User talk:Remsense/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

What's the rationale behind removing a climate change section under environmental impacts of technology?

Pollution is a distinct consequence, and climate change confers its own subsequent consequences, e.g. mass extinction, extreme weather, and sea-level rise. Plus, its not really technology itself causing climate change, but rather, arguably, (and this can be framed as a npov discussion) the misapplication of technology to the environment. Climate change and global warming are also distinct concepts, and the transformative effects of technology to our global environment that surrounds us are surely worth mentioning on a wikipedia page about technology, given it is cited properly, I see little reason why you blanket revert this? It affects our societies and should be given due weight. AlaskanGrass (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be confrontational by the way, I just want to understand what your position is on this so we can work to get LVL-1 Vital Article Technology to GA status. AlaskanGrass (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Today I remember an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - see top of my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Today brought a timely promotion of Helmut Bauer to the Main page on the day when pieces from Mozart's Requiem were performed for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Need your help again with very small letters

You provided excellent help here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kompromat&diff=prev&oldid=1249461437 , and now I've encountered a similar situation with a Tibetan word at Tukdam. This little bit is from the lead ( Tibetan Buddhism, tukdam (Tibetan: ཐུགས་དམ, Wylie: thugs dam་) ), but the article is filled with them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, will you be able to help with this? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I will be, my apologies. Will take a look at this ASAP. Remsense ‥ 论 16:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
No problem. I just wasn't sure if you had seen my message. There is no rush. Thanks again. Your skills and knowledge are appreciated! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Valjean so sorry! Fixed the article, same deal—all I did was swap out {{lang}} with {{tlit}}. Remsense ‥ 论 22:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Much appreciated!! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Uncited content

Hello. I've noticed you undid some of edits about removing uncited content. Well, there is a principle saying Wikipedia favors verifiability over truth. There is also another saying uncited stuff can either be challenged or removed. So I believe it is necessary to delete things that are unsourced. Anyway, by doing so, readers can be certain that the information they're reading is authentic. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nyam Nyam Tiger, just going about removing uncited text is not the way to improve the encyclopaedia. The first steps always involve: consulting sources cited elsewhere in the article to see if they support the uncited claims and can be used there; searching for alternative sources on the topic that can be used to cite the uncited passages; attempting a rewrite of the uncited text in such a way that the sources you've just consulted can be used for them.
There has never been a consensus in any discussion that content must be cited or be removed, except for certain edge cases about contentious topics, biographies of living people, and medical articles (I think).
Uncited material can indeed be challenged or removed. It is expected that editors will temper this activity with constructive contributions. Your edit history shows an average byte change of -454 bytes. You should try to help improve uncited content; remove it as a last resort. Folly Mox (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Again, if the behavior @Nyam Nyam Tiger was engaging in was desirable, we would have a bot do it. I do not care how bright the WP:BURDEN line is if it encourages editors to turn their brains totally off in their editing like this. Moreover, I do not feel the need to carefully assess such edits (within reason, I'm not restoring BLP slander), since they were explicitly made with no discernment to begin with. It's essentially unsolicited, disruptive WP:MEATBOTTING. If you can't articulate a good reason that considers anything at all about the text in context—as opposed to simply stating "the policy allows me to, so I do"—the edits you are making are bad. Remsense ‥ 论 23:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Topic on WP:ECR

My new topic added on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch got removed because of WP:ECR. Apparently the topic falls on the Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions. Since I'm not interested on creating an account, could you at least give me help on getting my complain heard? 179.6.1.90 (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ECR aside, I don't think there is a lot one can do concerning this—this particular subject has been discussed quite a bit, and I don't think we're ever going to be happier with something other than what we have, coupled with editors going the extra mile on a per-discussion basis when nuance is required. Remsense ‥ 论 00:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Sedition

Hey! I just noticed that you reverted my edits on Sedition page. I added lines "Sedition as defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by Section 147 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" to the page. You reverted my edits by mentioning "not a minor edit, unclear what the use is here, how is it defined?". The minor tag was wrongly inserted by me while publishing my edit. Also the use of the edit was that Indian Penal code has been repealed and replaced by Indian Parliament in 2023 with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. So, section 124A is now not applicable in India. So, I added this information to indicate this change. Gurkulsahoo (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gurkulsahoo: not only did you use the WP:Minor edit tag, you also failed to provide a WP:Edit summary to explain such a substantial change. So of course it was reverted, what else could you expect? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously denying that Ancient Rome is not the only significant foundation of Western Civilization?

You haven’t even looked at the sources I provided, which weren’t necessary to begin with, since it’s obvious that Rome is not the sole basis of Western culture.

Asking me to discuss this on the Talk page is like debating whether the Sun is a star—it’s absurd. Do you consider yourself an educated person? Nocceta (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we care about what specific claims reliable sources make for a given topic. We don't synthesize claims ourselves. One of our core content policies is verifiability—that is, verifiability, not truth. You put sourced information in with the sources; you do not change what was written to something that the sources don't themselves substantiate, nor do you cite sources that are not actually about the topic in question to draw your original conclusions. All you need to do is cite a source that makes the specific claim you want to cite, that Rome was one of the progenitors of Western civilization. It should not be that hard to do.
