User talk:Remsense/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your vigilant oversight of several of Wikipedia's core articles, ensuring their quality and accuracy by scrutinizing and addressing problematic edits. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You're too kind! I've been trying to tighten up my false-positive rate lately and adjust my approach to achieve more friendly, more constructive results quicker, but it means a lot that an editor I look up to a considerable amount would look on my imperfect record like this. I've got to get a modest gallery set up soon... Remsense诉 07:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, hope you're having a fantastic day! There seems to now be two dots in your signature, is that for any reason?
On another note, the “诉” character in your signature always read a bit weird for me, it feels like its the button to "complain" to you (which evidently many do). I know it was "聊" then "留" before, could something like "讨论" or "论" work? Cheers! Zinderboff(talk) 20:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm well enough! Given I wouldn't dare talk at length about my signature unless someone asked—essentially, the new dark mode that's being made available made my previous signature display improperly, so I decided to trim back the styling to one foreground and one background color—I'm very often badgering people to simplify cluttered designs, so I want to practice what I preach! This was what I happened upon that still differentiated the username and talk button.

And yes—I remember someone suggested 诉 to me as a tongue-in-cheek replacement for 留, which doesn't really scan as 留言 by itself. While I have my foibles and imperfections that I'm forever working on, I genuinely do not like the idea that it would generally be seen as overly snarky or cynical rather than cheeky? I might consider going to 论 or back to 聊 if that's so among native speakers. Thanks for the chat! Remsense ‥ 诉 20:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! Yeah 诉 reads (to me at least) as short for either 投诉, 诉说 or 诉苦, which all essentially mean complaining about something to someone else (in this case you). 讨论 is perhaps the most accurate translation of a "talk page" but if you wish to stick to singular characters native speakers will generally undestand 论 just fine. Cheers! Zinderboff(talk) 20:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be a nice little homage to, among other things, “齐物论”, my favorite sequence in literature. It's definitely nice to use a ubiquitous vernacular character with plenty of literary depth in its history—anyway— Remsense ‥ 论 21:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Zinderboff(talk) 22:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Death of Milton King and Talk:1972 Sidney Lanier Bridge collapse on "History" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Literature of Botswana, Talk:The Parson's Tale, Talk:Hell and Middle-earth, Talk:Fictional planets of the Solar System and Talk:Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) on "Language and literature" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Candomblé and Talk:Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer on "Philosophy and religion" 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 12:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 2024 Suzhou knife attack

On 31 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2024 Suzhou knife attack, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a knife attack in Suzhou, China, led to the deletion of hundreds of ultranationalist posts from social media platforms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Suzhou knife attack. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2024 Suzhou knife attack), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

About the edit on the Byzantine Empire article

I apologize for the edit; I was unaware of the prior discussion and mistakenly assumed it hadn't been agreed upon. If you don't mind, could you please clarify the reason for its removal? :D Shuaaa2 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure sure. The long and short of it is that GIFs above a certain length are bad for accessibility, and should be either replaced with still images or videos when appropriate. Moreover, I am not sure about the specifics, but there are also verifiability issues that can multiply the more information a single image attempts to contain. Remsense ‥ 论 12:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the response, apologies again for the edit Shuaaa2 (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also Remsense, i didnt wanna open up another discussion here so its gonna be an unrelated question, but do you think i could make a map for the Kingdom of Italy under the Holy Roman Empire (this article: Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) also? Shuaaa2 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Please don't apologize! And wow, that Odoacer map looks great, good job! Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Physics

Please look again at the recent changes you reverted on the "Physics" page. You may see that the changes addressed a serious scholarly deficiency in the article. Previously, the brief presentation of Aristotle's work was fragmented in a non-pedagogic way, links to other relevant articles were missing, and there were naive misstatements about his influence in modern schooling. This problem was sorted out by collecting and rearranging the paragraphs on this ancient but important area of work. Links were added to connect this article to the more specialized pages. Someone else added a "decorative picture" (your words) that I did not get around to removing, but rather asked the editor to consider taking away. Would you take a look, and perhaps agree that the text modifications upgrade the tone and usefulness of the article? Qwerty123uiop (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Uwe Holmer 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 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting some of my edits with "Not An Improvement" Tag

User: Remsense, why do revert some of my edits with "Not an improvement" Tag? CryingSulfur (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Because they were not improvements: they added your own particular style convention to a wide number of articles without any prior discussion or explanation. Remsense ‥ 论 04:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I just indicate ∞ symbol which indicates the largest city/town in every province. CryingSulfur (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, and I've never seen that symbol used as such an indicator before. It's got an existing meaning, and using it in a new way is confusing. Plus, you added "City" to the names of many cities, which isn't necessary or how we name them on Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 04:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There has been prior discussion, consensus is against changing naming conventions and against adding statistical trivia everywhere. CMD (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlitn

Template:Tlitn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

AM. Civil war revert

Hello, I reverted your revert because it misrepresents what happened in western VA and its history. It was the only border state that had civilian voting in Confederate elections. It was more supportive of the CSA than wither KY or MO. The technicality of its creation in 1863 does not alter that. Your reversion distorts the history of the state and its function in the war.Dubyavee (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's just misleading to the reader who might interpret the phrasing as there being a separate WV govt loyal to the CSA. Remsense ‥ 论 14:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Cao Wei grammar edit

This is absolutely a non issue and I am probably in the wrong here but I can't fathom how the phrase 'another regent in Sima Yi' is grammatically correct? It's the 'in' - Sima Yi is the regent being referred to so why would the regent be 'in' him? I apologize if I am misunderstanding anything here. EnvinyatarElessar (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Hi! Long time no speak, but I will have to agree with EE here. Sima Yi was one of the regents along with Cao Shuang.

