User talk:Mathglot/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Followup thanks

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for your patience and persistence on the extended cleanup on Latinx - on both the article and the incandescent sock. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Panic! at the Disco

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Panic! at the Disco. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greater Germanic Reich

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greater Germanic Reich. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Gender-related articles - Ds-aware

It seems no one has ever left a {{Ds/Alert}} notice on my Talk page. I had long thought of warning myself with the alert, but I just found this handy template, which lets you know that I'm

. Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing politics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing politics. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

About Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death

You wrote in your edit summare, you seem to want to insist on your viewpoint, by forcing it into the article with repeated edits. That is called edit-warring. Stop doing this, and discuss on the Talk page instead. If you continue, you may end up having your editing privileges curtailed.. You are being unfair. I have attempted to have users engage in a discussion, but the "guardianship" only comes forward when I do edit the page, when I rebuke what is said in the talk page involved users do not reply. Last time Kierzek missunderstood my whole point, and when I clarified things to him, things that he should have grasped had he read more carefully my comments, he did not continue the discussion.

Perhaps you think because users of some reputation are reverting me they are right, but seriously you should take your time and see what it all is about. I'm trying to engage in a constructive manner. Dentren | ^Talk 10:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dentren:, Then engage, and leave the article alone, until there is a consensus that matches your viewpoint. Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, Wikipedia is no democracy, the guardianship of the article is being obstructive and unresponsive. Last time I waited one month, now I waited 10 days. How long should I wait for an answer before I should edit the article? There seem to be no serious commitment to improve the article, just a commitment to block anything that changes status quo. Dentren | ^Talk 11:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dentren:, you have been reverted by three diferent editors at the article, and contrary to what you say about unresponsiveness, editors have responded to you. You apparently just don't like what they have to say. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, you seem to be taking sides. If you read the discussion there have been comments dismissing the relevance of sources I have presented, when I have answered that El Tiempo (Colombia) is a reputable source.. I just simple got no reply on that issue just a "There is no bias against foreign media. That is a non-issue. It has to do with reliable sources no matter what language it’s in.", without explaining why El Tiempo can not be used to establish notability. Then UpdateNerd writes "The Guardian is the only explicitly reliable source".. is that not Anglo-Saxon bias?

Then I write "So far we have not seen here any reasonable explanation to exclude any mention of Basti and his work, and how "Grey Wolf" would be worthy of mention while Bastis work not." the answer is "The fringe theory that Hitler somehow made it to Argentina and lived there does not in any way originate with Basti.", which is nonsense, I have never claimed anything like that. Thats a rebuke by strawman.

I also got this answer "That does not make it reliable sourced fact or theory, when the mainline historians and evidence clearly points otherwise.".. I article is about conspiracy theories, in my edits Im just saying what relevant authors said what not wether it is true or false. Such answer seem to portray me as a promoter of conspiracy theories, writing about conspiracy theories is not the same as promoting them.

Finally Kierzek writes something that may make some sense he writes: "The Argentinian book is not a reliable source. Probably Grey Wolf isn't either, but we're pretty much stuck with it for extrinsic reasons. There's no reason to exacerbate that situation by adding yet another unreliable source to the mix.", yet this is an arbitrary descition, and given that Grey Wolf has strong roots in Basti's work (a claim Grey Wolf authors do not deny) I Basti is worth a mention. Same go as for the credit on pointing out Inalco as a supposed Hitler hideout, so far as I am concerned it was Basti who brought out that information/claim to the public. So of course it seem legitimate to source that claim to Basti. Dentren | ^Talk 11:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Arguments about the merits are better made at the article; nobody is going to see them, here. (Also, you don't need to ping someone on their own talk page.) Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

moot. 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Malaysian Chinese

May I ask why you reverted my edit on Malaysian Chinese? It is a fact that 'Han Chinese' is a definition used by the government of the People's Republic to refer to the majority ethnic group and that Malaysian Chinese have traditionally referred to themselves by a variety of other terms. Please do not enforce your ideas of ethnicity and race on others who do not identify the same way as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameless123456 (talk • contribs) 04:24, September 14, 2019 (UTC)

@Nameless123456:, I have reverted your edit at Malaysian Chinese for a second time. My talk page is not the place to talk about reliably sourced content in the article. The right place to discuss it, is at Talk:Malaysian Chinese. Please create a section there, if you want to discuss this.

Also: when you add a section to a talk page, please add it at the bottom of the page, not at the top, as you did here. In addition, please sign all of your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The articles cited by reputable South-East Asian scholars below do not refer to Malaysian Chinese as 'Han Chinese'. You are welcome to look through the sources yourself to verify this. Content that cannot be verified can be challenged or removed in accordance to Wiki policy. You may file a complaint against me if you like but what I am doing is in accordance to Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameless123456 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Nameless123456, If you wish to discuss this content dispute, the proper venue is the article talk page. I won't be responding to you here about this. And please learn about proper signatures on talk pages: always sign your comments with WP:4TILDES. Mathglot (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Also: when you respond to a comment in an on-going discussion, please respond within that discussion, and do not raise another discussion about the same topic, as you did here. And always your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). See WP:THREAD. Are you even reading anything I'm saying here? Mathglot (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring, Flyer, Lmatt, etc.

