article about Tokyo: ar:طوكيو. Are you asking about how to create your user page on Arabic Wikipedia? Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
سلام2005, that' easy; just click this link ⟶ ar:سلام2005 and start typing! Note that you can also create a "global user page", so that if someone on French Wikipedia or Farsi Wikipedia looks for you on their own Wikipedia, instead of having no user page, it will show your global user page instead. As soon as you create your French or Farsi user page, then it will show that one, but for whatever languages you haven't created one yet, it will show your global page. You can create your global user page at meta:User:سلام2005. Hope this answers all your questions! Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I went to check out the edit you referenced in userspace - are you aware that you posted a whole series of welcome messages to those users' main pages a few days ago, instead of their talk pages? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
All done. It would be an easy matter to adjust welcome message templates so they could only be used at User talk pages. The other solution, would be an edit filter, that could ask an 'Are you sure?' message if it detected an attempt to save a Welcome message anyplace but on a User talk page, and then if you were sure, just hit the Publish button a second time, to save it. I wonder if either approach would be worthwhile? Mathglot (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Mathglot, I just made an account on Wikipedia having anonymously edited and added to some articles that I have some personal familiarity with (soft condensed matter physics). I'm hoping to start regularly editing to learn new things about fields that I'm marginally connected to (computational biology, social science, philosophy of science etc.) Do you have recommendations on how to get into the habit of editing for this particular end?
Hi, Waininona, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have left you a welcome message on your talk page with some links to get you started at Wikipedia. Your question has several prongs, and we can only scratch the surface, but I would start by browsing the bulleted links in your welcome message, and joining relevant WP:WikiProjects; I've linked five of them for you. Watch what is going on in articles of interest to you, and not least, browse the Talk page archives to see discussions editors have had in the past about topics of interest to you. For example, the WikiProject biology Talk page is here, and you can browse the Talk page archives by clicking the numbers 1 to 15 in the header box at the top of the page.
I am not familiar with your field of specialty, but I see that we have articles on Condensed matter physics and on Soft matter. I presume that the latter term is a synonym for Soft condensed matter physics (or at least, the matter to which the that physics applies), which as you can see is a red link, meaning that there is no article on "Soft condensed matter physics" at Wikipedia, but if it is the same thing as "Soft matter" then I can link them with a WP:Redirect so that users who search for "soft condensed matter physics" will get redirected to Soft matter instead of drawing a blank; so let me know whether I should link them as synonyms or not.
Philo of science is close to my heart (as an amateur), and I look forward to following what you do there. I take it for granted that you are familiar with Kuhn (1962), and with the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For more knowledgeable opinions by an editor here with a serious phil background and very comfortable with the ways of Wikipedia, I refer you to User:Phlsph7; likely you will find others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. This should keep you busy for a while, but please keep up the questions, I am happy to help. Mathglot (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
so I did post on the talk page, but there are two posts on that page one of which is mine. I understand that it is a significant change, but it's also inline with the typical structure of articles on constitutional amendments, honestly the discrepancies in the way the text is displayed between all of the amendments gives me an aneurism and I want to go through and provide the version that includes the full image quote, but I think the full context of the passage is incredibly important. while the additional context is important, the inline context of the full material provides a more complete understanding for the typical user. also given the only amendments that have this discrepancy are the 14th and the 25th every fiber in my being wants to assume nefarious intent, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. what possible reason should the 14th amendment not match the standard of the rest of the constitutional amendments of providing the text in full, given it is a governing and historical document. I'll be honest I want to undo your undo. I know that's like a tit for tat situation, but I don't think I'm wrong in my assessment. that fundamentally the current version of the article undermines the understanding of the general public on the full inline context version of the 14th amendment. Spicygarbage (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I was looking through Village Pump (for a lack of things to do) and saw your post. Just wanted to confirm that where I live at least, we still have access to Wikipedia. None of the images, even though wikimedia commons loads just fine, although still only in text. Oh and it only works through one provider, and seemingly none of the other ISPs. ~2026-15355-47 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
~2026-15355-47, that's great news, thanks for the tip. Interesting about the images. I think we probably shouldn't mention the names of specific ISPs at Village pump, just in case. (I have obfuscated it above, although it's very unlikely they would find their way to my page, but who knows.) Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Rewriting the code in Lua drastically improved the performance - the examples on the doc page are 2 tables, one is 2x27 and the other is 2x50, in total they generate ~150 cells and even then, the "Expensive parser function count" is ~250/500, so it can likely safely generate a table containing around 2-300 units! Needs some more testing though, definitely gonna try and optimize to handle larger loads
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi @Mathglot — really appreciate the mentorship on those NYPR tweaks. I am trying to continue tightening up the NYPR wiki presence for accuracy, and I’ve made a few other COI requests on our sub-pages that have been honored/made by editors along the lines of your guidance -- thanks!
One remaining piece I’m hoping to make happen is getting an article up for NYPR President and CEO Christy Tanner. Christy is a Pulitzer-winning journalist and major national media executive, and having a Wiki Page for her also follows precedent with NYPR founding CEO Laura Walker having a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ruth_Walker
I’ve been reading up on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article page and elsewhere, and it seems there are multiple routes and possibilities to do so with a conflict of interest, but all (of course!) require delicacy and rigorous adherence to COI principles
Wondering if you have any advice on how you’d propose going about that?
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've been handling some extended confirmed edit requests recently and I've just got one here complaining about the fact that some hatnote on False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is breaking WP:HATNOTERULES #1 which says no piping links in the hatnotes. I checked the history and it appears you made the hatnote here with the edit summary that it was for post-split navigation, which I assume means this was right after a unified false or misleading statements by Donald Trump was split into the current 4 articles. While the edit request is technically completely correct, it is blatantly obvious to me that the hatnote is structured the way it is to avoid having it take up the whole page without creating an unnatural disambiguation page. To me it seems like a genuine case of WP:IAR. I just want to check with you to see if this was an intentional decision or not, and if it wasn't, if you feel this is an IAR situation or something that should be "fixed". Cheers. ―Maltazarian(talkinvestigate)23:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Maltazarian, thank you very much for the message. Not really an IAR but shouldn't be "fixed", either. I'll address it at the TP, unless you would like additional, or specific feedback here. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fine by me. I just wanted to ask you about it because it seemed well-intention and like it could have some reasoning behind it, and I didn't know (and honestly could not bother diving into) whatever discussions took place before the split, so I couldn't know if there was some local consensus established to do it that way back when the split discussion happened. Better better safe than sorry. Good day to you. ―Maltazarian(talkinvestigate)00:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, SayhiiEveryday, and welcome! Wikipedia is not a web host so we don't create public pages for companies; we are an online encyclopedia and we create encyclopedic articles on noteworthy topics. It is very much discouraged to write an article about your own company; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for details. Also, creating a new page is considered one of the more difficult tasks at Wikipedia. Do you need some ideas about what else you can do here? I left you a few links in the welcome message on your Talk page; have a look at those for starters. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I have done some copyedits and I am still learning. I was wondering that the scores in red or green mean when I look at my contributions? --Plina101 (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Plina101, the page with your contributions is here, is that the page you are viewing? There are no scores on the page, but there are numbers in parentheses like (+12) or (-42) on it, is that what you mean? Those are byte counts, and indicate whether your edit increased the size of the page or decreased it, and by how many bytes. Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for that. I do hate how much time I have to put into notifications like that, not least because there's virtually always at least one editor per day (and not infrequently several) with whom I have to graduate to talk page messaging because they've put the page back into categories multiple times — so the thought has crossed my mind more than once that I wished I could just template that kind of thing, but I knew neither how to implement it myself nor where to ask if somebody else could, so I'm so grateful to have had that get noticed and dealt with.