The bigger issue here is that the statement The authority of the ruling Cao family dramatically weakened following the deposition and execution of Cao Shuang, a regent for the dynasty's third emperor Cao Fang. Beginning in 249, another regent Sima Yi gradually consolidated state authority for himself and his relatives is not very correct, as it does not demonstrate the link between the rise of the house of Sima (Sima Yi) and the fall of the royal house of Cao (Cao Shuang & Cao Fang). Through the coup known as the Incident at the Gaoping Tombs, Sima Yi achieved to despose and execute Cao Shuang, consolidating power for his family, eventually leading to the rise of the Sima-led Jin dynasty. (talk page stalker) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty

Hi Remsense, I noticed that all my editing on Ming Dynasty were reverted by you, including adding the Chinese characters and pinyin for Ming Chao and Da Ming, which I saw from Yuan Dyansty that included these. You have much more experience than I do on wikipedia so I'm sure you have the reason of doing this, could you elaborate on why these were reverted so I do not attempt to add similar things again at other articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJpeterson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Right, so I linked you MOS:ZH—the part of our Manual of Style pertaining to China and the Chinese language. Basically, we try to leave the first sentence clutter-free when possible. The rule of thumb is to keep characters and romanizations in the {{Infobox Chinese}} when possible. The standard is nominally when that infobox is visible in the initial screenful at the top of the article—Ming dynasty admittedly has it a bit further down, but I would argue it's fine? Also, this is an aside but you should make sure to properly tag non-English text for accessibility and other reasons—you can use {{lang|zh}} for characters and {{tlit|zh}} for pinyin. One could argue we should put the characters back in the lead sentence since the infobox is a bit far down the page, but I'd want to put it in a footnote to keep clutter down, I think. Remsense ‥ 论 18:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

And he appeared! What do you think of my short version of the life of Alexander Goehr? I was happy to include a link to an article by Brian Boulton, - we sang the Monteverdi Vespers on 1 September 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Gerda! I was just thinking the other day how there's a few fun Schoenberg GA targets—I was thinking Verklärte Nacht and Emancipation of the dissonance! Remsense ‥ 论 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! I thought of Erwartung. - Completely different topic: Christmas, BWV 91, would you have time to give it a GA review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Demographics chart of pre-WW1 era Europe

Why did you delete well sourced demographics chart with high quality references, which are important in many topics?

This action can only be interpreted as "WP: I just don't like it." Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don%27t_like_it --Mandliners (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it can be interpreted as an application of our image policy. It is a poor quality graphic that cannot be read unless you expand it to fill the screen and there is no need to present this information in an image, rather than a more accessible paragraph or table (which is what the 2005 source for the Entente and Central powers does). Moreover, it synthesizes the 1911 (!) Britannica with said 2005 source, which is unacceptable and conflates different populations at different dates as equivalent. Remsense ‥ 论 09:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What does it mean poor quality graphics, according to which criteria? Most of the Wiki images and charts can be considered as graphically poor quality. Why should we put the info in a table, which takes up too much screen space? Which different date are you talking about ?--Mandliners (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a ton of wasted space, and the numbers are very small. Text and numbers baked into images are not accessible to those using screen readers, for example. (Avoid using images in place of tables or charts. Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent or should be well-described so that users who are unable to see the image can gain some understanding of the concept.) Just because a lot of inaccessible, poor quality images already exist does not mean we should gleefully keep adding more. The 2005 source provides figures for 1913: do I need to explain why it's a problem to present these alongside figures sourced from the 1911 Britannica? Remsense ‥ 论 09:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case we can delete most of the charts on Wikimedia.--Mandliners (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is even more fallacious than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in my estimation. Remsense ‥ 论 09:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see the mandatory guidelines regarding this on Wikipedia. If there are none, then this is simply arbitrary on your part. Mandliners (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Mandliners The correct place to discuss this issue is the article talk page (where other editors can chip in). I suggest you or Remsense move it there. But FWIW, I agree with Remsense's analysis and I rather suspect that most other editors will do so too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

It is simple. If there is a mandatory guideline / rule exactly about this, I will accept immediately his suggestions, but if it is just an arbitrary act, than I will oppose it. Mandliners (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The mandatory guideline is that article content is established by wp:consensus among editors at the article talk page. For a longer explanation, ask at the WP:Teahouse. But specifically, WP:SYNTH seems to apply and that is also a mandatory guideline.

Your challenge will not be resolved here, you need to take to the article talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's incredibly childish to insist on special treatment because someone happened to notice something you were doing was wrong and countered it. I've offered several reasons clearly rooted in site policy and guidelines, and you've offered nothing: given your initial try here, it's funny that all you have left is WP:ILIKEIT. Remsense ‥ 论 07:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

So you don't find a single rule to support your action, now you come up with the "consensus" thing....