Hey @Mathglot:. Basically reverting isn't a one-way road. Edit warring is a both-sided thing. Lmatt has already been warned about his edit warring and we've steered him into contributing more to the Talk/RfC/consensus processes, despite issues. Both users are likely violating current ArbCom sanctions regarding 1RR discretionary sanctions on gender-related controversies. Regardless, if Flyer believes Lmatt to be violating disruptive editing guidelines repeatedly, even though Lmatt has expressed some good faith, they should discuss it with an administrator and not doing all the reversions themselves, right? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gwen, and thanks for trying to keep things at Transgender on the up-and-up. These are controversial articles; everyone should heed policy, especially here due to applicable WP:AC/DS, as you pointed out. Thanks for your contributions to the article, and on the TP, trying to keep things on track. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a note: Gwenhope and Mathglot, the Transgender article is not under a 1RR restriction. An admin would need to place it under such. I perhaps should not have reverted Lmatt a third time and instead let someone else revert the editor, but I decided to revert because of the RfC, which was referring to the article's current original wording (although it was not the current original wording with Lmatt's change), and because there simply was no consensus for the change. I don't try to game the system with regard to edit warring, but editors will at times make a decision on whether or not to revert a second or third time. They will at times revert that third time, just shy of a 3RR violation. In this case, I weighed the options and felt that it was best that I revert that third time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: My apologies, you are correct 1RR isn't currently in effect. ArbCom has already placed general discretionary sanctions which supersede previous sexology-related sanctions, however:

i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions

Due to such, edit warring with Lmatt is not wise. Especially considering you and Lmatt both definitely exceeded 3RR.

Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Gwenhope, I'm aware of the Gamergate sanction. And I was central to the ArbCom sexology case. I did not exceed 3RR. I reverted three times, which is why I mentioned that I did. I have nothing else to state on this topic. No need to ping me again to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-binary move

BD2412 never commented on this, did they?

Talk:Non-binary_gender#Close_details_elaboration

In the spirit of fair play (and at the risk of disturbing a sleeping dog that's better left lying), I'd have no objections if you wanted to do a Wikipedia:Move review. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda:, you're kind to remember and to raise this at this point. I'm not sure there's anything to be gained from stirring what was a bit of hornet's nest of an Rfc at this point, and as I said in the argumentation in the Rfc, that although I didn't think we were at the nb-term tipping point yet, I was pretty sure we'd be there sooner or later. So, I'm not sure it's worth a review at this point, since I don't think we'd gain anything: we'd spend X amount of editor reviewer time, probably annoy some people wondering why we were relitigating this, and just end up at the same place a year or two down the road anyway. Thanks for remembering though, and for offering. Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see this at the time. At this point, I am not going to revisit the close. There is never a fully satisfactory close to a discussion like this; that's why we have administrators to make them. bd2412 T 00:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greek language

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek language. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Korn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Korn. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Koch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Koch. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ST Microelectronics

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.

---

for the case of my editing, have a look at the official page of stmicro esim certified facilities as well as related news on the web. also you can have a look at a pdf on the stmicro related to marcianise , caserta facility italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarnaprabhat (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Swarnaprabhat#August 2019 (2). Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For your above-and-beyond attempts to turn a problematic newish editor into a useful contributor. --valereee (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:U.S. state

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. state. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

You recently left me a note on my Talk page. It is people like you who still give me hope that WP has something positive to add. I have encountered much negativity and dishonesty around here, and the whole situation can be very frustrating. Your tone shows that you are clearly one of the good guys. Thank you for what you do. Vcuttolo (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Question, though: I just noticed something. Why does it say "(talk page stalker)" in your note on crossroads1's page?

Thank you.

Vcuttolo (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk page watcher

While wondering about a skirmish I noticed, I saw your recent comment about {{tps}} ("talk page stalker"). In case you are not aware, it is easiest to use {{tpw}} ("talk page watcher"). There was an attempt to get tpw deleted when it was created for softer wording, and the "watcher" option was added to tps in an attempt to make tpw redundant. However {{tpw}} was kept as easier. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, that's even better. I really appreciate your taking the time to come here and let me know; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Seeking help

I'm back. You seem like a wonderful resource, so I am asking for help here.

As I referenced earlier, there are two editors who seem to be tag-teaming me, removing any changes I make to the "Death of JonBenét Ramsey" page. In that they apparently worked together on at least one entirely unrelated page (something to do with human sexuality), I am wondering whether or not some meat puppetry is going on.

Either way, "Death of JonBenét Ramsey" is currently misleading, as it reflects the opinion of one of those two editors, Flyer22 Reborn, that the death was caused by JonBenét's mother, the late Patsy Ramsey. Suspicion early on did indeed fall upon the mother, as well as on other family members, but the mainstream investigation has focused on finding the outside intruder, going on nearly 20 years now.

