User talk:Remsense

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: if in unicode there's U+002D - HYPHEN-MINUS and U+2212 − MINUS SIGN, shouldn't there clearly also be U+XXXX HYPHEN SIGN? let it happen found it 🖝 U+2010 ‐ HYPHEN thought i looked better than that the true nature of asbestos, broadly construed They should not be given alerts for those areas, or really any alerts for contentious topics, as they have scrutinized the full list. (They spend a lot of time on here.)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]