It is still an "I don't like it" category on your part. Mandliners (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've made at least two distinct arguments citing site policy. Acknowledge them or I won't reply further. Remsense ‥ 论 08:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

So you can not provide any proofs for exact rules, thus you flee from the discussion. Okay. Mandliners (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If I must repeat myself:

1. WP:SYNTH – it is trivial that citing figures for different years but silently presenting them as uniform figures representing a single point in time is an improper synthesis of sources (i.e. original research that is simply forbidden on Wikipedia). It's also straightforwardly dishonest and lazy.
2. MOS:ACCIM – which I've already quoted directly above, so I'll just do so again: Avoid using images in place of tables or charts. Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent or should be well-described so that users who are unable to see the image can gain some understanding of the concept.

There is no argument you've made in defense of the chart more substantive than WP:ILIKEIT, for comparison. Remsense ‥ 论 12:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Emperor of China

Hey just saw you reverted my edit on the note on the Emperor of China page as unnecessary. I had originally written the entire note and simply added the extra words you reverted, because at least to me, if im using a year and saying that it only lasted 83 days, it would stand to reason that it was all in that year. By adding the "late 1915" and "1916", i was showing that it went over two calendar years. Didn't want to revert it without talking about it, and felt like too minor a change to leave on the talk page of that page. But just wanted to discuss it. Because it now feels misleading, which was the reason I wasn't happy with my original text. Basetornado (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The explicit mention that the Empire lasted into 1916 seems unimportant in that sentence. It seems fine the way it is. Remsense ‥ 论 12:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Would you be opposed to listing December 1915 instead than. That way it still clearly shows it wasn't just 1915. Basetornado (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Technical help?

As we edit the same topics enough for you to know, I am strong on policies and substance but weak on the technical side.

I know you are an experienced page mover.

I have malformed a move request here. How do I fix it so I can properly initiate the request? JArthur1984 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

After help from another experienced page-moving editor, I have rectified my technical errors. So all is resolved. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Aw! I gotta be quicker with this stuff, clearly. Remsense ‥ 论 16:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

For corrections again, >Cultural Revolution

As much as I do believe that the revert did in fact, have some merit, one source was the New York Times, which while it isn't an academic source per say, it contains direct quotes from Song herself, and the source it cites is a Chinese one, and is likely biased in this regard, so directly citing it in the case seemed negligent. The New York Times, though not academic in nature, is still a trust-worthy source. As for the second source, ChinaFile is still, while not a well-known or directly academic source, is written by a Pulitzer-Prize winning researcher and 'Senior Fellow for China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations,' and is the most academic and easily prevalent source on the topic that I could find, as suiting the excerpt which I wrote. While neither are academic, at least directly, they are the best sources we have on this specific topic, and ChinaFile is used as a source on the Song Bingbing Wikipedia page. Kingofmapps (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Crucially, the source was a post on a New York Times blog, not an article in the newspaper itself. Like I said, I think the sources are borderline, but it would really be nice to have something peer reviewed cited. I'll try to look for something ASAP, it shouldn't be difficult and I have access others may not. Remsense ‥ 论 14:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see, nevermind then, at least on that point, I didn't realize that. I'll see if I can find anything that fits this particular section, and notify me if you get any sufficient results on your effort. Kingofmapps (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Would this fit the first citation, then? It's from the International Academic Forum but I don't know enough to see if that is a prestigious or academic organization at all, but it speaks on the topic.

https://papers.iafor.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/filmasia2016/FilmAsia2016_32624.pdf Kingofmapps (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflection&oldid=1248038200

please read these rules : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary Besides violating the General Rules about Reverting, you did not cite a specific wiki-rule, that any revert requires. Walter Tau (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That's an essay, and not one I agree with or find compelling. In reality, there's nothing different between adding and removing content: you thought the addition would be helpful for some reason, and I disagreed and gave my reason. I'm not demanding you give a reason based in site policy for the addition, because that's beside the point. Policy doesn't guide every editorial decision on the site, and you don't get to ignore the reasoning of other editors on basic issues because they're not pointing to some specific guideline. It's bad writing, and I intervened to reverse it. There's nothing added for the reader by making an arbitrary 5-item list into a 6-item list, and you've failed to make a single positive reason for your addition. Remsense ‥ 论 12:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting

Reason is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B._Fairbairn B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason grounded in site policy cited for the removals, or any consensus or previous discussion concerning these unilateral changes you're making across an entire class of articles. Remsense ‥ 论 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

RE: "you should probably get consensus before making unilateral removals across an entire class of articles, seriously."

Now you are talking sense. All I am doing is trying to make 'Country' pages about countries, not about US relations.

That's fine. You just have to get consensus for it, maybe ask on WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) or WT:WikiProject Countries and give other editors a chance to participate before you enforce your perspective on a large number of articles. Remsense ‥ 论 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense B. Fairbairn (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Your revert of an updated photo

Hi, not sure why you think my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Germans&diff=prev&oldid=1248148092) was an unexplained replacement. I wrote "updated a portrait" and still think that it makes sense to replace a photo of 2007 by one of 2023. Barbasca (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

A photo being newer doesn't necessary make it better for use in an encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 23:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if you should think that it was the case here your justification said something different. Barbasca (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Portuguese Macau

Hi! May I just hear your comments from the flag of Macau municipality. The original flag at File:Bandeira do Leal Senado.svg contains many inaccuracies and the added details in the new flag correct so. ~~ J. Dann 06:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Your version is more detailed, but it is not necessarily an improvement for illustrative purposes on an encyclopedia, especially given it is usually displayed at very small sizes. The sole functional difference is the crown, which if well-sourced could be easily added to the original. Remsense ‥ 论 06:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope we may reach a consensus on striving for WP:RELIABILITY, considering the File:Bandeira do Leal Senado.svg is, in due respect, wrong according to laws promulgated by then government. ~~ J. Dann 06:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Even so in terms of "illustrative purpose", the new flag is still sufficiently well presented even in very small size. ~~ J. Dann 06:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Maps