That's not me saying that. That's an abundance of mainstream sources saying that.

On and off the past few weeks, I have attempted to have the article more properly reflect the facts on the ground as reported by the mainstream sources. And I have been endlessly reverted by the two editors referenced, Flyer22 Reborn and Crossroads1.

The reasons they give for reverting keeps changing, but the results do not. Every time I adjust my edits to reflect whhatever reason is given, a new reason is cooked up. When she has run out of reasons, Flyer22 Reborn either adds a bunch of offsetting edits to drown out what I wrote, including from questionable sources, or reverts me without explanation, telling me not to edit war.

I have been reverted for using an NRS when the reverter did not bother to check my source.

I have been reverted for not following WP's two-source rule, which doesn't exist.

That's just two examples.

In the Talk page on the article, Flyer22 Reborn made a number of claims about true crime in general and about this case specifically that are not only incorrect, they are so far off base that anyone with a minimal understanding would immediately recognize how way off they are. When I tried to address the situation, she told me I was "quibbling".

I have spent hours and hours trying to improve the page, only two find that one of those two editors has summarily dismissed my work in one fell swoop. Each time I try again to write it differently, trying to comply with whatever the latest reason given for reversion, only to find it reverted again. The situation is immensely frustrating.

What recourse do I have? Can someone (or someones) just hijack an article like that? As long as Flyer22 Reborn continues to push a false version (that the investigation believes it likely that a family member committed the crime), and continues to block out anyone who tries to introduce the facts taken from the most reliable sources, the article will be distorted. Is there something that can be done? And is there some way to find out if we have a meat puppet situation here?

Thank you. Vcuttolo (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A number of misrepresentations above. Anyone is free to read the actual discussion, which was eventually hatted by Acroterion. This is the same discussion where Vcuttolo showed up essentially calling the family member theory fringe and saying that we need to give more weight to the intruder theory. It's the same discussion where I told him, among other things, "Suspicion of the Ramseys is not some fringe view. What WP:Reliable sources do you have stating that 'most believe the Ramseys have been conclusively eliminated as suspects'? I'm just not seeing that. [...] We are dealing with two theories here. There are no reliable sources that state that the intruder theory is more accepted than the family member theory. There are no reliable sources that state that it's the consensus theory."

It's the same discussion where Vcuttolo claimed expertise on the topic and belittled me, and Acroterion told him, "Demanding that other editors stop editing because you assert that they're not up to your standard of expertise in 'true crime,' whatever that is (the Wikipedia definition is accounts, often sensationalized, of criminal events) - short of Truman Capote, you don't get to pick and choose who edits articles like this. Your demand isn't acceptable on Wikipedia."

It's the same discussion where Crossroads1 told him, "It isn't our job to figure out who did it and evaluate evidence. Since RS, together, do not know who did it, Wikipedia cannot rule on who did it, or argue for a particular POV. [...] In either case we are trusting groups of people to accurately report the viewpoints of various professionals. I strongly suggest you read carefully WP:NPOV in full, many of its related pages, and any other policies and guidelines you have been pointed to. I know from your talk page that you have been criticized for your approach by many editors and on a variety of topics. The problem is not 'everyone else'. Eventually WP:NOTGETTINGIT will apply. [...] Also, you keep referring to 'the facts', for example saying, 'We should seek to produce an article that correctly represents the factual situation.' Nope. We represent what reliable sources say - 'reliable source' having a specific meaning - not 'facts.' We are not here to argue over facts and their intepretation. The reliable sources do that, and we report what they say."

It's the same discussion where Vcuttolo claimed that "most of the experts believe that the DNA is exculpatory of the Ramseys.", which contrasts this 2016 Daily Camera "DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA's exoneration of Ramseys" source, which states, in part, "Forensic experts who examined the results of DNA tests obtained exclusively by the two news organizations disputed former District Attorney Mary Lacy's conclusion that a DNA profile found in one place on JonBenet's underpants and two locations on her long johns was necessarily the killer's — which Lacy had asserted in clearing JonBenet's family of suspicion. In fact, those experts said the evidence showed that the DNA samples recovered from the long johns came from at least two people in addition to JonBenet — something Lacy's office was told, according to documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS, but that she made no mention of in clearing the Ramseys."

Vcuttolo doesn't seem to understand what Wikipedia is about when it comes to matters such as these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agreed Flyer; and I was aware of that discussion. I was trying to think about how much or little to say here about it; in particular, trying to separate out some brief, general advice for Vcuttolo which might be appropriate on my Talk page (or theirs) for a question like this, while avoiding becoming bogged down in the content dispute portion of it here, which more properly belongs on the article talk page. As you indicate, this is a rehash of that discussion, which neither belongs here, nor should be fragmented in two places.