Okay, just gave it a trial at User talk:Rosebud1244, because Draft:Edon Rizvanolli was in back categories again for the third time in 24 hours when I did my regular incategory check of Category:Living people. So I've got the following quick comments: firstly, the template seems to be currently worded to cite WP:USERNOCAT as the applicable policy regardless of whether I've set spaces= to sandbox or draft, so that I had to make a followup edit to change USERNOCAT to DRAFTNOCAT. And secondly, when I did that it had left the blank hidden comment between "so long as it is outside mainspace" and the level-switching code in as part of the substituted text. (Not the switching code itself, just the <!-- --> part.)
Bearcat, thanks for the feedback! Both of the items you identified are real issues, and I am centralizing everything at the Template talk page so I (and others) can always find it again. I will address the USERNOCAT/DRAFTNOCAT thing first as the more serious, and I will let you know when it is fixed. I raised other issues there (so I don't forget to come back to them). The most important, imho, is about the |level= param, and about having gentler wording for first time offenders if we can capture them earlier in the cycle. I have some ideas about this.
It is the nature of something like this that you have to invest some time up front, in order to realize time savings down the road. Hopefully there will already be small savings just from using the template as is, but I foresee savings of an order of magnitude, so you can do ten times as many with the same effort, or even more. However, that will require some back-and-forth at Template talk, which means any time you spend there, will be time not spent catching more miscats. We are all volunteers, so I'll let you make the call how much time you feel like devoting to it; there are already four discussion sections on the Talk page on various points (two of them are the points you raised above) and you don't have to spend your whole life there or any part of it; I can make some assumptions about the best way to go forward. But to the extent that you are the one with the most experience with this, your feedback is more valuable than my assumptions, so any feedback there is appreciated, and you will be the major benefactor of it, at least at the outset.
Speaking of feedback, surely you cannot be the only one patrolling this area; can you point me to a few users who also do this kind of work? It would be great to have several editors trying it out and offering their ideas as well. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Because the jobs queue runs about five minutes or so behind live activity, I do sometimes see pages in the incategory search that have actually already been removed from categories by the time I see them (because the five minute lag hasn't fully elapsed yet) — so Quinntropy is one name I do tend to see a lot of. I can't think of any other names right off the top of my head, but there are definitely others, so I'll let you know if I think of or remember anybody else.
I get that a new project like this will take time to perfect, no worries about that. It's all good, and I'm glad that you're spearheading something. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Bearcat, cool. The fix for correct USERNOCAT/DRAFTNOCAT and attendant verbiage is in. Please check out the updated {{Uw-draftnocat#Parameters}} section in the doc around param |space=, in particular new param value subpage. Feel free to give it another go, and lmk how it goes. And, welcome, Quinntropy! Mathglot (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, thank you again for your earlier help. I have now completed my draft and improved it based on guidelines.
Before moving it to mainspace, I really appreciate if you could kindly review my sandbox and let me know if it looks ready for publication or if any improvements are needed.
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I see CreativeAI got soft blocked. If the author list of the papers they were posting were to have an overlap with the director list of any company with the same name, it would be into spam block territory. If you feel like pursuing it I have found opencorporates.com to be useful resource. - Cabayi (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is evidence of my role as editor of the journal Laterality (publ Francis & Taylor). I had put this in
a previous supplementation on the Wikipedia Michael Peters guelph psychologist page which is now being deleted because somebody thinks I am an impostor.
Hi, ~2026-18386-95. My talk page is the wrong place to post this message, as no one will see it here. As I mentioned to you a couple of times on your Talk page, the right place is the deletion discussion. Also, I am not aware of anyone who thinks you are an impostor, however that has no bearing on the deletion discussion, either way. The only effect that would have, is if you decided to register an account here under your real name; then it would matter. Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Bro how can I send a photo (you can also explain me how to send the map image) on an article, because I see articles that have no photos and I wanna add it, but I don't know how to send photos on it. So please can you explain me how --25stitchnodo (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, 25stitchnodo. I just left you a welcome message at your Talk page. As for adding images, that depends on whether the image you want to add already exists in WikiCommons, or whether you took a picture yourself that you would like to use on Wikipedia. Either way, please start at Help:Pictures, and then ask me again when you need more help. You can also ask questions at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. And, Welcome! Mathglot (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Original Barnstar
For Template:Reflib. This is how we should have started doing it decades ago. It helps keep citations intact from bots and less experienced users, while serving as a usable bibliography, etc. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 03:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Mathglot, I'd like to edit this navbox since the article for the Class 10Ms doesn't exist. Maybe I can make an article or remove it. Would it be better to make an article or remove it? Thanks in advance! --TechTipsProject (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Mathglot,
Thank you so much for the warm welcome and the 'cup of tea.' I truly appreciate you stepping in as a mentor. I replied to your welcome message on my Talk Page back on 23rd March and didn't realise I should have actually done this (talk page topic instead of just replying as you probably didn't know I replied and I'm sitting looking at an empty box wondering what I did wrong) Apologies for that - I treated it like email. Anyway - This is what I wrote on the 23rd. ---
To be honest, I feel a bit like someone who tried to fix their own plumbing and realized they were in over their head! I’ve been working on a sandbox draft for a biography of Mark Monaghan, and while I have a deep archive of primary sources (press clippings, archived press, TV and academic cites from the 90s), I am still learning the "manual of style" and the technical nature of this platform.
Thank you for the edits you already made to my disclosure, seeing the 'Scottish Highlands' and 'MCPS' links corrected makes it much clearer.
I’ve reached a point where I have the 'bones' of the story supported by about 13-14 verified sources (I have 40-50 in total), but I want to ensure the tone is appropriately neutral and academic before I move forward with additions and the biographical sections (and remove a couple of references that are just there for my old brain to remember)... It's a work in progress. I'd be very grateful for any guidance you can offer as I try to get this stuff right.