Sorry, only just saw your question on Commons. I've replied there. Kanguole 13:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Images

Hello, the two images i added where of two greatly admired Ethiopian novelist, it would be of good faith and nature adding them, in addition i cited the sources, although Giyorgis of Segla is a key figure in Ethiopian literature, the two individuals i added dwarf Giyorgis of Segla in reputability in modern Ethiopian atmosphere. I am figuring that due to that adding an extra image wouldn't hurt and taking out of the Giyorgis of Segla template! CtasACT (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The literature section definitely needs expanding and as such I think it would serve a good benefit to add 1 more additional image of good value, while the other serves as a replacement! CtasACT (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally, we should avoid adding galleries of images to such broad articles in most situations. Of course there are many important Ethiopian authors, but it is very easy to over-illustrate articles when every potentially deserving subject is illustrated—which ultimately dilutes the value of what images are there. Remsense ‥ 论 03:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Philosophy is a great example of an article with the perfect level of illustration—notably, at no point does it need to double up in one spot. Generally, that's a technique best reserved for when images are related to each other and essentially comprise one illustration. Remsense ‥ 论 03:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. The only viable way to reasonably add the images would be relatability towards the section while being of a good space to not be overcrowded! And currently the section needs citations and expansion before that happens. CtasACT (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, so would you say if the time comes, I am able to expand it, since in my view the literature article needs expanding, would it be so appropriate to add the 2 listed images? CtasACT (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE Moxy🍁 18:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I see, it hints that "generally" most FA or GA articles don't have a cluster of images. I viewed India and the Japan articles since they are featured, and India has presented lots of clustered images and Japan with only a small 2 clustered images. Although this is not a rebuttal, I think my expansion and reduction of other images with the text and citations growing in number and merging the sub-sections into on section as seen in other articles, this case would be justified. But as you noted any other cluster of images may not be appropriate. CtasACT (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

one* CtasACT (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Display of a fragmenteded image gallery on mobile

India is an accessibility nightmare and in general does not follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries norms ..not even WP:COUNTRYLEAD..that said it may still meet general FA norms today. See WP:COUNTRYSIZE for the style most countries have (as FA-GAs). A few have cluters, but in general only when there is a comparison being made Canada#Early 20th century or figurehead display Australia#Government and politics Moxy🍁 19:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

deleted messages on my talk page

hi, why did you delete my responses to someones message on my talk page Waltuh1015 (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want an answer to your question: editors keep watchlists of pages they care about, and see edits that are made to them in real time. Don't really feel like I have to answer your questions given the edits you were making: I'm doing it so others don't have to. Remsense ‥ 论 06:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

i don't understand why that has anything to do with you deleting my responses? Waltuh1015 (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that this seems to be not in line with WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS which dictates exceptions on editing other's comments. ~~ J. Dann 07:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I hit a button too fast assuming the editor who had been adding racial slurs to pages in the previous minutes was continuing to do so. I do not feel the need to apologize for or meditate on an error like that. Remsense ‥ 论 07:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Igor Stravinsky

I saw your revert. What is the "idiomatic sense" of the phrase a number of, and what additional meaning does it give beyond several or some? Having such a phrase repeatedly used throughout a Featured Article jars somewhat in my opinion, hence the removal. Thanks for your consideration. John (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I see a number of as a perfectly acceptable phrasing for use in formal English; I do not presently understand the objection one would have other than one resulting from an overly literal interpretation—in my view, an interpretation beyond the useful limits of the figurative/literal dichotomy itself. In that sense, I misspoke when I described its use as "idiomatic"—there's no real argument I see for how the phrase could be misinterpreted as meaning "zero or more". Remsense ‥ 论 10:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply. Good writing is concise; it uses the fewest words possible to carry the meaning. It avoids even the potential of ambiguity, and it avoids using the same lumbering phrase repeatedly (four times!) in one piece. FAs are supposed to be well written. If you honestly feel your revert was an improvement to the article, we can leave it there. John (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally, I very much agree with you; I really strive toward concision and parsimony in my writing for the encyclopedia. However, I feel there are certain instances where I find myself striving towards those things dogmatically, where I can't actually independently justify why the one word is superior to a short phrasal equivalent. This would be one of those cases I suppose. Equally as much, thank you for approaching and engaging! Remsense ‥ 论 10:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Idle bystander remark: I once read an amusing decryption of political candidate's speech, the relevant extract being

A number of constituents have asked... = one.

A significant number of constituents have asked... = two

A large number of constituents have asked... = three

Many constituents have asked... = four

So I would have to agree that "a number of" is WP:WEASEL. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thx for help on oversight Susbush (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove my 1 sentence on the "Outer Manchuria" page?

It was not a book review, I listed three books which cover the Russian conquest by intrigues of Outer Manchuria which became the Russian Far East. I merely mentioned Stephan's book The Russian Far East because it goes over the intrigues and machinations to rename the region and its cities, villages rivers and other places with Russian names to cancel out the history of the Chinese there.