For what it's worth, it's funny you use the Sun is a star as an example—because how on earth would any of us know that if we couldn't point to a source that directly says it? Remsense ‥ 论 23:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
If you had spent even a few minutes examining the sources, you’d see that Rome is indeed recognized as one of the foundations of Western civilization. You could even contribute by adding a source you prefer, but instead, you've chosen to be antagonistic, simply deleting content and responding mechanically. And by that unreasonable logic, proving the Earth isn’t flat wouldn’t simply involve explaining its roundness with sources; instead, it would require finding a specific quote stating, ‘No, the Earth is not flat.’[1]
No, you’ve just bent Wikipedia’s policies in the most absurd and Kafkaesque manner possible, wasting both your time and mine on a simple, self-evident issue. Congratulations, I suppose lmao. Nocceta (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
It is preferable to keep content in line with the sources cited: when prose is changed from what its sources say and it is not immediately noticed, it can take years for someone to discover that and fix it. This may sound trivial or antagonistic to you here in this case, but it is an important general principle to ensure that that we don't invent our own claims or formulations that do a disservice to readers. Remsense ‥ 论 23:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll reiterate on this: yes, this is evident to you and me, but we're not writing for ourselves , are we? We already know! Why would you write it at all if it were self-evident? Consider someone who's learning about this for the first time. and cite sources that directly back up your claims accordingly. Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
It is far more detrimental for Wikipedia to imply and promote the idea that Western Civilization is solely a Roman product—a clear error and misinformation in the most objective sense—than what you claim about changing the prose.
You could choose to be proactive, search your preferable source and help to improve Wikipedia, or you could cling to your interpretation of the rules without contributing constructively.
I rest my case. All the best. Nocceta (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
If the "one of" claim is so vital, it really should not be difficult to source yourself as the person who is making the change. I encourage you to do so. This is not meaningfully my personal interpretation: WP:BURDEN and WP:SYNTH are fairly clear about this. Remsense ‥ 论 23:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Put it this way: no one wants to take your (or my) word for it. Remsense ‥ 论 00:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
No, remember that first I have to endure a torturous Kafkaesque wait in the Talk purgatory just to discuss this highly controversial topic. Nocceta (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not forcing you to discuss anything, I'm just trying to explain why it's important to cite our sources. You're free to scamper off and do so. Remsense ‥ 论 00:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sharbel2

What the heck are you talking about? You do not have the authority to modify my block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I struck it after going back to self-revert it to find I was too late, because I realized it was a joke based on what the user themselves said that really was not going to land. Apologies, I know other things are much more important at ANI. Remsense ‥ 论 04:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Your removal of material I added on the papacy is pure editorialism

I cited a reputable source in fact the Vatican itself

```` Montalban (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We're a tertiary source, so why are you citing the Vatican itself if the point is to contextualize history? If there's no secondary source coverage of an event, it shouldn't be mentioned in an article like Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy. Remsense ‥ 论 18:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Remsense. I'm just posting to let you know that List of World Chess Championships – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 22. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

your refrigerator cannot be the product of a purely physical mechanism

@Remsense,

You reverted a 355 byte contribution I made, to another user (with whom I have never* interacted), on talk:physics. There is more context, for anyone willing to witness for themselves: see here.

It*’s tragic. On many levels it*’s tragic. And I’m not even thinking about my “small-self.”

your refrigerator cannot be the product of a purely physical mechanism

“Only inspired insight guided by faith in the simplicity of nature somehow revealed the interplay of the concepts of energy and entropy.”-Herbert Callen, p.461, “second edition”

To find such a fundamental opposition to personalism in one person is Extremely tragic. (You are the ground of your refrigerator’s reality, not the other way around!!)

To find such a fundamental opposition to personalism in the whole of Wikipedia, is extreme and tragic, extremely: Tragic!!!

“[A]rt cannot be kept sacred except by the consistency of its contents with its sacred normal character, and with the Ideal which, as embodied beauty, it shares with truth and good.”-not physics

For the l=oxv=e of l=ixf=e, Please repent! NedBoomerson (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jehovah 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Chuckles987

@Remsense, Martinevans123, and DrKay: I noticed that all of you have placed notices on Chuckles987's talk page. It is very clear to me that Chuckles987 is yet another sockpuppet of BlueDIAMOND20s. I have reported the issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueDIAMOND20s, but diffs are required. I cannot find a good example of a diff at the moment (although the editing behaviour is exactly the same). If anyone finds a good example of a diff, please add it to the sockpuppet report. A list of some of BlueDIAMOND20s's sockpuppets can be found here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BlueDIAMOND20s. Thank you. Khiikiat (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates

Hi! I have been cleaning up WP:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates and Special:WantedTemplates and I noticed that your javascript page is transcluding Template:Ubl\n. Due to a "feature" in the backend software, even though this is a javascript page, the software parses braces and brackets the same to generate links. It would be very helpful if you could add 

 // <nowiki>

to the top of your script page and 

 // </nowiki>

to the bottom of your script page. Because these <nowiki>...</nowiki> are inside of javascript comments, it won't impact the functionality of your script, but it will keep the backend sofware from thinking you are transcluding templates. Thanks in advance for your help! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for making me aware of this. That looks good, right? Remsense ‥ 论 21:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit in City

Hey Remsense, may I know why is this edit reverted? I'm merely amending a link to the target article. hundenvonPG (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBROKEN. Remsense ‥ 论 21:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverting and undoing sourced material concerning the presence of Denisovan ancestry in South America and its' abscence in North America

The editions to the articles I edited explicitly contained references showing how Denisovan ancestry absent in North America were present in South Americans.

Let me quote from one of the sources.

https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/ancient-dna-south-america

“There is an entire Pacific Ocean between Australasia and the Americas, and we still don’t know how these ancestral genomic signals appeared in Central and South America without leaving traces in North America,” said Andre Luiz Campelo dos Santos, Ph.D., first author, an archaeologist and a postdoctoral fellow in FAU’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science."