Vcuttolo, I will get back to you in more detail later, but a couple of quick points to think about first:

• When discussing an article's content, that should typically go on the article talk page, so any editor interested in the article may participate. Few of them are likely to see the discussion here, which is one reason most of it doesn't belong here. See WP:TALK. If someone disagrees with you about article content, there are methods for dispute resolution.
• The flip side of that, is that discussions that are *not* about article content, but rather about user behavior, belongs on a User talk page. One important point, however: when talking about the motivation of other users, the principle of assumption of good faith is paramount. Please remember that everyone here is a volunteer, just like you. The default assumption is that their only motivation is to improve the encyclopedia. This is certainly true of Flyer22 Reborn, whose editing I'm very familiar with (and from whose editing, I continue to learn).

Your post above, is a little bit of both, which makes it difficult to reply all in one place. I'll reply in more detail later, but wanted to get this out to you, first. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I am just seeing Flyer22 Reborn's post here now for the first time.

It is true that the accepted view among investigators is that this was committed by an intruder.

Nearly every word written above by Flyer22 Reborn, though, is pulled so far out of context that it is more false than true.

Nowhere does she explain why one Channel 9News report must be the definitive source, as opposed to any source which contradicts it. Just one example.

I have neither the time nor the patience to respond to every word above. But let me say the following, in brief (sort of):

I never "demanded" anyone remove themselves from anything. I requested that editors stick to topics with which they have basic familiarity. I pointed out several comments Flyer22 Reborn made that show a lack of basic understanding of the topic at hand. She dismissed my points as "quibbling", and refused to have a meaningful discussion. I never demanded anything, obviously.

There is no question that assuming good faith on the part of other editors is of paramount importance. When Flyer22 Reborn reverted me, I made a point of paying attention to her reasoning, and to rewrite in a way which would meet with her approval. The problem is that her reverts, and those of her fellow editor Crossroads1, were based upon changing criteria. If someone rejects an idea for reason X, and I rewrite it to avoid problem X, and then said editor reverts for reason Y, and I rewrite to address that problem as well, and then said editor comes back a third time and reverts without explanation (aside from the accusation of edit warring), it seems that the prior reasons given were covers for the old WP:JUST DONTLIKEIT.

If the reliable sources were not with me, I wouldn't be here. I have not been given an opportunity to state the facts as they have been reported by the reliable sources. Instead I'm hit with the automatic revert.

Some of the reasons given have been startling, such as the two-source rule, which both Flyer22 Reborn and Crossroads1 went to, although no such rule exists on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn now says that my source is an outlier versus her many sources, but the exact opposite is true, which I would be happy to demonstrate, given the chance. She has not brought multiple sources to the table, but shaky ones. I have brought solid, mainstream, highly regarded sources, only to be reverted on the inaccurate theory that I am pushing a fringe opinion against her many sources, sources she is seemingly unable to cite.

So yes, it is hard to avoid a conclusion that her motivation in pushing me out of the article is tied in to her theory of the case, which is no longer the mainstream theory among investigators, and has not been for years. I quoted to her multiple, reliable sources that make precisely that point: The investigation is focused on finding the intruder. She has ignored me there as well.

I want no special favors: I want an opportunity to fix the article so it appropriately represents what reliable sources say are the facts of the case. Let's give everyone a chance to put the facts on the table, and bring in the most mainstream, reliable sources, so this article can be properly representative of the current investigation of the Death of JonBenét Ramsey as it stands now.

Yes, that's the short version. It would take me far longer to address all the distorted accusations above.

Lastly, this whole situation has actually begun to interfere with my real life, which is really not where I thought this would be going when I first tried to improve this article. I may be forced to disappear for swaths of time in the next week or two. If you don't hear from me for a while, that doesn't mean I am avoiding you.

Thank you,

Vcuttolo (talk) 06

26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vcuttolo:, I believe you might have been painting yourself into a corner, a bit, on the article Talk page. Things are happening faster here, and on the article Talk page, than I can really keep up with. You've also attracted the notice of at least two highly experienced admins, who are watching what you say and do. So, I think getting back to RL is an excellent idea, right now, as it may defuse the situation for you somewhat.

I still haven't written the more detailed message I alluded to earlier, but perhaps it's moot now (I hope so). The only concrete suggestion I have for you, is what I've said above: namely, to keep discussions about article content unified in one place, which in this case should be at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey. Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "RL" means.

Thank you,

Vcuttolo (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vcuttolo:, Oh, sorry! Since you said just above, "...begun to interfere with my real life", I just assume you knew. In cases like this, either Wikipedia (click: RL) or Wiktionary can be helpful. Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I took a mental health break earlier this month for about four days, perhaps longer. I should have made it four decades, or four centuries.

Yes, I know I wrote a couple of things on the Talk page that can be used against me, either when I let my frustration show or when I expressed myself inelegantly. When I used the term "expert" for example, I allowed WP:EXPERT to be used against me. I later clarified that I am no investigator, and am including zero original research, but of course my words will be used against me by those who wish to discredit me. However, I continue to only use reliable sources.

In fact, let me list some of the reliable sources that anyone can use to see what is going on in this case:

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, by Lawrence Schiller. This NYT bestseller is widely considered the bible of the JonBenét case. Don't take my word for it; find out for yourself, literally anywhere. When I used this book as a source, I was reverted for not including a second source, because Flyer22 Reborn has a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT problem with what the book says. She has not quoted a single source that disagrees with my edit, but reverted me nonetheless. I digress.

We Have Your Daughter, an award-winning book by an award-winning longtime Colorado journalist, Paula Woodward, which is one of the sources which contradicts the 9News report cited above.

Popular Crime, a book by Bill James, which reports that the mainstream view of investigators involved in the case is that this was committed by an outside intruder.

CBS's 48 Hours, with longtime correspondent Erin Moriarty, which reported the exact same thing.

A&E's 2019 Documentary, the name of which I don't remember at the moment, hosted by the longtime ABC anchor whose name I also can't remember at the moment 😁, which also stated matter-of-factly that the Ramseys were not involved, and that the search continues through the outside intruder suspect list.

A&E's 2016 Documentary, (you know what comes next - I forgot the name), which contains in-person interviews with top experts in DNA and other matters, explaining that the Ramseys have been cleared, and that the DNA belongs to the outside intruder.

The book by John Douglas, former head FBI criminal profiler. I would happily check up all the names here if I had them in front of me, or if I could Google all that without losing this edit.

ABC, which had on former FBI criminal profiler Candace DeLong, and ABC's chief legal correspondent Dan Abrams, both of whom said that the physical evidence cleared the Ramseys.

There's more, but I don't remember them all.

Is there anything above you would consider NRS? Is there anything there that can't stand up to a single local news report on 9News? And that 9News item was the most reliable source used to oppose my edits. The others were far shakier.

As to the Talk page concensus: My experience in trying to reach a concensus on various Talk pages has been unsuccessful. I'll ask for others to chime in, nobody does, and the topic dies.

One example: A well-known sports figure was arrested in 1995 or 1996 after his wife accused him of longtime physical abuse, and police saw scratches on her face. He pleaded it out to something pretty minor after his wife recanted the next day. All domestic abuse experts say that the original accusation is almost certainly the accurate representation of the facts.

Alas, this well-known sports figure has a fan base that does not want the world to know of his alleged foibles. I actually read an article in a sports journal that noted the absence of the domestic violence issue in the WP article, so I added it. And was immediately reverted by a self-proclaimed fan of the team with which this sports figure was long associated. At last check, the item is buried in the wrong section of the article, where it is unlikely to be noticed. It is also written in such a way that plays it down to make it sound as if nothing happened. In this day and age, spousal abuse is recognized for its seriousness, and mention of the issue should not be buried.

I brought it to the Talk page. Six months or so later, no one has joined the conversation. And this sports figure continues to be idolized by a fan base which, in some cases, presumably knows nothing of his domestic issues.

Just one example. Concensus works when folks of all backgrounds join the conversation. Hasn't happened in my experience. Nobody notices.

At this point I wish I had never developed an interest in true crime, and/or had never read the "Death of JonBenét Ramsey" WP article. I care too much about correcting the misinformation out there. I wish I didn't.

Thank you again, Vcuttolo (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vcuttolo: It's possible to generate a wider consensus, or at least, a wider discussion, by advertising a discussion appropriately. The word "appropriately" is key, here, in order to avoid the mistake of WP:CANVASSING. See WP:APPNOTE for how to do this.

But enjoy your break, try to keep the discussion on the article talk page and not here when you return, and mind Acroterion and Doug Weller's calls for sticking to the content issue, and avoiding aspersions about other editors when you come back; the latter may come back to bite you, if you're not careful. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Except for some misrepresentations, what Vcuttolo has stated/claimed above has already been thoroughly addressed on the article's talk pages. The fact remains that there are no reliable sources that state that the intruder theory is more mainstream or that the family member theory is fringe. Furthermore, District Attorney Mary Lacy having publicly exonerated the Ramseys has been criticized by more than one source. Not wanting to further engage Vcuttolo does not mean that I cannot provide more sources noting that clearing the Ramseys based on the DNA evidence has been criticized. He does not listen with regard to why experts have criticized clearing the Ramseys based on that evidence. That above source he is disregarding is from 2016, just a few years ago. I've made it clear to him that that there is a wealth of literature out there on this topic. He very well knows that some sources support the family member theory and that other sources support the intruder theory. But he prioritizes sources that favor the intruder theory because of District Attorney Mary Lacy having publicly exonerated the Ramseys back in 2008. DNA testing techniques have evolved since then and experts note why exonerating the Ramseys back in 2008 based on the DNA evidence was a faulty move. Even back then, it was a considered a faulty move. And as for signs of forced entry or the use of a stun gun? I reiterate that there was no sign of forced entry; the vast majority of reliable sources on this matter are clear about that. Any statement that there was forced entry is speculation. And the stun gun theory is just a theory, and a disputed one at that.

As for the supposed "two-source rule," this was addressed on his talk page and above. WP:Due weight and WP:REDFLAG are clear. There is no way whatsoever that the autopsy report should be challenged in the way that Vcuttolo tried to challenge it.

After that train wreck of a discussion with Vcuttolo on the article's talk page, I have no desire to discuss these matters with him any further. I am not going to put up with him going away and coming back to engage in the same WP:Tendentious editing, and neither will Crossroads1. So to repeat, the next step will very likely be ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Two items:

Item Number One: The most recent comment from Flyer22 Reborn contains more falsehoods. We Have Your Daughter, the award-winning book by Emmy-Award winning journalist Paula Woodward, is from 2016, and she gets into specific detail about why the DNA clears the Ramseys. Weak or mixed DNA doesn't make it into CODIS. Some of the DNA was from one source. Woodward followed up again on her internet page later. Flyer22 Reborn cannot explain why Woodward doesn't count, but the one report from local 9News does.

Numerous reliable sources state that the intruder theory is more mainstream. Period.

The clear majority of sources say there were signs of forced entry. Flyer22 Reborn needs to expand her horizons past a couple of resources which support her pet theory.

Her claim that I "challenged" the autopsy report is absolutely false, and obviously so. Prosecutors quoted their expert, Dr. Michael Graham, as saying that even if there was pineapple in JonBenét's stomach, it had little meaning. How does that challenge the autopsy? The coroner said there was something in her stomach that "may" have been pineapple. (As Woodward reported later, further resting showed it wasn't pineapple.) The question is when the food got there. Dr. John Meyer's autopsy never said it got there in two hours; police did, and prosecutors pointed out to police that they were jumping to conclusions. Flyer22 Reborn should be able to understand this; I've explained it before.

Here is one hell of a quote: "I am not going to put up with him going away and coming back....and neither will Crossroads1." Is it not clear by now why I ask about the relationship between Flyer22 Reborn and Crossroads1? How can one speak on the other's behalf so definitively? How come the two of them show up in tandem on pages of entirely unrelated topics?

Item Number Two: John Douglas's book mentioned above is The Cases That Haunt Us. The A&E Documentary from 2019 is Hunting JonBenét's Killer, hosted by Elizabeth Vargas.

I also omitted above the Federal Court ruling in Wolf vs. Ramsey, which ruled that "abundant evidence" shows that a stun gun was used, the ransom note was not written by any Ramsey, and the crime was committed by an outside intruder.

Okay. Using just the long list of mainstream, reliable sources above, and not the other sources that I can't remember right now, can someone please explain why Flyer22 Reborn's/Crossroads1's personal pet theories carries more weight than a long list of highly reliable sources? Will someone proclaim now that any content added from the above sources will automatically be reverted if Flyer22 Reborn/Crossroads1 "Just don't like it"?

Thank you,

Vcuttolo (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the above, so you have resorted to more misrepresentations and falsehoods, including the claim that "Numerous reliable sources state that the intruder theory is more mainstream. Period." while knowing that you cannot cite one source that states that, which is why you have not cited any source that states that. This is just one reason I will not engage you further. You've been advised and warned plenty. I've been clear what the next step will no doubt be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of AC/DS in the following areas

Besides gender/gamergate awareness (see #Gender-related articles - Ds-aware above), I'm also aware of Arbcom discretionary sanctions in the areas of post-1932 U.S. politics, alternative medicine, gun control, genetically modified organisms, and Scientology.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanskrit

Dear Matglot, I am confused. Is Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary not a reliables source? The source already given was a secondary source copied verbatim from M-W. I left it in only because people love their edits so much that they cannot bear to see them removed. I May not understand how to use the software. I do, however, know how to consult Sanskrit dictionaries and grammars. I hope that this is of some value. If what you are after is a footnoted source rather than one in the test, you might usefully add one yourself. Just google Cologne sanskrit for online access to all sanskrit dictionaries. Nakashchit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakashchit (talk • contribs) 07:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nakashchit, first of all, when writing to another editor, please add new sections to the bottom of the Talk page, not to the top. Above your new section, please add a section header. (I have added one for you, above. Feel free to change it to different section header if you don't like this one.) When you reply to previous messages, please add your comment at the end of the section where the messages appear, indenting one more tab to the right. Always use 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of every talk page message you write. See WP:TALK and WP:THREAD for more details about Talk pages. I'm a little surprised you don't know all this already, as you've been around Wikipedia for some time, now.

Regarding your question: I'm pretty sure you are referring to this edit of yours at Sanskrit, which I reverted The dictionary you mention is a reliable source. The problem was, you added the name of the dictionary inline (and only the name), without adding a citation. I actually explained in the edit summary of my revert, where I said: "Reverted 2 pending edits to revision 917836039 by Serols: Thanks for adding that dictionary, but you will still need to add a citation; see Help:Footnotes for more info".

You don't need to mention that dictionary inline, and since there's already a reference there backing up the assertion, you don't need to mention it at all, either inline, or in a citation. But if you wish to mention it, you may. In that case, please create a citation to it. I am not going to google anything for you, or add a citation for you; if you want the content or the reference to appear, then you should add it; the onus is on you. I hope this answers your questions. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

#AB-1605 guidance

hi! I just wanted to thank you for patience and thorough guidance related to my questions about #AB-1605...as I was writing this post this morning, it struck me that I hadn't reached out to directly acknowledge your help ^ _ ^ Stussll (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Stussll, much appreciated; always willing to help. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion - removal of Antisemitism Persecution of Jews category

user:Mathglot I did this based on Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages i.e. 'In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.'. The page is in the categories: Antisemitic canards, Antisemitic forgeries, Antisemitic publications, Conspiracy theories involving Jews, Antisemitism in the Russian Empire, Antisemitism in the United States and Persecution of Jews, all of which are subcategories or subsub categories of Persecution of Jews. Jontel (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance on edit summary clarity and apologies for taking up your your time. If it helps, in recent category edits, I was generally seeking to apply the above rule i.e. to avoid an article being categorized at multiple levels in the same chain. Jontel (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I made a mistake here in making the edit to the Protocols page. Sorry. Jontel (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jontel:, No need to apologize; we're all volunteers, here, and you're just trying to do right by the article and the policies, as am I. I appreciate your comments. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CESNUR

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CESNUR. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct you are

Grousing I am. I put it out there for public consumption in case someone tried to pigeonhole me. Check out my responses on Gwen's talkpage. BTW very good answer, I loved the humor.15:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In response to this response of mine to Oldperson, at Talk:TERF#Threaded Discussion. Mathglot (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Idles (band)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idles (band). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Old pings

Hi Mathglot. I am just getting back into editing after a bit of a break. I noticed a few pings from you to some gender related articles. Sorry for not responding. They are a couple of months old so I am guessing they are no longer relavent, but if you need my opinion on anything else I hope to be back to semi regularly editing from now on. I hope you are well. AIRcorn (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Welcome back! Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Red Meat page edit

Hello Mathglot,

First off, I am a new Wikipedia user, so please kindly let me know if I'm posting this question in the wrong spot. Thank you!

I would like to discuss the edit I made to the Red Meat page regarding the October 1, 2019 study detailing the fact that analysis has found unsubstantial evidence against the health "harms" of consuming red meat. I thought it was important to include the new and relevant study for people to consider. Can you explain your reasoning for thinking this information should not be included?

Kind regards, R310C (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)R310C

Moved to User talk:R310C § Red meat

Moved discussion. Mathglot (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Transphobe or androphobe

Apologies for going off article page but I don't need DIYEditor telling me once again not to WP:FORUM.

Here is the response I wanted to post.

}I have to study to internalize and thoroughly understand your cogent response. I will say this I know that there are androphobic TERF's and ordinary lesbians (whatever ordinary is). The problem it seems is in generalizing. We can only judge behavior, we know nothing of attitudes or beliefs until someone acts or opens their mouth, if an accusation is not launched against an individual, yet they cry foul and lash out, remember only stuck pigs squeal, meaning if someone is offended by a word,phrase or term that is not directed their way specifically, then they are admitting that it applies to them. I am probably engaging in WP:FORUM, if so I apologize. BTW I know nothing of this Raymond, link pleaseAnd while at it, clear my thinking if you disagree. I do hold you in esteem..Oldperson (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Oldperson, you can read up on Janice Raymond at the article about her. She's most well known for a screaming, transphobic screed dating from 1979 (when the term transsexual was more common than transgender) called The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male. Among many other things, in her book she attacked Sandy Stone, a trans woman who worked as a sound engineer at the feminist, all-woman Olivia records, and hounded her until she eventually left their employ. Sandy later wrote The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto in response to Raymond. It is now considered by many to be the founding document of Transgender studies. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I will have to hold my nose and check out this Raymond. I don't have much use for haters.

I can understand the concerns of people who wish a place where they can congregate safely without intrustion.

I think that there is a difference between a post op and pre op transgendered person. I imagine it is more difficult and expensive to add genitalia to a transman, than to remove same from a transwoman. But someone who goes through the ordeal,who makes the commitment to be a post operative transwoman, should be beyond reproach, suspicion or questioning. Not quite so with transvestites, some who may or may not pose as transgendered. But TERF's apparently heave everyone into the same trash can. On the other hand how does one prove they are the genuine article and made the commitment? If a person has gone to the trouble and expense they should have a drivers license and/or passport as evidence. That should be enough.

But in my opinion the real issue with TERF's is plain, unmitigated hatred and/or fear of the male. I believe the psychiatric profession would attribute such an attitude to abuse/molestation/rape even incestuous by a family member or close relative. This whole debate dances around the issue(s) TERF and Trans because of concers of Political Correctness, NPOV or even lawsuits. There is no end to it, and it gecomes a snake swallowing its tail. These constant calls to RS and NPOV or using WP:FORUM as a censorship tool are transparent, and not helpful, the argument is ad infinitum, non productive and at times infantile.

When I was taking Econ 101,my professor (a conservative, Friedmanite member of the Koch Brothers FEE) told us that there is no solution to racism. Racism is not a problem. Problems have solutions. Enact the solution and problem solved.Racism is a difficulty if you try to solve a difficulty you only exacerbate the situtation, what you do with a difficulty is mitigate it with corrective actions. His was actually the best argument for the Civil Rights act and non discrimination legislation. Affirmative action was morally correct, but it evoked a counter productive reaction when it disenfranchised some folk, who actually earned their spurs. My son, now a PhD and a college professor, once lost out to an affirmative action candidate. He was sorely pissed, a natural liberal who was pushed into the right wing.

I think that the TERF v Transwomen controversy is not a problem it can't be solved, it can only be mitigaged. My personal opinion is that I do not go where I am not welcomed or wanted. The situation is different if it affects your well being and personal life, like housing, a job. We don't force people who eschew us to date and marry us. Men who do something similar are stalkers and rapists, or just creeps.

So why would a transwoman even want to enter a TERF safe place? If the TERFs were trying to ostracise and exclude them from say lesbian society that would be a different thing. I have no idea of the current status quo.Oldperson (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dendrochytridium

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dendrochytridium. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emilia Clarke

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emilia Clarke. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Platform shoe, redux

The source was not reliable on platform shoes. I gave up on Wikipedia immediately. (Ethel D (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC))

Hello, User:Ethel D, nice to see you back. Sorry you didn't find your time at Wikipedia more to your liking. (Apparently in regard to Talk:Platform shoe, and a follow-up of this archived discussion.) Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Britain First

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Britain First. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Democracy - Cleisthenes

Dear Mathglot,

you earlier undid the following addition on Democracy because of missing citation. I would propose not to use undo for such purpose (see WP:ROWN), but rather . Can you maybe do that because, I wouldnt like to undo the undo because of above mentioned grounds?

"Cleisthenes issometimes referred to as "the father of Athenian democracy.", though in recent studies he is rather regarded as someone who certainly established important foundations, but not necessarily as democracy's "father", as the political reforms in the aftermath of the Persian War are now generally seen as the initiating force for the process of democratisation. Under Cleisthenes the political system shifted from an aristocracy to a timocracy." Nsae Comp (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nsae Comp:, The WP:ROWN link you cited is an essay, which may be the opinion of a single editor, or a few editors, and is neither a guideline that has widespread approval by the Wikipedia community, nor a Wikipedia policy. I don't follow WP:ROWN, and I don't plan to; I follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Have you added the reference to the article? Use of {{cn}} tags are optional. I use {{cn}} when I'm familiar enough with something or can easily verify it. Per WP:BURDEN, the editor making an assertion of fact is responsible for adding a reference. Wikipedia's policy of WP:Verifiability states: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. That is policy. There was an assertion, it wasn't sourced, so I removed it. All according to policy.

If what you are asking, is if I'm willing to remove the phrase without clicking the "Undo" button, which causes a notification to be generated and adds one to the tally of reverted edits, I can do that. Or rather, I can do it if I remember your preference in the future. Is this what you are asking?

(P.S., please see Template:Reflist-talk, if you're going to add actual <ref> tags to user talk or article Talk pages. The template adds the references section you see below, and keeps it with the relevant discussion, instead of dumping it at the bottom of the talk page, which can be confusing for other discussions. Thanks.) Mathglot (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your clarification. I am not questioning the undo function, rather its wider practice, because (especially without talk follow up) it reduces discussion to the edit summary. With that Wikipedia is reduced to the established community who watch undo notices, hindering to involve non-established readers.

I have posted on the user page of InfoWurm who added the lines in question, that citation is needed. This is my compensation attempt, it though still keeps any further discussion narrowed to the allready involved.

Thank you again for being courteous, too often thats not the case on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsae Comp (talk • contribs) 07:51, October 24, 2019 (UTC)

@Nsae Comp: I try; and you're welcome. Feel free to contact me anytime! Mathglot (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

101.187.83.6

Hi Mathglot

101.187.83.6 is busy pointlessly changing and/or breaking things again. Is there, so far as you are aware, an appropriate way to escalate this. And if so, do you think that it is time to do so?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gog the Mild, I literally just added a new section at their Talk page, when I noticed both your message here, and the fact that the IP had been blocked for three months by User:SpinningSpark at the same time. My recommendation to you, now stale, would have been to neutrally document a few examples of IP's disruption on their User talk page with some diffs, and possibly notify SpinningSpark, who is aware of this IP's disruption in the past; but since they literally just now blocked the IP, nothing more needs to be done for the moment.

No doubt they will pop up again, either at one of their other IPs that are not blocked, at this new IP that I just discovered today (49.195.96.45 (talk · contribs)), or at some new one. Thanks for your inquiry, and you can help by continuing to be vigilant about this, or any type of editing that looks suspect to you by any editor, and leaving neutral descriptions of the problem on their user talk page, preferably with diffs, and links to policy or guidelines that apply, but the main thing is to document it. Over time, if a pattern of behavior becomes evident, an admin can then take action, as they just did in this case. But the first step, is document, document, document. Mathglot (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I shall follow your advice, if - should I say when - it becomes necessary. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, eh. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)