I merely mentioned that Stephan had the best coverage of this. I put back in the three reference notes and left the sentence deleted. I am the user Who-knows-nose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:6BF0:7E20:4115:C7D2:E597:69A0 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's generally necessary to specifically namedrop historiographical works in articles about historical events. If they're not actually cited, they could be listed in a Further reading section. Remsense ‥ 论 14:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping on oversight

@Remsense Thanks for helping me at the village pump on oversight. Now the IP address is suppressed (invisible). Susbush (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

@Remsense Hello. I see that you reverted my edit on International System of Units. I get you, edit summaries are really important while editing. Susbush (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

More importantly, you'll see the lead of the article already says something similar to but distinct from what you added. Remsense ‥ 论 15:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

O yea, it already said "SI is the modern metric system" Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Reversions

@Remsense Can I ask for clarification on why my most recent edits to Amitābha and Korean phonology were reverted? They both seem reasonable to me. I believe the former to be a typo fix, because of the spelling used in the immediate next sentence, and the latter is a straightforward grammar fix. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, those two were both my bad. Got my wires crossed the wrong way somehow for both. Apologies for the confusion. Remsense ‥ 论 23:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there,

On a similar note, I don’t believe “not an improvement” is a clear rationale to revert my addition of the regnal interval in the short description, which appears to be the established style in vast majority of long-standing articles on royalty who have unambiguously ruled a country. I would also appreciate a clarification.

Cheers, Aintabli (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Exceptions to style norms exist, and your attempt to strictly impose a pattern didn't make the short description better in its purpose of brief disambiguation for the purpose of navigation: instead, it just made it longer and harder to understand.Remsense ‥ 论 22:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Herod the Great the difference was 4 bytes. A clear interval is a better disambiguation than “1st-century BCE” as there could be more rulers in one century. WP:SDDATES reads dates or date ranges are encouraged when they enhance the short description as an annotation or improve disambiguation, and for historical biographies, specific dates such as "1750–1810" are preferred over "18th-century" for clarity. Aintabli (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Worth reemphasizing here that while WP:SHORTDESC is a useful document, but not site policy.

Again, the fact that the years aren't known is enough reason to break with the convention, which produces bad results when applied indiscriminately here. In effect, "1st century BCE" is a sufficient date range for disambiguation here. Of course there are likely other rulers during that time, but the point isn't to disambiguate from them, but from everything else the reader could be thinking of—this is informed by the fact that Herod is easily the most famous of the aforementioned group. Remsense ‥ 论 22:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't claim it's a site policy. There's always some ambiguity in historical dating. I don't feel strong about a certain style but largely seek some consistency within one topic/era/etc. as a baseline. I don't think the purpose of a short description is really that similar to proper title-based disambiguation. If that was the case, we wouldn't have short descriptions for the most well-known historical figures/animals/things. Anyways, although I don't think we are in agreement, thank you for explaining. This was less mind-boggling than the earlier edit summary. Aintabli (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Magic (play) 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 01:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jerzy Broszkiewicz 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 07:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Connecticut Colony 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 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:History of the Regency of Algiers 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 23:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Vikings#Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2024

Hi, can you please take a look at this? This edit request should be straight forward. I'm not sure why a consensus is needed. Thank you for your time! 63.73.199.69 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I replied there, and made a post at WP:WikiProject Linguistics asking for help, since this isn't my wheelhouse. Remsense ‥ 论 02:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

DCWC closing update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has come to a close! After a thrilling finish to the event with a slew of submissions on the final day, we have our winners. With 608 points, Thebiguglyalien (submissions) comes in third with his series of Kiribati and Botswanan submissions; BeanieFan11 (submissions) flies into second place at the last second with 771 points after a string of good articles about sportspersons; and after leading for much of contest's three months, Generalissima (submissions) finishes with a whopping 798 points to take home the Gold Belt Buckle. Congratulations to our winners!

In addition to his spot in the top three, BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins the special awards for submitting under the most countries (44 countries) and for writing the most articles about women (15 Did you know? nominations)! Magentic Manifestations (submissions), after making 16 submissions under the Indian flag—15 of them good articles—receives the awards for most submissions for a single country and most featured or good articles promoted. For their submission of one FAC review, five FLC reviews, and 20 GAN reviews, Simongraham (submissions) wins for most article reviews.

The results of the contest have far exceeded any expectations the coordinators had for it at the beginning: among the submissions to the event were 3 FAs, 10 FLs, 88 GAs, dozens of article reviews of every kind, and more Did you know? submissions than we can count! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that...

We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn't participate!) and help us make it better.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Point the Finger and Talk:If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others 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 23:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Not an adequate explanation

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edit on Light, but you didn't provide an adequate edit summary. I red the paragraph after my edit, but I don't see anything wrong. Please make sure to provide an adequate edit summary. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You added a useless sentence to anyone who actually reads the entire paragraph. Not much more one can say than that, unfortunately. I usually don't find it necessary to explicitly say "do not repeat the same information already found in the next sentence when editing the lead of a broad-concept article". Remsense ‥ 论 16:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I get it now, the text that I added was already there before the edit. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Kublai Khan

I have seen your edit in Kublai Khan. My previous edit in the article was simply trying to make it consistent with the existing articles for other Yuan emperors such as Ayurbarwada Buyantu Khan, Ragibagh Khan, and Rinchinbal Khan. --Wengier (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are wrong also. It's pretty clear design wise that that parameter is not meant to take multiple entries. Remsense ‥ 论 18:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

There are too many thank you owed to click each one individually, so I am here saying it in person. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, please don't thank me yet! I've barely gotten my first pass through the article done. Thank you for being receptive; like I said, I appreciate the work you've done and how much you care about the article that it was contagious. Remsense ‥ 论 21:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

What a wonderful response! Thank you! But I came here to fuss, so stern face... yeah like that will happen... The Siker ref is still in red... I know, the sky is falling! I thought you might have forgotten. Consider yourself appropriately nagged - I mean reminded! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Religion of the Shang dynasty 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 10:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Philippine Spanish 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 16:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio suggestions

Hey Remsense! First off, thanks for doing this revert (you beat me to it)! Second, do you have any good recommendations for determining whether or not an edit is copyvio as opposed to just copypaste? And yeah, the content added by that IP user from the mentioned revision was the reason I thought to ask this. I haven't come across much copyvio in my (admittedly short) time here editing and cleaning up Wikipedia, and I wanted to see if I could get any tips/advice/something from a more experienced user on that. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It's both notoriously hard to tell and unabashedly obvious depending on what you're looking for—I recommend making use of https://copyvios.toolforge.org/, but really it's usually fruitful to consider the editor as much as the content. To me, new editors making substantial and idiomatic additions are often the first hint that something may be suspect. Remsense ‥ 论 01:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks! If it's alright, I have another random line of thought I'd like to pursue while I have your ear. I did a quick check of the IP address in question from that edit, and my initial thoughts are that it's a school IP address. More specifically, this school. A quick geolocate puts the IP address in the same province as the city ([1] found up a bit above the edge of the circle), and this edit diff here have led me to believe this.

In cases like these where an editor's IP is located as that of a school, what is there to do by users/admins? I'm curious in part because my own school here in Australia got IP blocked a while back, but also because the IP address has a history of constructive edits as well, which is the other reason I'm bringing this up. I know how annoying it can be when one or two people don't play by the rules and ruin things for others around them (like, say, by vandalising Wikipedia), and so I was curious as to what the procedure is for IPs that belong to schools. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Poor form

My understanding is that it is frowned upon to modify or delete Talk page comments by other editors in good standing. The introduction of a joke, as poor as it was (it was AI assisted, what would you expect?), was meant to underscore the previous editor's point (and also, more broadly, the futility of trying to bridge the gap between the two sides of the MBTI debate). The addition was not in any way malicious or contrary to the spirit of the community. It's called humour – look it up. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Symbol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Numerals.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks, DPL bot. Fixed. Folly Mox (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rahlfs 1219 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, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Grammatical category

The identical name (apparently) used to refer to Part of speech seems clearly confusable... due to them using the same name. I added distinguish after getting confused myself - I have reverted the footnote on Part of speech, but the comment in the lead of Grammatical category is probably sufficient. Tule-hog (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Marx's Grundrisse

Hi Remsense,

thank you for your contribution on Karl Marx, in which you reverted my name change to Grundrisse as an unnecessary expansion of the common name. Well. The common name of the Grundrisse is just Grundrisse. You can of course translate it to English, but even in English speaking countries the common name is Grundrisse. See e.g. MIA and this advert for the (translated) work. For that reason I changed it. Many greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

Hi, I was wondering why you reverted my edit on Afro-Iranians. I don't see any reason for it to have been reverted. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Space at the top of articles is precious. There's usually no need to provide a literal translation for a foreign language term when that meaning is more or less equivalent with the corresponding English-language term. When the primary distinction is in the language-specific lexemes, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Remsense ‥ 论 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I will keep that in mind. Have a nice day. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Useful script

Here, would have saved you ~120 clicks and still cleansed the 'pedia :) cheers for doing that though! The guy has a history of LOUT and a severe POV. SerialNumber54129 15:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! I think I worried briefly whether I could trust myself with this script, but the worst thing that happens in either case is I try to clean up my own overreaches exactly the same way, per usual. Remsense ‥ 论 15:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, unfortunately the other reason is I don't have rollback. I would like to have it, but I applied a while ago and didn't get it—given I don't feel the need to leave talk page messages in some cases, I doubt I would get it at present either. That's understandable in any case, c'est la vie. Remsense ‥ 论 15:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, blast. I'm very sorry Remsense; I hope it didn't look like I was rubbing it in with my suggestion. I'd forgoton about tha requirement and didn't check. Still, there's always next time! SerialNumber54129 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Nah, you're good! The thought really is what counts, thanks again! Remsense ‥ 论 16:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! While I'm here, I use this one too—it doesn't rollback, as such, but it does let you "undo" to a previous edit. So it wouldn't really have helped in that case earlier, but if, say, you found a big edit war, you could restore the last good version with a click. Or undo multiple vandalisms on one page when the classic 'undo' would tell you to do it manually. It's well handy! SerialNumber54129 16:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have that one I think! I think I will install any userscript that puts a sufficiently functional geegaw to an analogous end on one of these pages somewhere—functional–spatial redundancy is kind of a nicety for me, even if it looks like a fighter jet cockpit to anyone else. Remsense ‥ 论 16:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

help

what is wrong with what I edited now what can be done to make it better?. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gnosticism&action=history asking for input to help with my editing thank you. Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Like I asked you several times, you should self-revert and workshop your changes on the article talk page, not on my talk page. Remsense ‥ 论 15:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Which English in your opinion?

Hi, the Jesus article appears to be written in American English ("emphasize", etc.), but "favours" is also present; it's a mix. Which English is correct to use in your opinion? It's essential to know it. Thank you in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

At the top of the article, it specifies Oxford spelling—see {{Use Oxford spelling}}. This is often a preference in scientific articles, as well as articles where etymology is a focus, as Oxford spelling is generally seen as the most etymologically minded spelling, as -ise is a recent spelling change in British English. It is also my general preference in articles I initially contribute. Remsense ‥ 论 22:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to bed now, I'm tired; good night. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Your question on AIV

In reply to your question at AIV, about when you should file a SPI report, I would say your example could use a SPI report, because checkuser would be useful. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! That's a really simple but really good rule of thumb. Remsense ‥ 论 16:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I Saw your giraffe on your Profile

Hey There, I Know This Picture You put on your userpage 77.77.218.180 (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They're there to help. 🦒 Remsense ‥ 论 10:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That's sounds perfect 77.77.218.180 (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Value theory 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 18:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Reason for revert

Hi, why did you revert my edits in Autocracy, Democratic backsliding by country and Democracy? I added political regimes map based on V-Dem data processed by Our World in Data. This map shows autocracy and democracy in countries (updated by 2023 data).

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint

I added map based on V-Dem data as it's one of the significiant viewpoints. It also have been published by reliable sources. Having only a single point of view (like Bertelsmann Transformation Index map in the Democratic backsliding by country) affects neutrality. If I replaced it with V-Dem map, it's unconstructive edit. But I simply added a map based on another point of view. Labelling it as "unconstructive" plainly without reason is unfair. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Constantine the Great

Hello, I have not come across the term Constantinianism in scholarship. Is it that distinct and common compared to Caesaropapism? And what are your objections for reverting the other two edits I made to Constantine the Great? Histores (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to restore your version, since after a second read I think it's clearly the more accurate version, and I agree that Constantinianism plausibly doesn't deserve to have its own article. Remsense ‥ 论 23:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the feedback. Histores (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Comma before transliteration

Hey, I saw that you reverted my edit on Anthony Kaldellis where I had added a comma between the Greek text and its transliteration. I'm actually curious about this because I've seen it both ways on different articles. Ιs there a semantic difference between having or not having a comma separating the two? Apologies if this is something already outlined in the MOS, after a brief search I can't seem to find anything. Thanks in advance! TeoTB (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In general, the point of delimiters is clarity in segmentation of different types of information. In some situations, such as with lists in running prose—explicit delimitation with parentheses, a comma, or equivalent clearly makes the presentation more clear. In this particular instance, I see no strong reason as the difference between roman and italic styling is sufficient to differentiate the two pieces of information. It's not usually something that is that big of a deal though, though in my opinion it's often ideal to err on the side of parsimony. Cheers, thanks for asking. Remsense ‥ 论 23:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I do think that the comma may still be useful for transliterations of longer names, making them look a little more tidy, but for most cases (including this one) your rationale for omitting it makes perfect sense; it is indeed a little redundant. Thanks again! TeoTB (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

DOI

Sir, Many thanks for your inputs. I do understand, it is not a help page. I was simply wondering, if we could add this info under a heading called "Current Limitations of DOI". In retrospect, I feel, I should have mentioned that in the talk page itself. If the community feels so, we can do that. I have come across some other DOIs also, which do not take us anywhere. The entire idea of starting DOI was that these articles will be permanently available. Thanks for your inputs. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Neotaruntius, oh, thank you for clarifying! We can only state information like that if it's been reported by a reliable source. Maybe there is a tech news article about the phenomenon? — Remsense ‥ 论 07:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks sir. Actually, what can be more "reliable source" than you or some other experts checking it for their own. It does not always have to be a book or a journal, right? One can discover something on his own too, albeit rarely. I do agree, it may be a mistake on my side. Although I checked it on two different browsers, and two different devices. I have come across failed DOIs earlier too, but mostly they were related to lesser journals. Seeing it on JAMA was astounding. May I suggest, we let that talk page remain. May be you can add a comment from your side to add some authority. As you already know, I am a beginner and have no expertise in such issues. At the same time, I do not want to commit a mistake. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means we only present what reliable sources already say, we do not conduct our own original research. Of course, I'll put your talk page post back in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 07:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks sir. Obliged for all the advice and info. Neotaruntius (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Regarding "mild," your's is a wise response, I think. It's just that I've seen so many pov-edit-warriors on this (and related) topic(s), I've run out of patience with them. See Talk:Indigenous Aryanism#'No Support in mainstream scholarship'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, I vacillate in patience myself, trust me! It's nice to exercise the "most patience possible" approach sometimes, even if I'm telling myself meanwhile that it's a waste of time. — Remsense ‥ 论 08:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Diff syntax fyi

I was having a look at this recent edit of yours, and I know it was not meant to be published yet per your self-revert, but I noticed that your {{diff}} syntax doesn't work. That version of the template requires more parameters: you'll be wanting {{diff2}} for the simple |1=rev_id syntax. Folly Mox (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup! Just totally fat-fingered the submit keyboard shortcut while getting things situated. Remsense ‥ 论 12:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Caspian Sea

Hello. In the Caspian Sea article, why do you mention the pronunciation in Talish and Latin languages? Is the Talish language the language of some Caspian coastal state? Why do you mention the pronunciation in Latin? Sword313 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would you remove Talysh without checking the article first? Remsense ‥ 论 19:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Richard II

Thank you for engaging with my edit to (King) Richard II (of England).

Please note I have added a new section to the talk page to address my issues with this page. Boleslaw (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you read this?

