User talk:Mathglot

Hi, Mathglot. I think you might remember several conversations we've had in the past about me eventually writing up some of the insights from my newbie days—which go far beyond "pain points," as you often called them, because I found far more enjoyment than pain!—coupled with my instructional design background. Now that I’m out of newbiehood and you're involved in new mentor assistance endeavors, I was wondering if you might like to see if a few ideas I've had along those lines could be of help in your work. If so, would it ever be possible to carry on related messaging in a somewhat less public venue than a Talk page? Augnablik (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Augnablik. Yes of course I remember the conversations. I'd love to hear your ideas. You can always email me through the link on my User page and Talk page, or if you have an idea of another venue in mind I'm all ears. Mathglot (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done. Augnablik (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Augnablik. Something is screwy; I have a Wikimedia notification (under the Bell icon) that you sent me an email (I can even see the first ten words of your message right in the notification) but there is no email from you in my inbox. I sent myself a direct email and it arrives immediately. I tried sending myself an email through the sidebar link on my user page and it tells me the email was sent, but it does not arrive. I may have to inquire about this at the village pump to see what’s going on. But for the time being, unless you have another idea about how we can discuss, the whole thing is on hold until this is resolved. Sorry for the glitch. Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

How about I try again the same way but sending from another e-account? That's possible because I just changed the account associated with Wikipedia, and then sent you a copy of my earlier message.

If it works, we'll have confirmation of the advice I picked up somewhere as a child and often turned to later in life: "If at first you don't fricassee, fry, fry again." Augnablik (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

As before; I see the notif under the bell icon, but no mail received. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, then I'll raise the issue at VPT. Really strange. Augnablik (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

(A few hours later) Just did that, describing what happened and sending a copy of your replies each time ... and ending the message by saying:

"Because I'm the one who wanted to initiate a discussion through e-mail, I'm the one making the request to VPT to help fix the gremlins involved here. Feel free to connect with Mathglot if you need to ask any questions or do something on his Talk page." I was confident you'd agree about that, and so you may hear something from them about this soon.

Augnablik (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I received a message at the VPT, Mathglot; but it's really for you:

"It's probably User:Mathglot's email provider blocking the emails coming from Wikimedia's feature. A few months back Yahoo did so, for example (see T426105). It's not too likely anyone here can help, particularly without knowing which provider it is. A Phabricator task would be needed to have WMF check the logs on their end, or Mathglot could contact their email provider to have them investigate from theirs. Anomie⚔ 17:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)"Reply

Hopefully, you know how to proceed—I wouldn't. Augnablik (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

{{Article at}} has no transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it exists. I would normally take it to TFD, but I am here to ask you about it first, since you're not a newbie. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jonesey95, much appreciated, totally forgot about this one. I've started in on the doc, first. Once that's done, there should be some places to transclude it; that'll be next. If not, I'll move to user subpage until there is. Thanks for the courtesy notice! Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Still working on the doc, but it has seven transclusions, now. But the thing is, by the nature of the template, they are all in draft space, so either they will languish and get deleted, or they will get promoted or merged to a mainspace article, and the template will be removed. The point being, that the template is likely to disappear from any page containing it, so I will probably have to list it as {{transclusionless}}. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jonesey95, this should be good to go now, and off the database reports. As of right now, there are seven transclusions, and a category. As the drafts age out and are deleted by the bot, the transclusions may go to zero, so I’ve marked it transclusionless, which I believe will keep it off the reports going forward. Thanks again for the heads-up. Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lena Katina on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 14:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Regarding your revert of my edit, I want to state that I believe since sources note both homosexual and bisexual themes, it would be better to group them under the broader umbrella term of queerness, instead of giving emphasis to one as if both weren't given equal weight in a decent number of them. Just my two cents. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, JeffSpaceman. I understand. (I also sympathize, and had it been my published source, I probably would have gone with your wording as well.) However, our positions as Wikipedia editors is not to regroup, reinterpret, or adjust what authors of reliable sources say (even when, or better: especially when, we disagree with their focus), but rather to faithfully summarize what the sources said. The way to change the wording in the article to queernesss is to find reliable sources that say that, and then cite them. Even then, we would have to comply on WP:DUEWEIGHT and avoid WP:CHERRYPICKING by scouring the sources until we landed one with our preference of words or approach. If you feel strongly about it, raise a discussion at Talk:The Velvet Rope and let's get additional feedback and see what others think. Thanks for your contributions to The Velvet Rope, and other related topics. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mark Carney on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Biased Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Catholic Church on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 01:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 12:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I support the idea to make a standalone article for this topic. Sometimes I can get a bit merge-happy, but I think it is worth considering merging vowel–consonant harmony and vowel harmony § Other types of harmony into such a page, leaving the remaining sections of vowel harmony on their standalone page; I feel like consonant harmony could go either way. I imagine a structure along the lines of:

• Lead
• Types
  • Vowel harmony (with {{main}} link)
  • Consonant harmony (with {{main}} link if not also merged)
  • Vowel–consonant harmony
    • Nasal harmony
    • Palatal harmony
    • Rhotic harmony
    • Retroflex harmony
    • Emphatic harmony
    • Faucal harmony