Since the references says so and the references' studies are from reputable universities, I don't know why you reverted my edits. I hope we can come into a consensus concerning this matter. Truly Yours. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You added a non-sequitur passage of historical genetics information to sections otherwise about historical ethnicity. Genetics and ethnicity are not the same subject. Remsense ‥ 论 21:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Christianization

Hi, why do you think this edit is unconstractive [1]? I didn't make changes to the content. Shahray (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Then what was the point of it? Remsense ‥ 论 21:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
First, I shortened the name of Primary Chronicle (commonly shortened), second I put Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian in alphabetical order, third changed Russo-Byzantine to Rus'-Byzantine (typo fixes). Shahray (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense, so everything is fine? Shahray (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
You're still not responding to me, why is there "no reason to do this"? Explain what you mean first, instead of making biased comments in the noticeboard. Shahray (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

vatican.va

The domain vatican.va on the Catholic Church article does not work because there is no DNS record for it. --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 05:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is not obvious what this has to do with Wikipedia in general or Remsense in particular, but there appears to have been a transient issue with the .va domain. It is back online now. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The problem was that 'vatican.va' was used in the infobox, but this domain does not exist. 'www.vatican.va' is the correct domain. My edit was restored. --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes of course. Do'oh! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Peter Agassian

Is this WP:LTA/ARARAT? Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 13:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for 3rd opinion

I would like to bring your attention to Islam in Australia

I would like to request your third opinion. Summary of engagement:

  1. User:Bro The Man & User:Binksternet
  2. Islam in Australia Dispute regarding achieved consensus achieved in article talk page.
  3. Caution issued. Repeated reverting
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_in_Australia#Bloated_lead_section
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Consensus_achieved%3A_Islam_in_Australia.

Bro The Man (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Not necessary but...

I was going to send you a thanks for your edit at Talk:Grapheme, but then I thought it might look like I was thanking you for asking yourself if you were an idiot, which was the opposite of my intent. So I acknowledge your post there. And you're not an idiot :) -- Ponyobons mots 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why in Names?

if the empire wasn't called Hindustan and you reverted my edits

Then why do you guys have it in #Names

If it wasn't called Hindustan then why haven't you removed it from there tho? JingJongPascal (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said, you should peruse the discussions on the talk page and in the archives. Remsense ‥ 论 19:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I understand that but then why is it in #Names section ? JingJongPascal (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Talas

Why do you remove my edits? I am writing the truth about the page why do you guys change the whole history of the battle? The chinese Wikipedia talked about what I wrote with sources R3YBOl (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We are not editorially dependent on Chinese Wikipedia, nor they on us. Please don't indiscriminately import what another language wiki says: we have our own content policies, please respect them. Remsense ‥ 论 08:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Man I am telling you that Their sources were useful,You can go and check it yourself their sources are so strong and useful R3YBOl (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
If you had actually cited those sources, there would have to be some discussion concerning the significant discrepancies with the sources we're already citing. Remsense ‥ 论 08:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Immortal King Rao on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Min968_unban_request. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions of periods in medieval English history

Hi Remsense, why the reversions at History of Anglo-Saxon England, England in the High Middle Ages and England in the Late Middle Ages? I could understand leaving all the short descriptions intentionally blank − but would disagree with it, because I think dates help the general reader who may not know when to place these periods. But you also reverted the change to the existing (i.e., not blank) short description of England in the High Middle Ages. Ham II (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies about that! I suppose I have perennial questions about how what rules of thumb we can expect when it comes to short descriptions for articles with phrasal titles. Remsense ‥ 论 07:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! WP:SDNONE says that "some article titles are sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful", but to my mind that isn't true of these three because without the dates I think many readers would struggle to place these periods in history. And now I see that the section above that one is WP:SDDATES, which supports dates in short descriptions for historical periods. Would you object to me changing them back? Ham II (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Expressing Thanks on Mathematics Page Edit

Just wanted to express thanks for the reversion of my edit on the Mathematics page. I had read about the controversy on the Talk Page, and decided changing it was better to avoid controversy, but I was wrong, obviously. I didn’t mean to make a bigger mess with the edit. Just to avoid controversy. So, thanks for changing it back AstroAnarchist (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hedonism on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Another Sockpuppet on Brezhnev page

Looks like we have another sockpuppet causing mischief over on Leonid Brezhnev. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Indiction revert

Hi. I appreciate the effort to keep things close to the reference in this entry, though I still think the inclusion of a formula that has immediately to be corrected is less than ideal. That said, I've kept it in, but made some language changes to clarify the problem with it. I've also broken up the edits. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What we can't include is your own personal method. Remsense ‥ 论 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Nothing original by me was ever in there. I had just cut out the (incorrect) original formula. Nothing new showed up in the end. As I said though, the original is back in, addressing your comment. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

.

why did you delete my map for no reason? i was just trying to add educational information about the countries that have the most natural resources. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Soltan Hosayn Mirza Safavi on a "History" Good Article nomination. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Aromal Chekavar on a "History" Good Article nomination. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove the updated images of the sizes of the Terrestrial planet.

Hello. Why did you remove the updated images of the sizes of the Terrestrial planets (plus the Moon and Ceres)? I spent my precious break time at work creating those images and you just removed it without proper explanation?

Also, the planetary original size comparisons are outdated (the blurry Hubble image of Ceres), and also wrong (Mercury is almost totally grey, and not brown as used in some children's space encyclopedia) so there is a reason why I updated that image. IapetusCallistus (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, why did you change them? No reason was given for why the new version was an improvement until now, and no reason was given for why they were added to additional pages. We also use true color photos when possible, though not for Venus in either comparison seemingly. We appreciate work by editors, but we aren't entitled to have our work published just because we spent a long time on it, especially if no consensus was established beforehand. Remsense ‥ 论 20:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
So you need me to explain it in the edit explanation first before I clicked "edit"? Did I understand you correctly? Then say it so. Don't just leave an "unexplained" undo and at least have a "Talk" first.
If that's not what you meant, can you explain your position properly?
Of course, Venus' surface cannot be true color because its a Magellan radio image, not a visible light image. The Mars {Emirati's Hope) and Mercury (MESSENGER) are true color images, so what's wrong with what I did? Do I need to explain it in the text? IapetusCallistus (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to be explaining it more fully now since you asked. A true color image of Venus is used as the lead image of the Venus article itself. There's no real need to use a false color image of the surface here, especially as it is incongruous with the other photos. Remsense ‥ 论 20:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edit to The Blue Marble

While I understand your concerns regarding the use of color-corrected images on Wikipedia, your immediate revert of my revert without discussing it on the Talk page, borders on edit warring.