This is the table on Cambodia after your revert. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Revert at ANI?

Can you elaborate on why you reverted the ANI report by that account that is spamming? I can think of reasons, like 'it's clearly a meritless report' and even 'attempting to prevent the account from making things worse for themselves' - but I don't know what reason to understand from Rv, the subject of a thread directly above. – 2804:F1...58:A5F8 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

They are the subject of the "Spammer" thread further up the page: in addition to the reasons you give, that makes it an inherently disruptive posting from the start. Should've omitted directly. Remsense ‥ 论 18:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have concerns about how that looks like to people who don't know how things work, from an 'access to justice' point of view. I've seen threads closed by admins and users, also seen them be changed to subsections, but it usually seems to take more for them to be reverted. – 2804:F1...58:A5F8 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand, but did not find it plausible that a person would assume others were unable to see their existing thread on the same page. I will refrain from further assumptions given your concern, though. Remsense ‥ 论 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would have not said anything if you had said a more specific reason/addressed it to them - though if they ignore a direct warning/advice like that and keep doing it again it feels simpler to just let them deal with the consequences of opening the thread.

It's just, the subject of a thread is explicitly allowed by ANI convention to complain about the reporter too, it's just a terrible idea if it's retaliatory and with no basis on any policy - and at any rate should make their complaint in the original thread to not split the discussion.

Thanks for what you do, though, it's appreciated. – 2804:F1...58:A5F8 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, your view is often the most cogent—I dislike my habit of double-tapping when the potential for reducing disruption seems comparatively marginal. Something to work on! What you do is appreciated too, as you see. Cheers! Remsense ‥ 论 19:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

fs interlinear

The old name wasn't good, but I assume you know that your move broke the template. That is because Module:Interlinear tests against the template name in several places (very ugly). Kanguole 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh god, thanks for letting me know! I'll be sure to check that each time from now on. Remsense ‥ 论 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Query

Do you understand what's going on at List of Neolithic cultures of China? A huge flurry of large edits from multiple editors—is this just table formatting? Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I did some tinkering on that table but decided not to intrude midstream—while I may be critical at the scope of inclusion, it seems innocuous enough even with the metatext—i'll swing around and make sure the table's editorially up to snuff when they've had their turn I reckon. Remsense ‥ 论 23:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

(This seems to have gotten lost in the reverts):

Thanks. It does seem a bit redundant alongside the table... perhaps it would work better as a template, akin to {{Rulers of the Ancient Near East}} – Aza24 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the Turkic winds—or were they Persian? Not sure! I'll take another look in a sec. While I've got your ear, I think there were also some other articles I wanted to ask for advice about...still haven't added my changes to the Zhuangzi article yet... Remsense ‥ 论 18:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries, happy to look at your work when you're ready. Speaking of the Zhuangzi, how would you feel about a move of Zhuang Zhou to Zhuang Zhou (philosopher)? I feel that the name "Zhuang Zhou" is so uncommon that its a disservice to readers to choose it. Xunzi was just moved for similar reasons, now we have Xunzi (philosopher) and Xunzi (book). Of course, the birthname would still redirect to the individual. Aza24 (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Aza24, well, about this regard, I believe it would only be valid if there were another Zhuang Zhou's for disambiguation purposes, otherwise I'm not really sure it'll be worthwhile, ngl. 177.105.90.42 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Reason for revert

Howdie, re my contribution 05:19, 24 October 2024 for 'Moon': The baseline version says: "Because of this small tilt, the Moon's solar illumination varies much less with season than on Earth and it allows for the existence of some peaks of eternal light at the Moon's north pole, at the rim of the crater Peary". My clarifications were to say that some peaks of eternal light exist at both the Moon's north and south poles, gave examples of the locations receiving maximum illumination, and pointed out that 'eternal' should not be taken to literally mean 'always' (or 100%). All of these statements supported with self-references, and cited references. What is the rationale for deeming the update 'deleterious' please? Novanotes (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Help with an RSP question

Hi Remsense. I’m looking for input on the right way to add a source to RSP following an RfC. I’m writing to you because you are active on RSP. An MMA blog called Bloody Elbow has been determined to be generally unreliable prior to March 2024. There has been an RfC and two previous discussions:[2], [3], [4]. Based on my reading, Bloody Elbow now meets the formal WP:RSPCRITERIA but I think an independent editor(s) should make that determination and if they agree, implement the RSP. I would do it myself but I am a COI editor who represents an MMA league, ONE Championship, that’s been frequently written about in the blog. This blog is so unreliable that when new owners took over in March 2024 and turned it into a reliable news source with reporters, editors and fact checking, they deleted the entire 14 year archive of blog posts. Despite a discussion on RSN going back 12 years that the blog was not reliable, Bloody Elbow has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, including on most of the significant pages about MMA. Without the visibility of the RSP, I think the misuse of this blog will remain pervasive. Bloody Elbow’s reinvention by new owners as a reliable source is going to add to the confusion. People will think that that old blog content has the credibility of the new reliable news source, or - conversely - that the new source is generally unreliable because it used to be a blog. A delineation on RSP will very much help with the confusion. Do you have any guidance on how I can bring this to the attention of the right editors? Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Brucemyboy1212 did you still need help with this? Remsense ‥ 论 21:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I could still use some help. At the suggestion of another editor, I posted the discussion here [5]. I'd be grateful for your opinion if you're able to weigh in. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)