In general, merged or not, I think all of the pages surrounding the topic would benefit from being organized by harmony typology rather than language families. ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 00:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Oklopfer. I am oversubscribed and don't have the bandwidth to take that on at the moment, but perhaps if someone else goes for it, I might be able to help around the edges. But I think your proposed organization makes sense: merging the two stubs (v-c 6.9/0.6kb; c 11.1/0.8) into the new article, and summarize v per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with {{main}} link. (I've added {{section sizes}} to the TP of all three to make the comparative sizes transparent.) I'd vote for that in a requested merge. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I will probably try my hand at it in a userspace draft! (+ the {{section sizes}} are quite helpful, thanks!) ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 12:07, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am also stretched thinner than I should really give myself room for, but I started it here and will work on it when I have time to really sit down with it. You are welcome to perform any edits if you so please, I may also recruit help from WP:LING at a later time. ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 20:38, 5 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I mistakenly accepted an article (Lyadh) as part of AFC Review that you had previously moved to Draft for further development. I forgot about WP:NOTDIC. Could you please undo the move? — Raihanur (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

How long does it usually take for an article to be reviewed? RoseStang (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, RoseStang. It is not a queue, so there is no fixed time. All reviews are done by volunteer editors, who may pick which article they feel like reviewing (or not review any). In practice, some get reviewed very quickly when they are brand new, and others may take several weeks, depending on the backlog of reviews waiting. It is better than it used to be; the wait time used to be several months.

I assume you are talking about Draft:Drum (1991)? Imho, the draft is very likely to be declined for lack of WP:Notability. I would not wait for the review, just keep editing it and read about WP:Notability and add more citations of the right type, to avoid the almost certain decline. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you for the tips. RoseStang (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

hello mento, now I'm aware with those wikipedia rules, but not sure with citation reference code What I want to add is https://results.asiangames2026.org/ag2026/reports/ENG.BKBMTEAM5-------------NOC-BRN-----.C33_1_0.pdf for Bahrain's 2026 Asian Games Basketball roster. Is this right code?

^[1] Tete Pul (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tete Pul, yes, that looks all right. You could also add the date of the document, which is |date=9 September 2026. Well done! Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

oh yea I forgot to add the year

btw some source points this was already confirmed (https://www.instagram.com/p/Dc6ELU1s0Wy/) by "Bahrain’s National Basketball Team for the #20th_Asian_Games_2026 in Aichi-Nagoya 🇯🇵🔥"

in this case just disregard or citate that too Tete Pul (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

For helping my mentee in my absence (back in May, but it still counts!).

I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 02:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am bad at usernames, no problem. And I love kittens, thank you! Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lesbian Space Princess on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 08:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've had a go at the mobile navbox styles demo — the CSS was a bit of a mess, so I tried to rewrite a minimal version from scratch. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Navigation templates/Permafrost looks reasonably nice now; what do you think? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 08:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tol, wow, *much* better! I looked at it in mobile, and the links look fine for those that don't have nested groups, until we get to 'Construction' and 'Thaw' under 'Impact', and then they get indented and the links don't display, or only partially. I'm thinking about how best to deal with those, but I think one option is to simply display:none all the nested labels, and just show the links directly under the main group. Or, what about making the main group label an H3, say, and when we hit a nested group, make it H4 on its own line, not indented, then H5, etc. (Or actually, {{fake heading}}, etc, not real headings, to avoid changing the Toc.) I'll think some more about this tomorrow. Can you think of a better way without indenting, so all links are flush left? Great job, thanks for looking into it! Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

So, no more columns, the labels Overview, Types, Landforms... would just become bigger, like a fake H3 maybe, and the links under it are flush left? Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hm, there might be a way to have it all display nicely in a vertical alignment. I'll play around & see if I can get it to cooperate. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 08:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Portuguese Empire on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 18:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm working on a new draft for the Trumark Homes. Can you give me some feedback in terms of what I may need to improve or add for a successful resubmission? I can send a copy here if you can help. --AlexisAvitia (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, AlexisAvitia. The vast majority of organizations are not notable enough for an online encyclopedia. Your main obstacle is WP:Notability, in particular, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Read through those carefully, and then try to provide *at least* three highly reliable, independent sources that meet the criteria, in particular, WP:ORGDEPTH. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello mentor, is it ok for me to ask you to review my edits --Cansy Official (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Cansy Official, yes, of course! Which edit would you like reviewed? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

because i want you to review my other edits Cansy Official (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cansy Official, Which other edits? Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

the one i just did in nova scotia & creative commons Cansy Official (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

and btw u can call me cansy Cansy Official (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

what pronouns do u have so i can refer to u correctly Cansy Official (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

also can you TEMPORARILY unprotect Jacknjellify so i can edit Cansy Official (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