Please discuss your concerns before further edits. Aaron1a12 (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on the editor who wishes to include content to establish consensus for it. That you posted a link that you thought persuasive does not override the fact you are the one who unilaterally readded the content under dispute here. No one likes being reverted, but it's a bit rich to brood about edit warring because your hand got slapped away after you stuck it into the cookie jar. Remsense ‥ 论 01:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
== November notice ==
No problem. Any more criteria assessed? Strongman13072007 (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Chinese characters PR?

Hi -- I was considering contributing to the peer review on Chinese characters that you opened, but I see it's been there for nearly six months now. I'd be happy to give it a pre-FAC review (though I know very little about the topic) but wanted to check with you that you are still interested in taking it to FAC before I start. Let me know -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my petulant outburst (October 2024)

Hello,

I write to apologise unreservedly for the rude, patronising, wholly unconstructive tirade I directed at you recently — I believe it was approximately three weeks ago — on this talk page.

My outburst was promptly removed by the alert Chaheel Riens; mercifully I am spared the mortification of seeing it recorded here in perpetuity. I hope that you were spared the experience of reading it even once.

If you did read it before it was removed, you will know that nothing of value was lost. If you didn’t read it before it was removed, know that nothing of value was lost.

There are no extenuating circumstances for me to offer in mitigation here. On the contrary: the offending remarks were especially egregious for their needless crudity. You were entirely blameless in the matter, and I was wholly at fault.

Again, I apologise unreservedly. My sole misgiving is that I did not do so earlier.

Regards. Foxmilder (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Great Reclamation on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lzh

Template:Lzh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Philosophical pessimism on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:San Francisco 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Things Fall Apart and Talk:No Longer at Ease on "Language and literature" Good Article nominations. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The New Mutants (graphic novel) on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Suiyang - Lunar Month vs Solar Month

I apologise for the nonconstructive edit; this is an expansion on a suggested change. I also posted the same on the talk page. The sourced dates (Zizhitongjian) for the siege are transliterated into solar alternatives, but it is the lunar month. For example, 9th 10th lunar month is November 24th, while 25th 1st lunar month is February 18th for 757. If you feel this change into solar month is justified, please change it as needed. Joannevinig (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Seems to ip editor who seems to did sock/meat stuff at Peace and Just war theory articles and the talk pages there is back. In general it is one strange story. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wu way

Hi,In reference to my edit. It was a historical edit by another that was removed recently by another editor with no edit summary. There is need to bring some balance back to the page. I agree that it not very well written and was about to reference that edit. But that being said that there seems to be many that would like to keep the concept of wu way as a completely mental pursuit. and to understand the Tao it needs yin and yang, mind and body. So where do we start. Look forward to talking. Foristslow (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you revert my Delhi Sultanate edit?

any reason?

I was wondering why was Empire of Hindustan their primary name was hidden under a footnote while "Sultanate of Delhi" a different spelling is shown primarily.

See Ottoman Empire , and how it refers primary name on the front too. JingJongPascal (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

seems very uneccesary to mention "Sultanate of Delhi" and hiding "Empire of Hindustan" JingJongPascal (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

United States

No idea why you would overrule logical and necessary corrections from several editors that follow WP style and format—most especially the last editor's cleanup up typos and correct Wikipedia apostrophe format. As for the rest, I address them in my edit note. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Question concerning my edit of Encyclopædia Britannica

Hi Remsense, earlier, you undid my edit of the article Encyclopædia Britannica. I had removed two unnecessary spaces (revision 1255020821). Could you please tell me the reason for undoing my edit? I would like to understand it. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, I am having a problem with editors on a page called Bodhidharma and other related pages, there seems to be a POV on many of these pages that are linking many inherently Chinese cultural ideas back to India. If you could give me some guidance that would be appreciated.🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: References to Holst’s The Planets

Should the references to The Planets be removed from Mars, Uranus, and Neptune? By your logic, numerous poets are also cited in Venus, should we also remove them? Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No but your reference to astrology is definitely a shoehorn job. The source you cited says explicitly "Recent writers on Holst have tried to make much of his self-avowed interest in astrology, but I think that Holst’s actual interest in astrology as it relates to The Planets extended very little beyond a springboard it provided for his composition." So the reversion was entirely appropriate. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
How would an editor who's more acquainted with procedure go about incorporating a link to The Planets in each planet's article, without shoehorning it in? Is it impossible? Genuinely curious. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
@Jarrod Baniqued: My "shoehorning" comment was in reference to the undue and inaccurate astrology element of your edit. A simple inclusion of Holst in the list would have been uncontroversial. Which I have just done, writing The composer Holst included it as the second movement of his The Planets suite.. No baggage. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I see. I might get around to readdressing the idea eventually. We'll see Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

I see that the review for my article has been halted for a few days. Is there a problem? Strongman13072007 (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Afeedback on bodhidharma talk.

Hi I am wanting some feedback on this page the conversation is under Chan, if that is ok Foristslow (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of editions in Vega, Galaxy, Ursa Minor, Electron and Island of stability

Hi,

Recently you reverted the editions in the articles Vega, Galaxy, Ursa Minor, Electron and Island of stability to reinstate the comma as digit number separator instead of spaces (gaps).

Please, take into account that these editions (i.e. the editions to format grouping of digits in large numbers with spaces instead of commas) were done in accordance with the Manual of Style of English Wikipedia subsection Grouping of digits where it's stated that: "In general, digits should be grouped and separated either by commas or by narrow gaps (never a period/full point)" and that "Grouping with narrow gaps is especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics".

Also, you should take into account that neither commas nor dots, buts spaces is the recommendation as "thousand separator" followed by the International System of Units (i.e. the standard used to communicate in science); and this is also the recommendation of USA standards agencies like NIST ([2] SP811) other international bodies like ISO (ISO Std 80000).

So, please, I encourage you to reconsider your reversions, and leave the articles as they were before them (i.e. revert the reversions yourself). I'm not reverting them myself, because I don't want to start an "edition war", but to convince you that your intervention was a mistake.

Thank you for your consideration. Regards. RGLago (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

I have started a discussion for all participants to talk out the dispute re Gabor and Ataturk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mustafa_Kemal_Ataturk,_Zsa_Zsa_Gabor PromQueenCarrie (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hsiang-Ju Lin

Overlinks were removed as per your suggestion, thank you for that. The other educational corrections that were made were requested by the family(neice) of Hsiang-Ju Lin as at the time Harvard University did not offer a PhD in research biochemistry but instead it offered a DSc in the field. The other educational institutions can be confirmed by reference #21. Studydoc (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Just passing by to say...

Your user page somehow feels very stereotypically 'Chinese' (No offense), which is a rare sight in en.wiki. I am surprised to learn you are a U.S. native, maybe Chinese are similar wherever they are born. Hym3242 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm not of Chinese ancestry if that is what you mean by maybe Chinese are similar wherever they are born. I appreciate the kind words though, I just find the area of history/culture/etc. particularly edifying to learn about and (sometimes) weave into my own life is all! Remsense ‥ 论 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to pass by just say... that you can safely trust your first instinct[3]. I have to admit that I haven't been 100% sure either, but the appearance of the second (loudly quacking) sock made at least confident to mention the other account as well. –Austronesier (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about my change in reference

Hello, I’m new to editing and learning how to properly format references, sorry for my previous changes.

Could you give me some advice on citing sources from Wayback Machine? Some of these sources don’t have DOIs because they’re quite old. I’d appreciate your guidance.

Best! 98.243.41.204 (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for engaging, I appreciate it! If you post the specifics at Talk:Marco Polo Bridge incident, me and likely some others will help sort you out. Remsense ‥ 论 05:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and assistance! I’m referencing this source: https://archive.org/details/shenbao-1937.07-180/page/n1/mode/2up, an official newspaper from the victimized nations during that period. To better understand the realities of war, I believe it’s crucial to cite reports from the victimized countries, or at least from third-party nations—not solely from the media of the aggressor state. This approach provides a more comprehensive perspective on historical events. 98.243.41.204 (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Per what I said before—discussions about content should generally occur on the corresponding article talk pages so everyone can participate, not here. Remsense ‥ 论 05:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User talk:100.33.135.81

Your template is malformed. I did add an NPA to their talk page prior to your edit. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes it's clear a situation is under control and phone-tethered errors aren't worth fixing. Remsense ‥ 论 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Jesus

Why not Jesus son of Mary the other name like Jesus of Nazareth is in Christianity and according to you in Muhammad the page of Jesus is about the figure found in various religion and for Christianity it is Jesus in Christianity. Therealbey (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss content issues on the corresponding talk page, not my user page. On our most important, most highly visible articles, it should not surprise you that many aspects of the most visible, most important sections are the result of deliberate consensus and are the way they are for good reasons. Remsense ‥ 论 21:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
then whats the problem on adding Jesus son of Mary? Therealbey (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm certainly not horse trading content across different articles with you, and I'm not discussing content issues here. If you want to discuss the lead of Jesus, please do so at Talk:Jesus. Remsense ‥ 论 21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Axis Leaders

Just wanted to explain that I was just trying to follow the present convention on the page when I switched it to the German Reich, since I saw no reason why we should be using the propaganda claim that they were a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire as their country name rather than the official country name. This is my answer to the no idea why we're being so effusive in the section headers edit summary that followed my edit.

All the best! Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello Remsense! I would like to ask you, as a native English speaker, about whether the following sentence sounds good and non-confusing. The article in question is Music. So, I quote: "During the 19th century, the focus on sheet music had restricted access to new music to middle and upper-class people who could read music and who owned pianos and other instruments."

The meaning of the sentence ought to be that middle and upper-class people were the only ones to enjoy full access to music at the time. But the way it is written now seems a bit confusing to me because I feel like "to" might be understood in a way that sheet music actually restricted access that middle and upper-class people had had. So I thought rewriting it something like "During the 19th century, access to new music was largely restricted to middle and upper-class people who could read sheet music..." Please tell me, do you see the same equivocal meaning in the sentence or it is fine as it is? Ur frnd (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ur frnd: This sort of question is best asked at talk:Music, where there are many more people who can advise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RussianFanboy2010 Moxy🍁 02:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

question about revert

Recently you reverted an edit on the talk page for Muhammad. I'm not quite sure why though as the comment the IP made seemed fairly reasonable.
The edit in question:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1258533983
as such I decided to revert it, and bring the comment back. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

November thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving articles in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you watching my Contributions page?

UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 00:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I do generally take a look at the contributions of users I see making certain types of errors, but I'm not "watching" it continuously, no. I have Hawaii on my watchlist, if you're wondering about the most recent engagement. Remsense ‥ 论 00:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
It is just,you reverted some of my edits,that got me wondering UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 02:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Page number template

The reason I changed that is because on the Wikipedia Android app, formatting the sfn that way breaks it entirely and causes it to display as blank. Are you certain that nesting the templates that way is a valid format? PN's documentation says to put it after the reference. But it may be you know more about it than I do, and the Android thing is a bug with the template or app and not an issue with how it's being used. Nicknimh (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Probably the best route here is to sub in {{harvp}} for {{sfnp}}, so there can be a pair of ref tags to put {{pn}} inside of. This gets it out of the body prose and into the references section where it's expected, and produces standard formatting (even on Minerva, nesting pn inside sfnp produces a silly looking trailing dot like "p. [page needed]."). Folly Mox (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

About reverting some of my edits

Hey, Remsense. I've noticed you've undone almost every single edit I've made since my last post on the russian civil war's talk page. I will admit that the last two edits I made are unnecessary, when it comes to minor edits I'm unsure about I follow WP:BOLD and won't protest if they are undone (for example, Russian civil war's infobox). But I don't see the point or reason for the reversion of the cheta or modus vivendi when I genuinely can't see the any problem with them and you haven't listed any reason in your edit contributions. Thanks for reading! AssanEcho (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies both for the confusion and the late response. On modus vivendi, I thought your edits were overlinking. On Cheta (armed group), per WP:HATNOTE such a hatnote should generally be sufficient to dispossess the reader of confusion without further elaboration. Remsense ‥ 论 20:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Ah I understand now. Thank you very much. Sorry if it also comes off as me whining about you back in the tea house, I was just anxious since I thought those edits were good and I really didn't want to bother you. You're the MVP! AssanEcho (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

I am not sure that you have understood the Talk page guidelines. Anyone can alter the heading of a Talk page section. It is only edits by another editor outside the heading that cannot be altered. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines . K8h3ds21 (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your interpretation: there is no reason to edit others' comments the vast majority of the time, so please refrain from doing so. Remsense ‥ 论 12:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Judaeo-Papiamento under "Sephardic Jews: Languages: Traditional"

Good afternoon. Thank you for correcting my revision to the "Sephardic Jews" page. I was wondering, however, whether it would be appropriate to mention the Sephardic ethnolect of Papiamento in the text of the article. The Jewish Language Project describes this language variety (as "Jewish Papiamentu") on its website.


Best regards, Conocephalus (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would look for a scholarly citation, but I don't see why not. Remsense ‥ 论 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned the ethnolect in the text of the article, citing Jacobs, Neil G. (2020). "Curaҫao Sephardic Jewish Papiamentu in the Context of Jewish Languages." Would this be sufficient to restore my revision, or should I wait until the matter receive further consideration? Conocephalus (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

New message from TheWikiToby

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse § user not responding to talk page.. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Vtext testcase

Just an FYI, your testcase of Vtext-css3 is reporting a Divspan flip error (div elements being within a span element) which is contrary to HTML hierarchy. If that is the point of the testcase, no worries. If that is not the point of the test, moving the poem tags outside the {{Vtext-css3}} will clear this tracked error. Best wishes, Zinnober9 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Remsense ‥ 论 01:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Archives

CLOSED
Let's take this up at another venue, such as the Talk page of either of the two discussants. Addendum: See here.

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

Hi, how are you?
How do I reorganise my discussion page archives? User talk:JacktheBrown. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) JacktheBrown, try Help:Archiving (plain and simple) for starters. Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I also have two separate archive formats, I'm not familiar with archives. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I can see here that you have singular & plural names, and subpage or single page archive files. Would you like me to regularize it for you, so that the archive bots can automatically archive your pages going forward? Mathglot (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Add ping: @JacktheBrown:. Mathglot (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@Mathglot: yes, thank you very much. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
 Done. JacktheBrown, I fixed your archive naming, and reset your archiving period to 45 days; it was previously set to 4 days (100 hours) which is pretty short; be advised that the age units are in hours for sigmabot, not days as with some other bots. If you have anything further on this, let's take it to my Talk page, or yours, and close the discussion here. Mathglot (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@Mathglot: thank you very much. I've noticed that the archives aren't in chronological order (I'm referring to the messages inside); could you please put them in this order? JacktheBrown (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Let's take it up at your talk page or mine. Mathglot (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2024 (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.

Quick Response To Constantinople Edit

Hi Remsense! I see you saw the constantinople edit I made. Yes I know that the edit wasn't much but the edit summary that I submitted to wikipedia was something that was autofilled out for some reason and wasn't something I filled out myself.Thank you for letting me know though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akravus (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

1804 Massacre Edits

Hi Remsense!

You reverted some of my edits, citing the source as unreliable and labeling the information as fluff. I understand how the content I added to the "Effects on American Society" section might be considered fluff, as I included it primarily to improve the coherence of the section, which I found difficult to read and interpret (an unfortunate common occurrence in the article). However, I believe the information I added under the "Haitian Revolution" section is essential. Upon my first read, it was surprising that the article makes no mention of Toussaint Louverture, given his significant role in the Haitian Revolution and his influence on the events leading up to the 1804 massacre. I strongly argue that he should have a place in either the background and/or Haitian Revolution sections. Regarding the source, english-heritage.org.uk, I acknowledge that I did not properly cite it, as I omitted the name of the author. However, I found the site trustworthy, as english-heritage.org.uk relies on contributions from historians, including Jennifer N. Heuer, who authored the page in question. Her work, especially for the site, primarily focuses on the French Revolution, slavery, and colonialism, making her a credible source on the topic. Nonetheless, I am still quite new to editing on Wikipedia and might not fully understand certain aspects, like determining source validity.

Purplexcloudz (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that it is all background or aftermath information. This indeed can be vital to understanding, but it must be weighed with the presentation of the actual events. Haitian Revolution is its own article, and we're writing an encyclopedia article, remember: essentially a summary of a summary of a shadow. There's much to learn, and if we accept 10k words as a benchmark, then we see that the background section on 1804 Haitian massacre is just under 1000 words, 10% of a maximal article. I tend to err on the side of parsimony, but I don't disagree that those specific additions could be woven in. Subjects like these are deeply important, and what I would impress is: given they're so important, try to get everything across as efficiently as possible given the medium we're working in. Thanks for reaching out, feel free to ask if you have further questions or whatever, and thanks for the good work on an important page. Remsense ‥ 论 08:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Tittha Sutta et al.

Hi Remsense,

You reverted some of the edits done by the IP user 50.236.206.18 (which, for full transparency: many of which are mine, as it is public WiFi network I sometimes connect to in Portland, Oregon). Some of these are more contentious (this is debatable, while I still feel that old-fashioned terms don't qualify as biblical errata -- though I don't care enough to argue about it.) Other ones were less contentious, so I'm wondering why you reverted these:

  • The Tittha Sutta is not channeled literature by any stretch of imagination. By all accounts is one of many ancient oral sources eventually recorded in the Nikayas. Channeled texts aren't mentioned in the body, or in the sources, and certainly not in the text itself.
  • This is not vandalism (even if, admittedly, the edit summary is rude.) It is random unverified personal gnosis without a source or any mention of such a concept on the linked pages -- hence "no one asked" i.e. no one asked for some random syncretic personal theology.

Do you assume removal of content, regardless of the content being removed or the rudeness of the edit, qualifies as vandalism? wound theology◈ 08:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Template question

Hi, I might be asking the wrong person for this question, but perhaps do you know why the template "Template:Lzh" seems to be using a Taiwanese font? For example, 有 is typically written as 月 which is also seen in historical texts such as in the Kangxi dictionary (inherited glyphs). But in the Taiwanese standard, they prefer to write it as ⺼ which is modern orthography (Traditional Chinese characters ≠ Literary Chinese characters). Another example would be 遣 where the radical ⻌ would be written as ⻍ according to the inherited glyphs, while the Taiwanese standard is ⻎. The template uses ⻎ instead of ⻍.

How would one change it so that the template would use fonts (such as I.Ming) that are based on the inherited glyphs rather than the Taiwanese Traditional characters fonts (which are based on handwriting and their own standard)? Lachy70 (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverting the newbies

We have both done so lately, twice in my case to SeeYou722772 (talk · contribs) [noping]. I noticed yours as well. They are a newbie, and they have a high percentage of reverts of their edits, not for lack of trying, afaict. Can you please always leave something in the edit summary to let them know why? I am afraid that we are driving away future editors. All of your reversion edits (and mine, I hope) deserved to be done, but in the spirt of BITE, we should let them know why and point them in the right direction. Thanks for all you do, Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

They're an LTA. Remsense ‥ 论 10:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry; I didn't know that. Is there an WP:SPI? Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, sorry for the delay: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueDIAMOND20s Remsense ‥ 论 04:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
They drove me away from wiki editing. you like 's� - Washweans (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Star edit revert inquiry

Hi Remsense! I'm just wondering why did you remove my edit on Stars? Rynoip (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, it did not seem like an improvement to the sentence structure. Remsense ‥ 论 04:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok thanks! Rynoip (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@Rynoip: When you leave an edit summary like fixed the sentence structure, then don't complain when that is the basis on which your edit is assessed. Try doing your edit again but this time write an edit summary that actually summarises the change. Then it can be assessed on its own merits. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Hey JMF! I have took your advice and made the edit again with a edit summary that is vastly improved! Thanks for the advice. Rynoip (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Continued at your talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Non-constructive?

Hi there. I’m not sure how exactly this edit [4] is “non-constructive”. You might not like it, but that doesn’t make it non-constructive. I’m obviously not going to change it back because it’s an insignificant change, but labeling it “non-constructive” is a little ridiculous. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If it doesn't make the article better, it's not constructive. I can see why others would see the term as having some presumption of bad faith or tendentiousness, but that's not how I intended it, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 04:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
And who are you to say it doesn't improve the article? Your reversions are unconstructive. Nashhinton (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you undo my contributions to the Neurotransmitter page?

I have not added anything incorrect. And I have used legit sources. Moderator no. 22349 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Going over the diff again, most of what I saw as errors were neutral or improvements; this isn't my wheelhouse generally, apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 18:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I am checking it and going through it as I study. There is a lot of issues with the language and the grammar. So I thought I'd just improve it. Moderator no. 22349 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

why did you undo a response that was to a 2024 conversation under "it is from 2010"reasoning?

this UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 01:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Pure disruption, coming at the tail of an emerging pattern of likewise disruption. I see you're taking steps to learn from and move on from that though, and I'm happy to see and comport with that in kind.Remsense ‥ 论 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Someone wanted to contribute by translating the Article Everything,so I decided to help them....how is that pure distruption?I do not get it.... UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 19:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Ever think your reversions are pure disruption? Nashhinton (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove my topic from talk on grue

My topic was relevant for making the article better because I pointed out that with the current definition the article does not even make sense. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

See the edit summary. Remsense ‥ 论 00:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
And I didn't remove that comment (though I would have), and you would know who did and why if you checked the edit history for this page at any point. Remsense ‥ 论 00:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you gonna explain why you removed my topic on grue? TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
See the edit summary; it seemed like you were using the talk page as a discussion forum. If it wasn't just a discussion post, then it would be helpful to repost it with more specifics as to what it actually relates to in the article and what could be fixed, so others can actually make use of it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, I recommend not doubling down on personal attacks made by now-banned users for no reason. Remsense ‥ 论 02:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
idc + i improved the comment i had made and its fine now so dont revert it TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm just warning you about what is expected of your conduct on here. If you don't care, good luck I guess. Remsense ‥ 论 02:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Calling someone a troll is not bad conduct nor an insult. Trolling refers to a specific internet behavior, and a troll is someone who engages in that behavior. Calling someone a troll amounts to nothing more than an opinion, pointing a flaw out, or the like. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
If you genuinely believe that it is not an insult, you're going to have a bad time, as no one else would agree with your premises and will take it as such. I strongly suggest reading the linked policy. Remsense ‥ 论 02:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Since you are so sensitive and were insulted by that, I suppose it is only right that I apologize and remove my heartbreaking insult. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't offended, I'm just letting you know what site policy says so you don't eventually get blocked over it. The sarcasm dripping from your reply here tells me you still don't care, so like I said: good luck! Remsense ‥ 论 02:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