Hope to hear from you soon. HighlandWriter (learning very slowly)
Epicazowski, since Baby Globe spins on its axis thus presenting all sides of its spherical surface, if you don't like one side, just wait a bit till the other side comes into view. From this I conclude that Baby Globe is panglobular. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you (inadvertently or advertently) reverted User:Scyrme's delinking when you restored the original look, i.e. these two edits:
This did not strike me as being related to the RfC. Here's a reminder it happened. It didn't feel notable enough to discuss on the Talk page and so I hope you don't mind me posting it here instead. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, CapnZapp, I never mind someone posting here, you're always welcome to. Those are permalinks, and I'm having some trouble figuring out which edit of mine you meant. Which delinking are we talking about? Did you mean rev. 1346270012 of 23:01, 30 March (diff) entitled, 'Original, until rfc completes'? That one looks (mostly) okay, or did you mean another one? By 'mostly', I meant that it looks like I inadvertently removed some text about dark mode, and some slight reordering of the introductory wording which I am fine with keeping, if the previous wording (18:28, 30 March) was better. The only intent of the 23:01 edit was to remove the button from the doc as long as there isn't a button in the template. As soon as the Rfc is over, if the button comes out on top (as it looks like it will), then my 23:01 edit can just be reverted. Is this what you were pointing out above? Feel free to ping Scyrme if that would help clarify intent or anything. Mathglot (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agh, I accidentally used {{oldid2}} when I should have used {{diff2}}. Fixed. Now you should see Special:NewSection/{{TALKPAGENAME}} being removed and then readded, the wiki code that makes the link or button actually start a new talk section (even if you click the documentation's example). I posted here to let you hash out whether that was deliberate or accidental. Scyrme was pinged. CapnZapp (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
* Put new text under old text. {{Strong|[[Special:NewSection/{{TALKPAGENAMEE}}|Click here to start a new topic.]]}}
So the doc page matches what the template does, which is what we want. Is there something about that link or the edits around it that you would change? Everything looks copacetic to me; am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Scyrme removed the ability of the demo template to actually start a new topic; you restored it. Starting a new topic of a doc page does indeed seem to lack utility. But if you added back the code snippet I mentioned intentionally, everything is in order. CapnZapp (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it was intentional in order to keep the doc page doing what the template does. It would be too difficult imho to keep track of which things operated the same, and which ones differently if we did it any other way. An alternative would be to suppress the canonical template display above the template doc on the template page so the first thing you would see at the top of the page is the documentation for it, and to see what it looked like, you would have to look at the Examples. There is plenty of precedent for that, but I think people are used to seeing it this way, so probably too late to change it. Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Epicazowski, good question, with some interesting implications, especially in the case of Wikipedia company articles where the Infobox has radio buttons to choose light/dark mode, or black/white logos. This is not my field of expertise, but my take is that a company logo is inviolate and we cannot touch or alter it for our purposes. That said, companies spend a ton getting the right logo, and are not unaware of the dark mode issue, and often have a whole series of official logo variants for different purposes. In the case of Apple, Wikicommons has a bunch of them, shown here. Note that the one labeled "white" only works when presented on a dark background. For Roblox, we have only File:Roblox Logo 2022.svg in black.
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.
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.
hi im trying to fix an error on our company website. The owner of the company is listed as the wrong person. Ive included a link to the about page on the website. --Nico Voltair (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Note to self: rereading it, the 'Ke' caught my eye, and if this is Hindi–Urdu (or perhaps a related language), then it is the possessive particle, and they are probably stating that the owner of DPW is the name given, and presumably that that should be added to the article. Mathglot (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Wardogrule, creating a new article from scratch is one of the more difficult tasks at Wikipedia, and there are various requirements before it can be accepted, starting with WP:Notability of the topic. I recommend starting with easier tasks, such as you will find on your Homepage in the "Suggested edits" module. If you want to try anyway, please read Help:Your first article first, which will guide you through the process step by step. Note that if you ignore the new-article requirements, your draft may be declined, or deleted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It appears I was assigned as your apprentice, I intend to make use of this arrangement. I'm delighted to see many languages present in your user page. Some stroopwafels to start us off on the right foot:) Alfrediritinu (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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! I was going to leave an edit request on Wikipedia talk:Huggle/Feedback but I figured I'd check with you first. I was hoping you could please undo this undiscussed change, since it breaks support for other antivandalism tools. Removing the Template:uw-vandalism1 tag means the template is ignored by other antivandalism tools including Twinkle, AntiVandal, and Interceptor. When using these tools in auto-level mode, they now leave an additional uw-vandalism1 warning because they don't know that the user has been warned at level 1. tony15:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.
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, hope you're well. I noticed that Lyadh has been moved to Draft:Lyadh. I also read the message you left at WP:Teahouse#Article title. Thank you for reviewing the article and for your inputs. I appreciate moving it to draft rather than taking a deletion route. I understand that you were trying to improve the article and acting in good faith, and I am genuinely grateful for that. Hence, I wanted to address some of your points.
I wanted to briefly explain my perspective on the subject. I understand that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary (unlike Wiktionary) and that words have no place here, unless they are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia does have articles on words/phrases when the subject goes beyond a simple lexical definition and represents a notable cultural, emotional, or social concept. To cite some examples, we have articles on hygge, niksen, dolce far niente, hiraeth, sehnsucht, ubuntu, saudade, etc. Please note that in citing these, I'm not attempting to use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'm simply trying to demonstrate, partly, the reasoning behind creating Draft:Lyadh, and why it exists in the state that it currently does.
My intention with Lyadh was not to create an article merely about any Bengali word, but about an evidently culturally recognised Bengali concept expressed through that term. In common Bengali usage, it refers to more than just "laziness" as a dictionary meaning; instead it conveys a specific state or attitude involving guiltless/intentional idleness, relaxation, pleasure in doing nothing, and a broader social/cultural nuance --- something to do with one's emotions (hence, the mention of "untranslatability" - which is also backed by sources; and also, the "Similar words" section - since Italian and Dutch do indeed have words that are very close in meaning and idea to Lyadh). Thus, in that sense, I believe it is closer to the kinds of concepts represented by the aforementioned examples.
However, I do indeed take your point that certain parts of the article, such as perhaps the lead sentence and some other bits, may have been framed it too much as a "word" rather than foregrounding and highlighting the concept/cultural nuance of the subject itself. This is fair criticism, and I’m happy to rework the draft accordingly by recasting the lead and focusing a couple touches more on the cultural concept surrounding the word --- however, if I'm being honest, I might need some help with it haha.
Also, with respect to WP:Notability, I would like to state that I believe the topic itself is notable and does have substantial and meaningful independent/significant coverage; however, I appreciate that the article, especially the lead, in its current state may not exactly reflect emphasis on the cultural concept as much as it should.
Thank you again for the feedback, and I'll try to improve the draft with these points in mind. I would appreciate some help and guidance vis-a-vis how I should go about it. Regards, Dissoxciate(talk)15:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Mathglot, I just wanted to add that I did read your comment at the Teahouse (now archived). I noticed you specified it on the article talk page; thank you for that. Let me know how to proceed with the article and what you think about the points above. Thanks, Dissoxciate(talk)08:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Posting here to not overwhelm the centralized talk page:
I did intend to make that change, following Special:Diff/1352190235, which asked for the addition of Adding LLM-generated content is prohibited on Wikipedia linking to WP:NOLLM. Since this one was a level 1 template, I picked a milder synonym instead of "prohibited", but still wanted it to be more than the current advice-level wording that didn't reference the prohibition at all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It seems as if the dates for the Saint Helena stop are underneath/covered by the "Helena" text. Using firefox on computer.