im just uncomfortable that its a redirect and not about the company Cansy Official (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cansy, I am not an admin, so I cannot unprotect it. I responded at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Amazing World of Gumball on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 01:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I’d like to know if there is anyone monitoring the town’s officials? I know for hard evidence fact of town charter violations, egregious acts of code violations resulting in a catastrophic outcome to a historic home and it’s residents. Bldg code violations approved by Jason Harris, Scott Lambiase & BOS members. This has been brought to the attention of AGO, OIG, ETHICS COMMITTEE & even STEPHEN LYNCH. None of which have given the solid air tight evidence have batted an eyelash at investigating a nano spec of it. This involves an accelerated death of an ILD elderly resident, current health crisis of occupants in the HERSEY HOUSE 1806. Is anyone going to Be held accountable for the FRAUDULENT INSPECTION REPORTS FILED TO THE STATE?! PERJURY COMMITTING BLDG COMMISIONER WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ACTS BY TOWN manager &!Select board members. Is this what my taxes pay for? To die ? --Tawanda or not Tawanda (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Tawanda or not Tawanda. This is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. We can help you with editing questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Generally speaking, we are unable to help with questions about local politics unrelated to the production of a Wikipedia article. However, you can sometimes get a response to a question like that at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. No guarantees, as it is manned by volunteers who answer questions they are interested in, but perhaps worth a try. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note: The Unquiet Pen's mentor VidanaliK is away.

hello mentor, I am eager to begin contributing to wikipedia. For a start how do i begin editing, does wikipedia suggest pages for me to edit or do i find what am interetsed and edit. thank you --The Unquiet Pen (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Unquiet Pen, hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Both of those are possibilities. You can go to your Homepage and look for the Suggested edits module, and follow their suggestions, or you can pick pretty much any article you' like to work on. What kinds of things are you interested in? Mathglot (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note: Leuly50's mentor Alyo is away.

Hi --Leuly50 (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Leuly50, hello. Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Mathglot, you just reverted my edits from tonight on Treaty of Troyes - not sure why you felt these were LLM-generated? I work quite a bit in this area, but always from reliable sources, in this case Allmand, Curry, etc. The article is what I was spending my afternoon on. You even reverted my addition of a suitable Commons picture?

Since I don't just want to revert your revert, can you give me a bit more of an explanation please? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 18:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Arcaist, I should have been more careful with individual edits; I've restored the image, although it's a bit hard to find a good spot for it given the previous article structure. The reason I felt it was LLM-generated is that it came up as AI-generated with 100% confidence by Chat GPT Zero. The reason I even bothered checking in the first place, was this edit, adding a new § Ratification section with eleven references to the article in six minutes. Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I know you have to use 'AI detectors' to spot things, but I'm sure you also know that these produce false positives. Plug my edits into any other detector and I'm fairly sure the results will change. If my stuff sounds like AI it's probably because I'm an academic and that's just how I write.

Regarding the new section - I mean, I write these things outside the editor and then insert them, that's my working style. I've spend something like 4 hours with the sources and the article today (as you can see from the editing history) and inserting every sentence and citation with a separate edit would be upwards of 100 individual edits, which is silly. There's only a handful of good academic sources on the Treaty anyway, it's not like it's magic to say "Allmand" and "Curry" about five times per paragraph.

So where do we go from here? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

By the way, it took me about half an hour to write the ratification section, as you can see from the history. The six minutes is just the time after a 5-byte formatting edit which had nothing to do with the content. I mean, I know we're all hunting for LLM content, but that doesn't mean every series of substantive edits is suspicious. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

What you say seems plausible, so I've restored your material. I guess I'll have to use multiple detectors next time. There is a plague of AI on Wikipedia, the evidence isn't always clear, and I (and everybody else, I guess) am still learning how to deal with it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I appreciate your work and especially the quick replies. Believe me I know how much of a headache AI is, both here and in academia. Good luck! — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mathglot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "French historiography".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Draft:French historiography. Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Liz @Dev-DLM Dev-DLM (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

LOCATION : https://***REDACTED***.com/join/g-XXL6vMMPKNkskdr. Dev-DLM (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Terribly sorry, User:Dev-DLM, but I had to corrupt your spammy url above so it no longer goes to your website. Have fun at Wikipedia, until you are permanently blocked. Left you a message in the next section. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

proxy/port 8080 Dev-DLM (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, fun's over. Stay off my Talk page.

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Downtime in my TZ now; please keep half an eye open while I'm unable to. Thx, Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Setting to answered, user blocked. Feel free to re-flag in the event something else pops up. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Mathglot, I am delighted that Wikipedia has caught your attention and that you have been interested in learning how to edit on it. The editing test you did worked; However, you should keep in mind that the goal of this project is to develop a reliable and complete encyclopedia that everyone can consult. Your edit affected the content, so it has been removed. If you want to learn how to edit Wikipedia, the sandbox is at your disposal. If your comments were specific to an article, the correct place is that article's talk page. Dev-DLM (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gee, thanks, Dev-DLM! I'll be sure to use my sandbox until I understand how to edit Wikipedia. I guess I just haven't been able to figure it out in my last one hundred thousand or so editing tests over the last twenty years, but pretty soon I'm gonna get it, I promise! I'm awestruck how far you have come in your two-edit Wiki career, keep up the good work! Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, i am having a problem in finding or entering an archive URL for a citation in an article I added to. The help function does not resolve it for me.