ok TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on Theodosius I

You're edit warring with that IP on Theodosius I. Stop it. You know better. He's not vandalizing the page. I've warned him and now I'm warning you. The next revert on that page earns a block. Katietalk 01:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I did all I meant to do in trying to make sure the article lead agrees with the body, and I desisted once I saw others were handling it. Thanks for taking care of it. Remsense ‥ 论 01:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

ECR

This looks like an edit request, which is allowed by ECR. Is there a reason you removed it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My understanding was edit requests are allowed, but of course in general some can't be answered except with "you needed consensus for this change first". If we answer that, it would seem pretty silly, since non-EC editors aren't allowed to engage in the consensus building process—or am I totally wrong about that logic? It seems odd to tell an editor "you need consensus for this, but you can't participate in establishing it". Remsense ‥ 论 20:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
In that situation I normally explain that it will be visible for extended-confirmed editors to discuss. I know it's difficult to balance what might be most bitey, but I think leaving such a request and letting them know that EC editors can discuss it if they believe it has merit is the best choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Ah! See, I was interpreting leaving the post up as itself engaging in that process. Thanks for clearing this up, sorry about that. Remsense ‥ 论 20:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I know it's a minefield of rules and best practices. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Remsense, you messaged me regarding external links you removed. I read the external links guide and the links I added should be kept because they fall under bullet 3 in this section Wikipedia:External links#What can normally be linked In instances where there was an official site, as indicated in bullet 1, the link was left in place. Nick rufa (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not an official site, it's a third-party portal to view some technical legal information. That's not necessary on an encyclopedia. What's more, the links do not work for me (I get a 403 Forbidden error), which seems to reinforce my point. Remsense ‥ 论 22:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Bullet three clearly indicates that this material fits the description of what an external link should be:
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
The tech glitch is a tech glitch. Please revert my changes back on those updated pages. Nick rufa (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't think this information is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. You wouldn't open the Britannica and expect to find technical minutiae like this. See WP:NOTDB. Remsense ‥ 论 22:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
It's an External link to additional data. Nick rufa (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Reread what I said above. Remsense ‥ 论 22:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I just managed to open the site on my phone—and I'm tripling down. This website is clearly not an authoritative outlet for anything, has scraped whatever information is accurate from somewhere else, and is stuffed to the gills with ads and bullshit. Even if we did desire to include this information in an encyclopedia article (we don't), this is a completely unacceptable EL for it. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
okay, i can't argue your valid points on the ads, but the fact that data like this is important and should be included generally is accurate Nick rufa (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Your reversion is a disservice to learning. These pages are 501c3 non-profit organizations and the links are data relevant to that mission. Removing the links cannot be seen as helping anyone.
It is the perfect use for an external link as indicated precisely in bullet number three of what an External link should be. Nick rufa (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
You've chosen to misread your own excerpt so deliberately that I'm not going to bother explaining the clear distinction between professional athlete statistics and the information you are insisting is appropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 22:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Let's agree to disagree, as I don't think it's wrong, the baseball stats was an example of a large amount of additional data, that would help the reader, yet not be included in the body, but as an External link. Nick rufa (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I've indeffed them for spam. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Islamabad_Massacre

Hi, Remsense. I do agree with the "not sufficient content" as this article requires more info & citations but "Submission should be merged into an existing article" with Arrest_of_Imran_Khan is not ideal because that event happened in 9 May 2023. The indiscriminate killing of civilians by security forces in Islamabad happened on 26 Nov 2024 with at "least" confirmed deaths of 17 individuals as per the The Guardian newspaper. Event of this magnitude deserve its own page and we have many such examples on wikipedia. Perhaps the title can be changed to less charged language like "26th Nov Incident". Pls do share any suggestions you have. Ty. Wertk (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. I will undecline the draft. Thank you very much for reaching out. Remsense ‥ 论 08:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Month Change

Hello,

In the list of minor planets, I changed the month from October to November 2024 (reason can be deduced from the calendar). For what reason may I inquire that the edit was removed.

Thanks,

Elios Peredhel Elios Peredhel (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no source cited that verifies this. It might be counterintuitive, but we can only set some figure as current to the most recent reliable source stating that figure. Remsense ‥ 论 02:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You've also Got No Authority to reset mine

You just have to know that you also take my change back at the talk Qwert0617 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You're not allowed to delete others' comments. If you have more comments, you're free to add them without also deleting mine. Remsense ‥ 论 12:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop.

You have reverted my edits of removing dead links, and I do not appreciate that, please set it back. Thanks! - washweans Washweans (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You reverted all my recent edits, just noticed. I was improving them... - washweans Washweans (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright I might report you.

I just realized you reverted ALL of my edits, even topics on the talk pages! If this continue, I might report you to mods. (THIS IS NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE.) -washweans Washweans (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

None were improvements, and were in fact introducing errors. There's no reason to expect you'd know that yet though (e.g. MOS:ORDER—though I would recommend taking the fact that you're new and new editors make mistakes in stride instead of blaming the person correcting them. Remsense ‥ 论 22:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
yeah but you deleted my topic on the stop talk page. Washweans (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
In your own words, it was useless. Remsense ‥ 论 01:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
dude... I was literally saying that the TEMPLATE was useless.. Washweans (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop it

I kindly request you to reconsider reverting the edits and sources I provided. I have ensured they are accurate, relevant, and properly referenced. Thank you! 223.223.137.195 (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to riff about nonsense in the edit summaries of otherwise completely unjustified edits and expect them to stay published. Cite your sources or stop touching the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Bot hace

With regard to diff, is this a bot hace? ;) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:1937 Liechtenstein spy affair on a "History" Good Article nomination. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Crusading movement on a "History" Good Article nomination. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ This study from the University of Common Knowledge