Moreover, do we really need the dates there in the first place? It clutters the map, and the article is filled with dates already. The timeline has a comprehensive overview. I can also start a talk page discussion on this:) Thanks! Neiglass (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've got a question about using a company's own website as a source, the question being: Do these types of sources have regulations around their usage? if so, what sort of regulations or restrictions may they have? --TheSonnetor (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, TheSonnetor. First, I'm going to answer a question you didn't ask. Generally, you should not use a company as a source for information about the company, because they are not independent sources for that topic. However, for very basic facts that are not considered promotional, such as when and where they were founded, where their headquarters is, who the CEO is, that kind of fact is allowed per WP:ABOUTSELF.
Your question is a bit different, though. It wasn't completely clear to me what you meant by "usage" of the website. If you mean copying content from it or close paraphrasing it, that is generally prohibited, except for websites that are in the public domain, like many government websites are. If you mean summarizing information found in a website in your own words so you can use the website as a citation to back up what you wrote, that is encouraged. If you have specific questions about copyright, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright. Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Thanks for being my mentor! How would one start a new wiki page? There's an art gallerist/curator that should probably have a page. --Lolly Rivera (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I found the article about creating a new page. I've drafted one in my sand box, what is the best way to get some feedback on it? --Lolly Rivera (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
My bad. Not all discussions were posted within the last 24 hours though. Should we just wait and let the bot do all the work later? I thought it was fine archiving answered edit requests that were completed. Fortek67 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fortek67, no worries! And anyway, I am only one editor and this sort of thing (like most things here) is driven by consensus, so if you want to start a discussion about archiving at Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak then who knows—if people want very rapid archiving, then so be it. As things stand, if the Talk page gets really long and there are some sections that are obviously no longer relevant (even if not too old) we can always archive them one by one manually. (There's also a script for that, "1-Click archiver", but I haven't tried it). Thanks for your message, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, @Mathglot. Did you change the auto archival time to 30 days? Also it looks like a consensus will be started in the talk page, see this, the message I posted to Myceteae, whom earlier setup auto archiving and wrote a detailed rationale in the edit summary. Fortek67 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"My" FAQ (table of contents, and Hantavirus-infectees related to a 100+ passenger-ship)
@~2026-29057-56: I followed the link, and I know all about temp accounts, but I cannot understand your comment. Can you please rephrase or elaborate? I have no idea what you need assistance with, or if this is just a comment of some sort. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Bilhert. Yes, I can see your attempted fix here. You did the right thing, and it would have fixed the problem in almost all cases, but this case was an exception. The two citations each had internal format errors as well, and fixing just the ref tag as you did wasn't enough. I have fixed them now, so your original fix now does the right thing. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have not had a chance to read your post at the article about "2026 Hantavirus outbreak", "... 19:58, 15 May".--I expect to read your post in c. 48 hours.--For information: it so happened that i posted in the same thread (after your post), without saying that i have not read your post yet. (That could be perceived at rude, but was not meant that way at all.) Have a nice day! ~2026-29057-56 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
You participated on that page a few months ago Talk:Effects of pornography on young people#c-Mathglot-20260227211400-The Other Karma-20260227124700 , saying "Come here instead and discuss your proposals first, make incremental changes, discuss, see how it goes, discuss some more, add a few more changes, see how that goes, discuss some more. Not: I just completed my 50,000-ton battleship in my private dry dock, and I've verified that it is perfectly water-tight and every bolt is checked and double-checked, and I will be launching it shortly."
Question: You seem to have a better understanding of wiki policy than me and seem helpful regarding this because I don't really edit wikipedia that much, so I was wondering if that rule or method of incremental changes and discussion also applies to removal of content(especially regarding wholesale removal of entire sections as opposed to say a sentence or two at a time if needed), not just addition of content.
I read the verifiability policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite note-directly supports-2 and looked at the removal edits, and much of the removed content is attributed to verifiable sources and some reviews, so I'm not really sure what's meant by "unverifiable" in the edit summaries and if such content should indeed be removed.
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Mathglot, I want to let you know I've reverted one or more of your contributions because they do not seem constructive. If you think I made a mistake or have questions, you can leave a message on my talk page. Please note that continued vandalism may lead to restrictions. Dewa779 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Dewa779. Congratulations on your first edit at Wikipedia, however I think you made a mistake. That edit was about shortcut adjustment on a Help page, and the edit still stands—it was not reverted. I have responded in more detail on your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Yepan. To save your draft in Visual Editor, just do the exact same thing you did to save your edit to Radiation damping: simply click the blue Publish changes (or Save changes) button in the top-right corner of the toolbar. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Subhamvsolanki. The article does not go through stages of approval, and there is no queue of articles waiting for approval. All the reviewers are volunteers, and there is just a pool of articles that they can choose from–whatever one that interests them. Please be patient; it may take some time. In the meantime, you can work on existing articles to improve them. Try the Suggested edits module on your user homepage. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
How is wikipedia edits shows to users coming to an article? Is it reviewed by any other editors or just the general public? --Esuyawkal (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Esuyawkal, Wikipedia is an all-volunteer project, so editors review edits as and when they wish, so there is no guarantee that they will ever be reviewed. That said, there are some WP:WikiProjects like the Wikipedia:New pages patrol that actively monitor newly created pages. For edits to already existing articles, edit review mostly falls to editors who have the article on their WP:Watchlist, which means they can easily see when an edit has been made to any article on their list. But you should also be reviewing your own edits, which mostly means ensuring that neutral point of view and verifiability are preserved in what you write. You don't have to get everything right when you are starting out, and it is okay to make mistakes, because that's how we all learn. Mistakes will get corrected by somebody else, so just WP:BE BOLD and start editing! Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Mathglot, I want to let you know I've reverted one or more of your contributions because they do not seem constructive. If you think I made a mistake or have questions, you can leave a message on my talk page. Please note that continued vandalism may lead to restrictions. PoppaSmocci (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nobody has reverted anything, Dewa779, or PoppaSmocci, or whatever you are calling yourself today. This is the second time you are harassing me with a false vandalism warning, as in the §Vandalism warning from your Dewa779 account above. See this warning on your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, if I want to remove an old vandalism, can I and how I (if yes) quote the offending edit in some way? or the user's contribution instead maybe? --Barjingue5 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Barjingue5! Thanks for your question. To be honest, it is a bit soon for you to be worrying about vandalism just yet. You are still brand new here, and need to spend some time making positive edits to articles to gain some experience, before you start dealing with vandalism. It is a tricky topic that requires some experience and finesse. What I would recommend for you for now, is to do any of the following when you see something you think is maybe vandalism:
raise a new discussion on the Talk page of the article as a question (see WP:TALK);
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Mathglot,
I do have a question. So before, I made an (not big) edition to a text, but I forgot to add a summary. I added a comment ("<!-- -->") just to add the proper edition summary. If you could give it a look and tell me if there's something wrong, though maybe someone else will already give it a look and tell me, I do not know how the whole process works just yet, sorry. Thank you either way, and have a nice day.
Dargkkast, no worries, and no apology necessary. You already noticed that you cannot change an edit summary or add one after saving a change, but you basically reinvented the correct solution, by adding an insignificant change along with the previously missing edit summary in this edit. Well done! That is very close to the recommended procedure, which is described at Help:Dummy edit. I usually do it like this:
[[WP:DUMMY|Comment]]: the edit summary for the previous edit is: Your edit summary here...