Thank you

Kevin Bergin --Kaygeepeebee62 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Kevin. I presume you are talking about this notice on your Talk page by Qwerfjkl (bot). That notice gives a clue about what went wrong, in particular, the red message Check |archive-url= value. Checking the copy of the citation in the bot notice, it looks like you wrote this citation:

...|archive-url="https://www.historyireland.com/geographical-loyalty-counties-palatinates-boroughs-and-ridings"...

and that is, in fact, the problem. (Or rather, one of three problems.) The |archive-url= parameter requires a valid url as a value, and quotation marks are not valid. Just take them out, and your citation should work.

However, there is another problem: you are using the wrong url parameter. Param |archive-url= is used solely for urls from the Internet archive; they always start with https://web.archive.org/web/.... So, you should use param |url= for the ireland website url. Additionally, the url is live, not dead, so that can just be removed, along with the archive-date. Fixing all three problems, gives you this:^[1] which you can code this way:

<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maxwell |first=Nick |date=6 March 2013 |title=‘Geographical loyalty’? Counties, palatinates, boroughs and ridings' |url=https://www.historyireland.com/geographical-loyalty-counties-palatinates-boroughs-and-ridings |access-date=6 October 2026 |website=History Ireland}}</ref>

Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was browsing some articles about 15th century humanism and the Rennaissance, and I came across an article that is very limited in English, but seems to be rather excellent in French. Could you perhaps look into a bit of some information exchange?

The article is Greek scholars in the Renaissance, which is 22 kB in English and three times larger in French. I was particularly looking up references to an article I was editing, Collatio Novi Testamenti, which led me to Lorenzo Valla research. He is mentioned in the French version of Greek scholars in the Renaissance, and in fact several other men are. It opened up a whole new can of worms, and I realized that I prefer the French historical synopses better, far better than the list of scholars in the English one.

I would like the English article to follow the logical layout of the French one. And, it mentions Collatio Novi Testamenti in passing. Thanks for your consideration. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I introduced a new sub heading to an already established article and described an event that I felt was relevant to the main article. Main article (County Roscommon), sub heading (Notable events - Last fatal duel in Ireland). However, a Wiki editor removed large sections of the text of the event I was describing, many details that I felt were crucial to the event being described such as the actual date of event, the location of event and a brief background description of the 2 people concerned. Removing these details interfered with the integrity, flow and informative value of the event I was describing and I felt that it took away significantly from what other users could learn about a topic of considerable historical significance in Ireland and the editors actions also I felt undermined the research I had done on the topic. I just feel that the author should be able to retain the crucial details of the topic as they are fully knowledgable on the subject concerned and especially so when they started the topic themselves. --Kaygeepeebee62 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Responded at your Talk page. 03:33, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: mentee question @Ozzie talk

Hi Mathglot, I got this question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ozzie10aaaa&curid=37531964&diff=1379187447&oldid=1379186935 I'm not sure how to answer(apparent student), could you help with advice, thanks Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ozzie10aaaa. In brief, this student is not in a course connected to Wiki Ed, which covers North America only, and since they asked an editing-related question about Wikipedia standards, feel free to respond as you would to any mentee not involved with Wiki Ed.

That said, here's some background that might help, though I am fuzzy on many of the details. The student is apparently in a course that involves the WikiMedia Education (not Pedia) program and its related EduWiki Hub, that afaik manages Wikipedia-related classes worldwide that are *not* in North America. I'm not very clear about where the most current info about this program is, as a page on the outreach wiki like outreach:Education/Community/Countries looks like a really useful list-of-links page to every country the program covers (e.g., outreach:Education/Countries/Ireland). But otoh, the country links page is years old—not sure if that's because the project has moved over to meta à la EduWiki Hub, or simply because all the links on the page are still valid, and nothing needed to be updated. Your student did mention the outreach wiki, so maybe it is still valid; I'm a bit fuzzy about all that.

Your student gave a clue with the dashboard link; following that to the Browse campaigns page shows many active course in several languages and countries, so I'm guessing that is the best place to start if you want to track down course info. Here's a link to All campaigns, and if you search 'Ireland' in the search box you get two rows, and clicking the bottom one for the 'Wikimedia Community Ireland' campaign gets you this overview page full of stats, but with five contacts bottom right for Wikimedia Community Ireland who might be able to help further as far as determining the specific course and instructor, if that helps any.

Bottom line, though, I would just handle it as a straight up mentee question, irrespective of any course connection with meta:Education. Please lmk what else you find out; I'm curious about this, too. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It occurred to me afterward, that you may simply have been wondering about their page at User:ToDunMas/Kilquane Cemetery. The topic seems non-notable to me. Notability is not inherited, so even if Kilquane Church is notable, or St Patrick's (civil parish, Clare and Limerick) is, the cemetery isn't necessarily, and would have to meet WP:GNG on its own. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The student also mentioned the course facilitator, Amy Uí Ríordáin. From their user page, they identify as "Community Manager at Wikimedia Community Ireland", so maybe that's an analogous role to a Wikipedia expert at Wiki Ed. Otoh, with 49 edits, she is still brand new herself, wikiwise, but maybe most of her work is off-wiki. Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mathglot , thank you ... I was a "little" confused by the Edu thing myself, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, after watching the series Mononoke, I became curious about it's 2 manga adaptations. After searching it on barns & Noble, I found "Skazaniya o mononoke: Kniga 1," and it doesn't look like there's a Wikipedia page for it. Because of that, I feel almost entitled to make it myself, what should I do? --Nodyra (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Nodyra, there's the 1998 film Princess Mononoke, there's a documentary, and I guess there was a series after the film which you saw, and then there is the 2025 fantasy detective novel Skazaniya o mononoke (Сказания о мононоке) by Russian author Anastasia Gor. These are all different things. When you say, "it doesn't look like there's a Wikipedia page for it", which one are you talking about? There is already an article about the film. Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

There isn't a page on specifically the book Skazaniya o mononoke. And the Series that I had watched is Mononoke

Sorry, I didn't realize I could embed links to the text. :p Nodyra (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I had initially looked it up on Wikipedia because the lead detective guy in Skazaniya o mononoke, looks similar to the medicine seller from Mononoke Nodyra (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nodyra, for any topic to be eligible to have its own article at Wikipedia, the topic must satisfy the criteria of WP:Notability, which is a Wikipedia guideline with very specific requirements involving the kind of coverage and amount of coverage the topic has received in reliable sources. For books, the criteria are explained at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Few books meet these stringent requirements. If you want to see if Skazaniya o mononoke is one of them, have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Please also have a look at Help:Your first article. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for answering my question, I had no idea there was so many rules for books on Wikipedia. I'll be sure to look through everything to see if it meets the requirements

Thank you again, have a grate rest of your day! Nodyra (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, if I may what are the fundamentals one needs to know about editing Wikipedia pages --Caesaral (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Caesaral, and welcome! You could try Wikipedia:Introduction, or Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia. In addition, I've left you a welcome message on your Talk page, with more links for you to look at. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia

Search

User menu Mobile phone jammer Article Talk Language Save Edit Download PDF A mobile phone jammer or blocker is a device which deliberately transmits signals on the same radio frequencies as mobile phones, disrupting the communication between the phone and the cell-phone base station, effectively disabling mobile phones within the range of the jammer, preventing them from receiving signals and from transmitting them. Jammers can be used in practically any location, but are found primarily in places where a phone call would be particularly disruptive because silence is expected, such as entertainment venues.

Example of a mobile phone jammer, produced by Jammerspro Because they disrupt the operations of legitimate mobile phone services, the use of such blocking devices is illegal in many jurisdictions, especially without a licence. When operational, such devices also block access to emergency services.

Legality

See also

References

Last edited 6 months ago by Infospazm Wikipedia Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki Page was rendered with Parsoid. Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Privacy policy Contact Wikipedia Legal & safety contacts Code of Conduct Developers Statistics Cookie statement Terms of Use Desktop view --Placido Rafael Basurto (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Placido Rafael Basurto, other than your phrase about a manufacturer which I've highlighted above, everything else in your comment is a copy of the article Mobile phone jammer. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Mathglot (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mathglot, I am going to amend the pages as per the advice. I was quite disappointed to be honest s I write all the text myself but used AI to do the links as I can't do technical things myself. The decline seems to me like the AI wrote my text but that took me ages to do and I gave my work to AI to put it into the editor and add all the code. Can you tell me the best way forward? Any advice is kindly appreciated. --Talat at BIOR (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Talat at BIOR. In the Afc decline message, User:Operator 16 explained what the issue was regarding LLM use, and also gave you an encouraging signal about the ultimate likelihood of acceptance of a draft on this topic, if you resolve current issues. Your best bet is to reply to their post directly on your Talk page. That will give you a better path forward on your draft than I can, as an editor uninvolved with the review. If that doesn't work, feel free to {{reply}} here, or through the Mentor module on your homepage, or you can always try the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I will do that. Talat at BIOR (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just emailed User 16 (the reviewer) with this:

Dear Operator 16,

1. Thanks for the kind feedback, that is appreciated. We have included a lot of links to official sources like Ofqual (the UKs qualification regulator), the UK Government, The Department for Education etc. You said 'nothing can be outright written with an LLM on here anymore so all the generated text has to go' so I think that is now clarified.

Also, you said 'The issue you here is that rewriting what you already have doesn't fix the notability problem.' Please let me know if this solves that:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AqsUq2Ik7A tis is our DG on the BBC. 19 Nov 2012

Azmat Mohammed, Director General of the Institute of Recruiters, IOR on BBC Breakfast TV.