If you only noticed the missing summary some time later, then replace the expression "previous edit" with "earlier edit of 12:59, 32 Octember", or whatever is appropriate. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Heads up, emailer: If you wrote me an email, then be aware that although I see the alert message notifying me that I have received an email, along with your username and the first three words of the email copied into the alert and the approximate time ('7h' ago ) I have not actually received an email from you (or from anybody, lately). If this doesn't self-resolve with perhaps some additionaly delay shortly, I may notify WP:VPT. Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I was wondering why my edit to the above page was reverted? The category is an official maintenance category, it's mentioned in Template:Short description (I think, not good at reading more advanced wikitext). Also, if you are able, can you review my related edit to the aforementioned category? I wanted to add text to stress that "long" is considered over 100 characters, but I wasn't sure how to format the information that follows that.
The edit was made in good faith, and I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong of course, since you're the more experienced editor. Please also let me know if it'd have been better to start this topic on the talk page for the article, I wasn't really sure where it should go. TheGrapeEscape (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
TheGrapeEscape, you were not wrong, I was. I misread your edit, and have reverted back to your earlier version. If that was the wrong category, go ahead and update it to the right one. Apologies for my mistake.
As for the correct venue for raising your question, this was a borderline case, and either here or the Talk page would have been fine. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You said
I think that {{uw-coi}} needs to be strong, long, and read them the riot act, so they get it that this is no fooling around.
Just telling you I agree 100% and actively argued it should remain intact.
I don't really see the need for a {{uw-coi-simple}}. What is the use case for it that is different than the one for {{uw-coi}}?
You really should ask that other editor, but AFAIK the argument was "many words make brain hurt" and, perhaps more to the point, that a shorter version leads to better results. While I didn't particularly enjoy my interaction with that editor, this didn't sound outrageously implausible.
Many thanks! I rarely contribute to current events articles, and having done so at this article, I have a new-found respect for all the editors who do. There is a great deal more involved than one might at first suspect. So, spreading the Wiki Love, thanks go out to all of the contributors at current events articles! Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I usually do not edit these, either. June 2025 Los Angeles protests against mass deportation was the significant experience I can recall. Current events articles present a number of unique challenges, or at least brings together many common editing challenges in a heightened manner, and Hondius has the additional MEDRS considerations. —Myceteae🌈 (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago20 comments4 people in discussion
There seems to be a spacing error on the June 13, 2026 featured article on the Main Page. ("struck between 1831") I'm not quite autoconfirmed due to moving accounts and email troubles, but could you get someone to fix it? — UltimateUltimatum (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Can you clarify what you mean, what you are seeing, and where you see it? I see the synopsis about William IV's British coinage in the 'From today's featured article' module top left (in desktop view) and first (in mobile view) on the Main Page, and I assume that is where you are seeing something awry. I looked at the main page at various browser widths, and I don't see anything unusual in that module, the appearance of the words in it, including the words "struck between 1831" in the first sentence or the words around it, or between that module and other modules on the Main page. But I am not 100% sure if you are talking about that module on the main page, or in the 'William IV's British coinage' article itself. Also, I don't know what you mean by "spacing error".
Also when you say, "When read horizontally", are you talking about viewing the Main page on a mobile device in "landscape mode"? I looked at the Today's featured article' module on a smart phone in portrait mode and landscape mode, both in desktop view and mobile view, and I don't see anything unusual. Please clarify. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
UltimateUltimatum, are you saying you see the words 'between' and '1831' jammed together with no intervening blank between the two words? I do not see that on the Main page, and I *also* do not see that in the underlined words you wrote above. What I see there in the underlined part, is the word 'between' followed by a blank, followed by the word '1831'. The HTML served by Wikimedia's servers to your browser looks like this, in part:
WilliamIV's British coinage</a></b>, struck between 1831 and 1837, ranged from the
and it is clear that the blank space is there. If you don't see a blank space between the two words you underlined, or on the main page, then I think the problem must be on your end. I would try a different browser. Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
UltimateUltimatum, That's interesting, and I still think it must be your browser (or less likely, your device). I am almost 100% sure it is your browser, because apparently you cannot see the blank in the underlined part which you yourself copied above, but I *can* see it. That means, there is a blank there in the source, and your browser is not rendering it for some reason.
One way to make 100% sure where the problem is, is to visualize the HTML source page from your browser, find those words, and see if the spaces are there or not. If the spaces are in the HTML, then the problem is your browser; if they are not, then the problem is at Wikimedia and I can file a bug report if that is the case. But first, you must view the page source and copy the area around those words. In most non-mobile browsers you can visualize the page source by right-clicking or command-clicking anywhere on the Main page, then pick 'View source'. (At least, that's what it is called on my fave browser; on another browser I use, you have to first click 'Developer tools', and then click 'View page source'. The labels may be different on your browser. If you can't figure it out just ask Google, 'How do I view the page source of a web page using the Your browser name on my Your device type.') If you are on mobile, you may need to download an app to view it. Once you get the page source, find those words (search-on-page for Britishcoinage), and see what you see in that sentence of the source.
Another way to see where the problem is, is to try another browser. If you are on mobile, you can download Chrome or Opera as an app; if you still can't see the blank space, then the problem lies elsewhere. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I fixed it by deleting and retyping the questioned text. I imagine something got introduced during some edits to the blurb that took place in the days running up to the main page appearance but that's all I can say. It appeared normal on my browser. Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
hello sir my question is I can translate other languages written article into my native language and published on Wikipedia under my name EditorRehman (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
EditorRehman, thanks for your question. I have left you a welcome message on your Talk page with some helpful links for getting started. To start a new page on English Wikipedia, please see Help:Your first article. To translate an article from English Wikipedia into your native language, please see WP:Translate us. I may be able to help you better if you tell me what your native language is. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Sulav567. One thing you might think about also, is the WP:Notability question, and in particular, the WP:PAGEDECIDE question. What I mean is, whether the topic of the film differs sufficiently from the article about the event at Compton's Cafeteria riot to benefit from having a separate page about it. The draft is a scant 364 words, and that could easily be accommodated as a new, "Film" subsection within section §In fiction and art of the existing article. What reasons do you see for having a separate article about it? Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sulav567, why don't you compare the two, and see what there is in your Draft that is new or different from what is already in the article. You could add the new stuff from the draft to the article, or merge it into the article if it is partly covered there already, or if there is an overlap. Please take care not to copy anything from the draft that might be a copyright violation because it was copied from a website. You may copy material you wrote in your own words, along with the citations that go with them. Mathglot (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I find editing from a phone to be a painful experience compared to an actual computer with a full keyboard and big display. But a surprising number of people do manage to edit from mobile devices. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
I recently made a number of improvements to the article and addressed the issues that were previously raised. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at the article when you have a chance and let me know if any further improvements are needed.