- https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07l3x8z

Recorded coverage of the Petitions Committee's session on high heels and workplace dress codes, with evidence from petition creator Nicola Thorp, Scarlett Harris, Women Equality's officer, TUC and Azmat Mohammed, director general, Institute of Recruiters. From Tuesday 28 June. Talat at BIOR (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Talat at BIOR, okay. Note: email is generally used for private communication. In general, just communicate in the open for transparency; also, that way, other editors might see your comment and wish to help out. To attract another user's attention on your Talk page, you can either {{ping}} them, or link their username; see WP:NOTIFY. Or, you can just write to them on their Talk page, and they will automatically be notified. If you choose the latter, be sure to link the Draft or other article you are asking about, and it's wise to also link prior discussions (like this one). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hiiii! I always use wikipedia to keep it running, so I thought I should try my best to contribute by editing (adding citations, really). So far, I've only done one. I want to know how I put "citation needed" at the end of claims/sentences. I couldn't find a source for Georg Alberacht's second wife Countess Sophie, so I went to put "citation needed" but I don't know how. I published changes I made. --Saraeaeae (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Saraeaeae! Adding citations is an excellent way to contribute. One of the ones you added at Christian Henry, Margrave of Brandenburg-Kulmbach, FamilySearch.org, is not a reliable source per WP:RSNP so I had to remove that one, but the other one is okay. Regarding your question, adding a template depends on what editor you are using. You appear to be using the Visual Editor, and in that editor you can follow the explanation at Help:VisualEditor#Editing_templates for how to do it. Let me know if that helps! I've also left you a Welcome message on your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry about that. I can try to find a better source for that. I see it listed in red (oops). I almost used Geni until I learned about open wikis lol. For now, I will leave it uncited.

P.S: I liked the welcome message. It was very helpful, thanks! Saraeaeae (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I created this account in order to write a bunch of articles pertaining to my fields and niches. One of the pages I would like to create is about a Virtual Youtuber Named Rin Penrose. I would like to make sure I do it right and that I am able to make one before I start working on editing one together. I gotten the chance to speak to Merphant briefly about this topic to make sure I do it right.

First issue :Penrose in the past has made a stream making her own wikipedia article, which has since been deleted by wikipedia moderation. I would like to make sure that a topic about Rin Penrose is not blacklisted or watchlisted for deletion, as I would like to make an article in earnest, and this is not a bit or a stunt to get it created.

Second issue: Due to difference in online culture around young people and media outlets, most references to activities, impact, and developments around Rin Penrose and her community are limited to youtube videos, twitch vods, social media posts, and discord posts. Since would mean that despite substantial activity, most citation would not be traditional journals and the likes. For example, Rin has raised tens of thousands of dollars during different charity activities with her communities, but no outlet covers vtuber charity events. The only reference to those activities are the online announcements that they will happen, and the vod which shows the final number. I want to make sure that the article is seen for the substantial value it holds despite its citations being mostly social media based, especially to an audience or editors who expect to see official journalism.

I would like to stress that I sincerely believe this creator deserves a wikipedia article. Entertainment in the UK is very heavily dominated by traditional media, I believe it is critical for independent creators, to be highlighted, especially ones with this scope of influence and activity. --GLADIATORTEMPORALIS (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

GLADIATORTEMPORALIS, it sounds like you have already had a look at our WP:Notability standards, including WP:NPERSON, and as you have discovered, a certain amount of significant coverage is required to establish notability, and lacking proof of notability, an article about them would likely be deleted again. If you believe the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia are biased against content creators or anyone else, you can try to get the standards changed by giving your arguments at WT:Notability, but it's only fair to warn you that your chances of success are very slim imho; not zero, perhaps, but slim. Best of luck whatever you decide to do! Mathglot (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Appreciated, and I appreciate the quick response too.

So, it kind of seems like my best bet would be to make both a wiki entry and an appeal to the notability discussion. However, what is the correct order of operations here? If I make the article first, it might be deleted before anyone even sees my appeal about it. If I make the appeal first, it might be hard for people to see what I am actually talking about, and the devil is in the details when it comes to high quality vs low quality.

This leads me to two ideas that seem like they could work. The first being to make a section about the notability of this creator in a subtle way that fits into the article, in a way where someone who reads it will have more of an idea as to why a vtuber they probably have not heard about deserves their own page (probably make a short appeal in the WT:Notability discussion too). The second is to make the article as a sharable document, and include it with the appeal before creating the page, so that it can be read and understood. I am heavily leaning towards idea 1, but I want to hear what you think about it.

Ironically, the very things that could get this taken down are the very biases that justify having her here. You look at a list like this: List of British comedians , and almost everyone is an old man who is known from channels sponsored by the UK itself. A young independently operating female British comedian is really important to highlight. The fact the medium uses anime avatars as well likely gives it extra scrutiny even though it enables creators like her to exist... GLADIATORTEMPORALIS (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

GLADIATORTEMPORALIS, I would suggest that you start by creating a Draft first. You can do that by clicking this red link: User:GLADIATORTEMPORALIS/sandbox. Then you can start developing your draft there, following the step-by-step instructions at Help:Your first article. A few specific points:

make a section about the notability of this creator in a subtle way that fits into the article...

Strongly advise against that. For starters, We are talking about Wiki-Notability, not the English word notability. Read about it at WP:Notability and WP:NPERSON. Secondly, it's the wrong venue; the article itself is not a place to try to subtly persuade other editors about Notability, it is exclusively for encyclopedic content about the subject. If you want to persuade other editors, you can write on the Talk page, at User talk:GLADIATORTEMPORALIS/sandbox.

probably make a short appeal in the WT:Notability discussion too

You could try it there; people are much more likely to see it there, than on your draft talk page.

Ironically, the very things that could get this taken down are...

You have to think about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a Buzz scope or Trend-o-meter or Who's Who in social media. There are webpages for that, but Wikipedia is not that. We require that Notability be established by reliable sources. As to what counts as a reliable source, you can raise a query at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about particular sources you'd like to use. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note: Toro0711's mentor Aplucas0703 is away.

Hey so I have added some content related to post production in this page, I have provided the reference link of the article as well, my edits were visible for some time and then I am unable to see them anymore. What should be done ? How to make my additions/edits more accessible to be displayed on wiki. Thanks. --Toro0711 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Toro0711, and thanks for your question. Your edits were removed by another editor, FenrisAureus, who explained the reason for the removal as commentary / talking in article, and then left a message on your Talk page. I would also have removed your edits had I seen them first, and for additional reasons, from the effusive, flowery, unencyclopedic language, to the impression that it may have been composed or edited by an AI bot. Regarding language, please have a look at WP:TONE, and in particular, WP:AESTHETIC. Regarding AI, just don't; use your own words to summarize the gist of what the reliable sources have to say on a topic. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! I've left you a longer welcome on your Talk page, with some links which may be helpful to you. Mathglot (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am not an entertainment reader, facts and functional knowledge. How does one discern blog nformation from real world facts here. --Aeiou135246* (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Aeiou135246, in general, facts reported in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable sources, and backed up by inline citations in the body of the article. Very few blogs are considered reliable, unless they are sites of distinguished domain experts, such as this economics blog by Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics. In the early days of Wikipedia, there wasn't as much emphasis on WP:Verifiability as there is now, so you will still find many articles tagged with banners such as {{More citations needed}} or even, {{Unreferenced}}, and we very much welcome assistance in adding citations to such articles. You can find them listed in Category:Articles lacking sources or Category:All articles needing additional references. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello may I ask how do I start my own journey of singing --Jossie Jeany (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jossie, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I can help you with writing an encyclopedia article about singing, but not about how you can start on your own singing journey yourself. But best of luck ! Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

On an unrelated question to the other one wehave been chatting about. I can not seem to be able to login to wikipedia through the app or through a browser (I use brave if it matters) on my phone. I am not sure why. It works just fine on PC (firefox browser if it matters) --GLADIATORTEMPORALIS (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

GLADIATORTEMPORALIS, I'm not too familiar with that sort of issue, but I recommend asking again at WP:VPT. Please include in your question details about your device, the OS (e.g., iOS, Windows, Linux, etc.) and the browser you are using. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hiya mathglot, I know that I'm meant to go to you for edits and stuff but there is this user who is vandalising the Kim Jong Un Wikipedia page. I have reached out to @Quinntropy as that moderator has previously reprimanded him, though he has not answered. As you are my mod, I hope you can look into his unconstructive edits and ban, suspend or reprimand him and his edit privileges. Kind regards. Chicknbickn ChicknBickn (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This user has not reacted well to these reprimands. After I told him that I had reported him to Quinntropy, he called me a 'dumbass snitch'. After I told him to stop, he said no and another user @kmpolska has also tried to help but to no avail ChicknBickn (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Kwpolskamy apologies ChicknBickn (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

ChicknBickn, it appears you intended to ping Kwpolska above. Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

yes ChicknBickn (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

ChicknBickn, based on this discussion, you appear to be referring to edits by Blakesleylan. As they have not edited the article since they were last reverted one minute after their last edit a day ago, I suggest we just wait for now; if they don't edit again, there will be no need to spend time pursuing the situation. Mathglot (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

thank you ChicknBickn (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

A shame that new users still encounter interfaces where signatures aren't automatic.. Would you know where that is? I wonder if people use the 'Edit Source' over 'New topic', as the button is not progressive at the top of the toolbar. Other places new editors sometimes show up is at AfD when their article gets nominated (having DiscussionTool support for bulleted discussion is a long-term wish, not sure if it's already been added to the Wishlist). Are there more? Such a silly thing to have to teach to new editors. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Femke. I couldn't agree more. I get the impression that WMF software projects are well meant, but sometimes poorly thought out or rushed into production before they are quite ready. Like VisualEditor, say, which is limited to certain namespaces, and which [used to] create b.s.. reference names like <ref name=":0"> (I finally created WP:VECRUFT to address it, in equal measure in frustration and a desire to help. This bug, or rather, design error, was *finally* fixed, just very recently; see e.g., this edit from four days ago.) I heartily support the WMF Growth team's WP:Mentorship program, but it seems like it was released before it was fully designed and tested, and I question its long-term viability. As far as your question about all the places where a sig is non-automatic, I'm not sure of the complete list, as I use the source editor (I keep both editor tabs available, but only use VE once in a while for testing, or to see what the other half sees.) I tried asking AI your top question, and the reply was much longer than I expected, so I won't repost here, but the gist of it is, when not using discussion tools Reply or Add topic on noticeboards, Talk pages, Rfcs, and numerous similar processes; it linked Wikipedia:Signatures and Help:Talk pages as the two most relevant pages about the topic.