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Mathglot, something you may be interested in. I sometimes go through unanswered requests for books at RX, and see if Worldcat tells me my library has a copy I can source. This is time-consuming enough and out of my way that I don't do it very often, and I was thinking how helpful it would be if I could list the libraries I had access to and be notified when any had a source that hadn't been actioned for a few days. I'll have Claude vibecode something to do something like that, but thought I might first look through the RX talk page archives to see if there had been discussion of something similar, and came across your comment from 2 years ago. Did anything come of this? Do you think the privacy concerns get in the way of looking for this to be a general tool? Whonting (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Whonting, that's a good idea. I had forgotten all about that RX comment of mine, thanks for the reminder. Nothing came of it directly, as there seemed to be some good objections to it. On the other hand, there's an interesting book exchange project now that has been started via a grant from WMF, where you apply for a book you need and failed to find yourself or through RX, and then this group buys the book and has it sent it to you. See meta:The Wikipedia Library/Book requests for details.
Regarding matching up libraries you have access to with requests at RX, that sounds kind of similar to an existing project by someone at m:BAWUG, who links up articles having {{page needed}} templates next to citations that lack a page, and then checks if his local library has that book, so he can go get it (or look online, if available online) to get the page number and add it to the article. It sounds like you and he might be able to work something out to solve your problem. The Talk page at m:Talk:Bay Area Wikipedians User Group is pretty quiet, but try the Discord server linked from the BAWUG main page, and ask for the page-needed/library-resource project, and you should find him eventually. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
DuncanHill: Ugh; what an abortion to have to face with my morning coffee. Seems like I only made things worse; my apologies, it was well-meant. I considered replying to the ANI post-close to make it clear the trigger action was mine not yours, but then I thought it best to just leave sleeping dogs lie. I doubt I'll intervene on a UTP like that again uninvited, but it just seemed like you were being bullied, and that's something I have very little patience for. (Otoh, if you ever get into a tussle and feel like you *want* backup, you only have to ask.) Now we can carry on improving the project elsewhere. Hang in there. In solidarity, Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
P.P.S., If you want to add another line to your timeline subsection §Some important diffs linking my edit restoring the category and naming me to keep the record straight, by all means do, something like:
Oh I don't mind what you did, and I certainly don't blame you for the ANI nonsense. Any competent editor would know who did what. DuncanHill (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, SakanaJohn126. Before you report anybody, which article are we talking about; is it Siamese–Cambodian War (1591–1594)? Secondly, temp accounts have the same right to edit as anyone, although they are of course subject to the same Wikipedia policies and guidelines. When you have a content dispute with someone about an article, you should first discuss the disagreement directly with the other editor, preferably on the article Talk page, so others ○an find it. If you are convinced that they are removing your edits an fhat your behavior has been entirely per the book, then you could discuss it on their Talk page, prior to escalating further. Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
SakanaJohn126, thanks. From your comment, I think you are referring to Ang Chan I#Second Cambodian Siamese War (1555)—, that is, section §Second Cambodian Siamese War (1555) of article Ang Chan I. The first step in any content disagreement is to discuss the issue on the article Talk page. For example, if you disagree with their removal of your editing at Siamese–Cambodian War (1591–1594), you should start a discussion at Talk:Siamese–Cambodian War (1591–1594), giving your reasons why the content you added should be restored to the article, and why removing it makes the article worse. For your disagreement about article Ang Chan I, please discuss at the talk page Talk:Ang Chan I. Engage with the other editor and see if you can come to some agreement. You can invite other editors from one or more WP:WikiProjects to share their views also, and try to reach a consensus about the article should say. If that doesn't work, other methods of dispute resolution are available.
Please keep your comments at discussions and in your edit summmaries about the content only, and not about the other editor. This is a serious transgression of WP:CIVILITY which could get you blocked. I will leave you a message on your Talk page about this.
As a postscript, please note: it isn't necessary to create a new section for each comment about the same topic; you can reply to comments in a discussion section using the reply tool links. If you are using the wikicode (WP:Source editor) as I am doing to reply to you, then you can add replies using the threading rules to indent your replies to previous comments using colons at the left. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I was sleepy last night, as evidenced by my failure to link to your advice. And (cough) perhaps my sleepiness was infectious: No, sand isn't plural ("Sand gets/*get into everything"). -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎21:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hoary, thanks for this. I probably should have been clearer, especially when trying to be punctilious about some mistake of theirs; it's a bad look for me to be vague in response. The point in the parenthetical was supposed to be about countable vs. uncountable, the latter being (almost) always singular in form. But hopefully they got the main point, and you're right to call me out on it. I'll try to be more, er, punctilious in the fyootcha! (That 'almost' was me exercising punctiliousness; after all, sands of time, fishes, etc.) (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It gets worse. Plural-only nouns can look singular; and even if they look plural may be non-count only, et cetera. My "intuitions" this morning:
"The footwear is/*are overpriced."
*"Two hundred footwear are overpriced."
"The proceeds were/*was unexpectedly high."
*"The three proceeds were unexpectedly high."
"The poultry bring/*brings in more income."
*"The two hundred poultry/poultries brings/bring in more income."
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I stumbled across this page while searching for the mentorship noticeboard. I originally marked it for CSD-G8, thinking it was residue of a past deletion, but I realized it was created recently by you. Perhaps you meant to put it under "Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard"? Kodning 🌸 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Mathglot. By coincidence, I was just at my mentor's Talk page and couldn't help noticing you'd left him a message right under an exchange that he and I were having, in which you mention your new endeavor—the Mentorship Notice Board. I just wanted to applaud your idea. Mentors must often feel pretty isolated and I know the question arises among them as to whether mentorship is really of much value in editor retention because they don't always hear anything from their mentees after they come on board, even after the mentors send a welcome message.
Actually, I'm surprised there wasn't already such a group. But as something of a networker, you're surely one of the most likely Wiki folks to start one. Maybe the group could even turn into a parallel to the Teahouse! Augnablik (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
... or maybe you meant the noticeboard to act more like the Teahouse does, with the questions and responses there? Anyway, please take the comment above just as a suggestion, based on my experience at WP:CHEM and WT:CHEM. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Mike. Thanks for thinking of this, and heading here to help WP:MNB avoid a possible problem you envisioned. If it were our project and we were in charge of Mentorship, the way we built and are in charge of, say, Afc, then I would completely agree with you. But given that we are not, it is appropriate that the project page qua noticeboard is devoid of any overview. What Mentorship is built to do is not our call, not our say, and is covered elsewhere. It's a bit closer to the Teahouse, but not quite, as the Teahouse is a Q&A help board for (mostly) newcomer-to-experienced user, help-seeking interactions, and the WP:MNB is decidedly not that—it is a peer-to-peer board, and one that acts in relation to something not of our construction.
The closest existing example is the WP:Education noticeboard, another board with a strong peer-to-peer component involving software not of our construction. Where the "Wikipedia Education" program was built and is maintained by wikiedu.org, a non-Wikimedia organization, the ENB is entirely built by Wikipedia volunteers. The ENB is not for Wiki Ed students, there are other venues for students seeking help; similarly, the MNB is not for mentees. The ENB doesn't explain what Wikipedia Education is, how to get involved, or give instructions to teachers or students; there are other pages for that. So far, the analogy between ENB and MNB holds. (It's not an accident that the MNB project page has a very similar look-and-feel to ENB.) In addition to being a peer-to-peer board, the ENB also functions as a conduit of interaction between paid Wiki Ed staff and Wikipedia editors who volunteer to help out students or who raise issues to Wiki Ed about how to improve or enhance their software; it has probably evolved into the main conduit for that type of interaction.
It is too soon to tell if MNB will move in that direction, but it is my hope that it will evolve beyond solely peer-to-peer, into also providing an additional conduit for interaction between mentors and the WMF Growth team that builds and maintains Mentorship, as hinted at by the last bullet point at MNB. You could say that ENB also encompasses the VPI and VPR of Wikipedia vis-a-vis Wikipedia Education, and MNB may take on that role with respect to Mentorship; we shall see how things develop. In the meantime, WP:MNB is the main page for mentor-to-mentor interaction via threaded discussion, and WT:MNB is the Talk page for discussing the appearance and operation of the project page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Did you have another question? You can reply here using the {{Reply}} template. Note: I joined your three questions into one section, to make sure they stay together. Mathglot (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
User:Shlomo Navarro, you wrote your autobiography here on my Talk page, which is not the right place for it. You had the right idea in the heading line above, where you linked your sandbox (a red link as of this writing). I am taking the liberty of moving it to your sandbox, where you may continue to work on it. I must tell you, however, that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, because it is difficult to remain neutral. I'll leave you a welcome message as well, with links to help you on-board at Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The sandbox link is now a blue link, and you can click it to go directly in your sandbox. The same link is present in the Welcome message I left you. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jack Of All Sports, you should have the sources in hand first, and then make your article changes second. You will need a reliable source—a book, reputable magazine or newspaper, article from an academic journal, or certain highly respected websites. The numbering is automatic and produced by the Mediawiki software that produces the page, so you don't have to worry about that. Do you have that your sources? If not, you have to locate them first. After that, see Help:Referencing for beginners for writing citations. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Mathglot,
Thank you for your work improving the formatting of the Jan Pomés article. I am the primary contributor and I want to address your recent edits (12 July 2026) constructively.
collapsed 7kb message with nine subsections
On the sfn tags pointing nowhere (revisions 1363855638 and 1363855721)
You correctly identified that several {{sfn}} shortcite tags pointed to references not yet defined in ==Sources==. I accept this was a technical error. However, the correct remedy under Wikipedia policy is to fix the citation structure, not to delete the content. As stated at [[WP:BLP policy advises fix over delete]]: "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified."
All the facts in the deleted content are verifiable. Here are the ready-to-paste source definitions missing from the ==Sources== section:
The specific vote counts (Jan Pomés: 43,534; Dionís Oña Martín: 47,516; Pasión Gador: 44,763; Sara Bailac ERC: 43,194) are confirmed by two independent national media that both show the identical figures:cadenaser+1
El País: "PSC - Jan Pomés López | Lleida | 43.534"elpais
Europa Press confirms the 3 PSC senators elected: "Los senadores escogidos son Dionís Oña, Pasión Gador y Jan Pomés del PSC y Sara Bailac de ERC"europapress
Transparentia/Newtral records his public salary as senator only (€112,437.12/year) with no concurrent municipal salary — factual confirmation of the voluntary waiver.transparentia.newtral
"Municipal government portfolios" (rev. 1363856117): The sfn tags in this section (Paeria de Cervera|2025, Conservatori Cervera|2023) are already defined in the Sources section. This content was correctly sourced and should not have been removed. cervera
"Chapters in edited volumes" (rev. 1363856525): These are chapters in peer-reviewed academic volumes from Marcial Pons, Catarata, and the Spanish State Centre for Political Studies (CEPC) — all verifiable on the publishers' websites. Per your suggestion, I am happy to move them to a "Publications" appendix per [[WP:APPENDIX]].
"Public image and digital presence" (rev. 1363856588): The sfn tag (Demòcrata|2026) was missing — I will add it. Demòcrata ranks him 18th among Spanish senators in digital power. democrata
Removing extra = signs (incorrect heading levels) ✓
Moving uncited works to == Further reading == ✓
Formatting bullet points correctly ✓
Regarding the 32 bolding removals (rev. 1363857921): I accept most of them per [[MOS:BOLD]]. I would only ask whether bold for formal role titles (Second Vice-president, Second Secretary) in the Senate committee list might be considered for retention — but I defer to your judgment on this.
The problem was purely technical: {{sfn}} tags referenced sources not yet defined in ==Sources==. All the deleted content is accurate, neutral, and verifiable through official Spanish state sources (Senado.es, BOE, Cervera.cat) and mainstream media. I respectfully request you allow restoration once the missing source entries are added.
Thank you for your attention to Wikipedia's standards.
~2026-38794-95, you are talking about the article Jan Pomés, where I recently removed large amounts of unsourced material from the article. Your claim that "All the deleted content is accurate, neutral, and verifiable" is nice to hear, but carries no weight at Wikipedia coming from an individual. You must include citations to reliable sources for all content in a biographical article; that goes double for one about a politician. I left you a reminder about this at your Talk page. Please pay strict attention to Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy on any article about a living person. If you add unsourced material again it will be removed again, followed by escalating warnings on your Talk page.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Mathglot,
May I know how to add pictures into my Wikipedia page as well as the average amount of waiting time for my page to be reviewed? Are there any ways to speed up the process?
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Mathglot. I take your comment about Wikipedia discouraging autobiographies very seriously. Although I am submitting my autobiography, this was prepared to provide background information for my numerous students, my colleagues, my professional connections, participants of round tables I tak part, professional conferences I am invited to talk, and my relatives that ask for my activities. I tried to be objective as much as I can be. Do you suggest I should not publish it? Shlomo Navarro (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 29 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello And Nice to Meet you Again, Mentor
My English maybe bad but at least I'm can tried
May I ask a question
How can I'm get help from random editors on "Cambodian-Siamese Wars Drafts" instead of editing it all alone.
(I'm wish you can understand this) --SakanaJohn126 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
SakanaJohn126, your English has some mistakes, but is perfectly understandable. Congratulations on speaking it as well as you do. Regarding your question, I will respond at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
EveClaireIndo, Oh, maaf, 'Halaman pembicaraan' dalam bahasa Inggris disebut 'talk page' (atau cukup 'talk'). Tautan ke halaman pembicaraan Anda akan muncul secara otomatis di bagian tanda tangan di akhir setiap pesan yang Anda tulis. Apakah Anda melihat tulisan "EveClaireIndo (talk)" di atas? Kata 'talk' berwarna biru dalam tanda kurung itu adalah tautan ke halaman pembicaraan Anda, dan jika Anda mengkliknya, Anda akan diarahkan ke halaman pembicaraan Anda di mana Anda dapat membaca balasannya. Oh, sorry, 'Halaman pembicaraan' is 'talk page' in English (or just, 'talk'). A link to your talk page appears automatically in the signature at the end of every message you write. Do you see where it says, "EveClaireIndo (talk)" above? The blue 'talk' in parentheses is a link to your Talk page, and if you click it, it will take you to your Talk page where you can read the reply. Mathglot (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 25 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
As I said before, we gonna meet again
But this time, it's seriously situation!!!,
Someone editing in my Draft:Siamese–Cambodian wars Pages has removing all my Editing,
He once deleted my Editing before in Siamese-Cambodian War (1591-1594) and Ang Chan I, His Username is Coffee Femboy67, he's delete the editing I'm working harder making me sad and very tired (not gonna lie)
So please find the ways to fix this
Block him or Ban him from editing my page or something.
Also Thank you if you actually help me.
We gonna meet again later --SakanaJohn126 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
SakanaJohn126, if you are talking about Coffee Femboy67 (talk· contribs),[noping] your editing has been restored, and they were blocked (temporarily) by an admin for disruption on several articles. But he will be back again in a week. Please promise me that no matter what he does or what he says when he comes back, you will maintain a WP:CIVIL response, civil actions, and civil words. If he acts disruptively, he will be dealt with by an admin, and blocked for a longer period. But if you get angry in response to his actions and act or speak without thinking, then it may be *you* who gets blocked instead, or as well. So, can you please promise me that you will stay cool, no matter what happens? I hope so. Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you alot for the response about Coffee Femboy 67
I'm will holding my feeling and stay calm from now on.
I'm were very serious back then but now I'm changed.
I'm will stay cool and keep Editing some random pages.
Missninanicole12, writing a biographical article is one of the most difficult tasks at Wikipedia, and is usually carried out by experienced editors, and sometimes by newer editors who are willing to spend a lot of time learning everything that is involved in creating an article. Did you have a particular person in mind? Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Ah I see you noticed the Musketeers of the Guard page excellent. Yes I have plans to update that as well. But because the Cardinal's Musketeers and King's Musketeers are so intertwined I want to have both articles created or in the Cardinal's Musketeers ideally in a sandbox, and then work on both articles at the same time. I have plans to get the Mousquetaire article translated as well, but first I wish to focus on these 2 articles first. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Historyguy1138, see Draft:Cardinal Richelieu's guards. This is all I have time for, for now; I may come back to it. But it's easier to enlist help for an existing draft, than when you are starting from scratch. Even without knowing French, you can help by just researching the topic using English sources, and going from there. Alternatively, just add about a dozen high-quality sources to section §Further reading. English sources preferred, but non-English sources accepted where no English source of equivalent quality exists. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, FiReItUpBr0. That depends on where the page is located, and whether it meets special criteria for speedy deletion or not. If it's a regular article with a history and many authors, it's complicated. If it's a page located in your userspace, such as your user page or your sandbox, then it's easy: just edit the page and add {{Db-u1}} somewhere on the page and save it, and an admin will come along and delete it shortly. If it's one of the more complicated cases, ask again with a link to the page, and I'll explain. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
i already edit a data where Wiki said "787-8 Dreamliner" instead of the "787-9 Dreamliner" it should be, but why did I don't have a contribution? is it because I used a temporary acc? --Arda Hans (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I want to edit 'Kothi State' wikipedia page, so please unlock it so that I can edit it and update it with correct information as mentioned in wikipedia page of Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. --Rocking Maximus (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I only have done all the previous edits and changes to this wikipedia page of Kothi State and in the past 4 to 5 months I have done more than 300 (approx) edits and changes to many wikipedia pages. I have the full information about this page and I have already added this information to another wikipedia page of Kothi, Madhya Pradesh and the same information I want to add to the wikipedia page of Kothi State. Wikipedia has no information on this Kothi State page, I only added all the information and now they have locked this page for further edit on what basis? And the person who has locked that page has zero information or knowledge on Kothi State and they are stopping me from editing the page, what a injustice it is. Tell me to whom I will contact to unlock it. ~2026-43304-42 (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
~2026-43304-42, you have only 2 edits credited to this temporary account, presumably because you forgot to log in. You have a total of 2 edits logged in as Rocking Maximus. You will need another 496 edits before you can edit Kothi State. The article is protected against editing by newer editors by action of Wikipedia's WP:Arbitration Committee, which is Wikipedia's "Supreme Court", so to speak. It would be a complete waste of your time in my opinion, but if you want to ask that the article be open to editing by you, then I suggest you make a request at the Wikipedia Administrators':noticeboard, and mention my username and link this discussion. Good luck. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just to add I have created my account this month only but I have done many edits before that without having any account previously. Thanks for the information. ~2026-43372-27 (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are only 29 total edits at that article, 18 by temporary accounts before it was protected in May in compliance with ArbCom's rulings regarding South Asian topics. If you edit while logged out, you will be assigned a temporary username, and then it will roll over to a different one every 90 days, as it just did here—now you are known as ~2026-43372-27, but above your username was different. You are unlikely to accumulate 500 edits under this name before it changes once more, so if you keep editing while logged out, you will never be able to edit Kothi State. I strongly suggest you log in when editing; that is your path to achieving Extended confirmed status so you can edit the article. Mathglot (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Paartii badhaadhinaa godina iluu abbaa boor. This is English Wikipedia, so you need to pose your questions in English, not in Oromo. That said, the Prosperity Party is an Ethiopian political party. Did you have a question about editing that article? Otherwise, did you know there is a Wikipedia in Oromo? You can find it at https://om.wikipedia.org, and your contributions there would be welcome! Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply Kun Wiikiipiidiyaa Afaan Ingiliffaa ti, kanaaf gaaffii keessan Afaan Ingiliffaan, Oromon osoo hin taane kaasuun isinirra jira. Kana malees, Paartii Badhaadhinaa paartii siyaasaa Biyya Ittiyoopiyaa ti. Barruu sana gulaaluu ilaalchisee gaaffii qabdaa? Yoo kana ta'uu baate, Wiikiipiidiyaan Afaan Oromo akka jiru beektaa? https://om.wikipedia.org irratti argachuu dandeessa, gumaachi keessanis achitti ni simatama! Galatoomaa, Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Mentor, May I tell you something
Someone editing about Ang Chan I Article, keep putting random numbers on Cambodian Casualties (he is mostly Thai Extreminist)
I'm hope you can fixing this soon --SakanaJohn126 (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
i have an article, the new one, i found it on indonesian news, can you review it, is it okay to publish or not, i just wrote it. How can i gave the article to you? --EveClaireIndo (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, EveClaireIndo. I cannot review it, if I cannot see it. what is the topic of your article? There is no record in your contribution history at Wikipedia of you having created an article here; do you have a copy of it on your home computer? You can create a Draft of your article in your sandbox. Click this red link: ⟶ User:EveClaireIndo/sandbox, and copy the article from your computer into the big input field that will open up, and after you have copied it, click the blue, 'Publish' button below it. Then ask me again. See also my response on your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Helen Tomas, here where you are signed up and asking your question, is Wikipedia, and normally we do not respond to questions about other wikis that are outside the Wikimedia family of projects like the Choral Domain Public Library (CPDL; a.k.a., "Choral Wiki"). If you are looking for answers to questions about Choral Wiki, their home page is https://cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. You can find answers to many questions about Choral Wiki at CPDL's Help:Contents, and details about searching for scores at CPDL's Help:Advanced search. It looks like your best bet is to request an account at Choral Wiki (see 'Request an account' link top right on every page there). Good luck. Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § OKA: problematic paid translation and lead rewrites via LLMs across thousands of articles.. You may have missed this very active discussion that is relevant to your interests. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Talk:Syria
Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Welcome needed/sort has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link: User:HighlandWriter/sandbox
Done! Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
.jpg)
Moved to WT:MNB § Clean-up reminder