About the wording in the five welcome templates: I took my best shot, which was not identical to what it was before, in order to try to include an inkling of the issue that "it depends what interface you are using to make your reply", but it's really hard to do that in a few words, and I know you were trying to make the welcome templates shorter, in order to be able to include something about LLM without lengthening it unduly. I'm sure the wording could be beter and/or shortened, maybe links would help, I dunno; feel free to improve it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm so glad that we finally have the named references. I hadn't realised how big of a project that was, possibly due to the fact we don't share templates across languages easily. Third time a wish of mine is addressed :). So exciting to have the new wishlist process starting up again.

You've probably seen me complain a bit about mentorship before. They did an A/B test, it was negative, and they decided to roll it out anyway without a visible route to improving it. I'd love for a mentorship programme where editors with a few non-reverted edits get matched to someone in their topic area, and would expect a more positive response there, as editors don't get the expectation that someone will answer immediately.

About the signatures, we need to somehow tempt editors to use 'new topic' much more. On some pages, like Wikipedia:Teahouse, editors get a very clear button to add a new topic, and from history, most seem to use this. Other pages don't have that. User talk pages are the second-most popular place I imagine for people to accidentality use the source editor, and that cannot be solved like the Teahouse. We would need a general design change for this. In places where you'd expect editors to add a bullet point (AfD), there is a semi-popular wish to make the reply tool smarter, which can prevent exposure to manual signatures. I'd love to speak more to growth about this :). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:58, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Femke, I could go on and on about Mentorship (and sometimes I do, lol). I've contributed at Phabricator when it's something narrow that seems clearly a bug, created WP:Mentorship (basically a FAQ modeled after the mediawiki FAQ, but going into more detail), raised numerous issues at mw:Talk:Growth (that's probably #1 to get eyeballs from the Mentorship team, maybe tied with Phab), and finally the WP:Mentorship noticeboard, where it isn't clear if it will have staying power, but I hope so! Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i'm working on citations for a john gibson article. i tried to go back to the page you sent me to for sources but i don't know where to look. Saraeaeae (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

nevermind i found it :) Saraeaeae (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Saraeaeae, glad to hear you found it! Feel free to ask anytime. Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note: Khaledaaaaa's mentor LuniZunie-Mentor is away.

Hi! Nice to meet you. Looking forward to editing :) --Khaledaaaaa (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Khaledaaaaa; nice to meet you, too! Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

How do I make my own wikipedia page? --Erensahu (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Responded at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I logged on to my Wikipedia homepage and went to an article that i wished to add some new information to but i could not see any edit function. There was a icon saying 'edit source' but i don't know if that will allow me to add something new to an already established article. Please help.

Kevin Bergin --Kaygeepeebee62 (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kevin, can you tell me what page it was? Some pages are protected from new users until they have more experience. However, the fact that you see an Edit source button implies that you can edit it, even an established article. Try clicking it, and see what happens. Just so you know, the source editor and the Visual Editor operate quite differently. Have a look at Help:Introduction, and scroll down to the part where there are side-by-side buttons; that will show you the differences between the two. I happen to like the source editor better, but it requires learning some simple coding principles, like putting ‘[square brackets]] around words to turn them into a link, and other stuff like that. The Visual Editor has more of an on-screen way of doing things, and many editors like it better. You can use either one, or both. One downside of VE is that it is not enabled for all pages, such as Talk pages, but there, you can use something called Discussion Tools, which is kind of like having VE inside the source editor. The fact that the page you wanted to edit has no Edit tab makes me think maybe it was a Talk page, or one of the other page types that doesn't work with VE. Tbh, I am not the best person to ask about VE, as I rarely use it (although it's great for creating tables!); I'll try and help you more if you let me know the page you are trying to edit, but if we don't make progress, please try your question at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, it was a great help. Kevin Bergin ~2026-57376-51 (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

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. Kohtut998 (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

You haven't reverted any of my edits, or of anybody's edits. You have no edits other than this one, and you will shortly receive a warning about improper use of Talk pages to deliver hoax warnings. If you continue to leave improper warning messages, you risk having your editing privileges suspended. Looping in your mentor, Mwwv, just so they are aware, too. Mathglot (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, I think you are a sockpuppet of Dewa779 (talk · contribs · count) who left me a nearly identical fake vandalism warning with the same heading on 19 May 2026. And also of PoppaSmocci (talk · contribs · count), with this fake warning, and possibly of K7V (talk · contribs) as well. Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to ping: Kohtut998. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, how to use Wikipedia --Pizoro (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Pizoro. I left you a welcome message on your Talk page with some links about how to use Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi --Amitpal.america (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Amitpal. You see, there really are people here who will respond to you. Any plans to contribute to Wikipedia? What kind of articles interest you? Mathglot (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply