User talk:Remsense

Archives

2015 – Apr 2024 May 2024 Jun–Jul 2024 Aug–Oct 2024 Nov 2024 Dec 2024 Jan 2025

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). - I saw a lovely opera by Rimsky-Korsakov, - see here. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have more vacation pics to offer, and today's story of Werner Bardenhewer. I took the pic, and it was my DYK on his 90th birthday, in both English and German. He spent the day in Africa, and after his return said - chatting after a mass of thanks he celebrated at Mariä Heimsuchung - that we'd have to talk about these articles. - Congratulations to Chinese becoming FA. Do you have plans for TFA? A certain date or anytime soon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "undiscussed" is not a substantive objection. And change itself, even substantive change, isn't either. In addition to wp:DRNC, see Wikipedia:Status quo warrior. I gather you believe this change is substantively bad. But why? What is wrong with the text change (other than that it is a change)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is at least an efficacious objection when it comes to site policy. The onus isn't up to me to comprehensively justify a reversion on policy, it's on the person who wants to make the changes. I thought my reasoning was pretty clear, though you've interpreted it a bit uncharitably IMO. I don't think it meaningfully did what it claimed to—as such amounting to pointless tinkering, which is not value-neutral as much as some editors seem to think it is. Most ideas are bad, and many bad ideas that make it to the publish button take much more effort to refute than they did to make. Remsense ‥ 论 04:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. I'm really having trouble understanding how this is a matter of "site policy." Did the proposed text change alter any rule or statement of Wikipedia norms? If so, please help me see that.

I'm not having trouble seeing how you might believe that this as an issue of pointless tinkering - that the proposed text is no better (or worse) than the current text. And, hence, there is no good reason to make the change for change's sake. Is that what is going on here? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're literally arguing over it because we disagree on whether it substantively changes the meaning of the page—I do not think it does. The latter statement is only true if one abstracts away everything but the text—pointless tinkering is frankly annoying, and demonstrably disruptive if chronic enough. If we accept the notion of history into our ontology, you only feel a reversion because you get a red notification badge for it, but pointless tinkering is in itself also undoing someone else's work, so at a bare minimum the actions are equivalent. If we accept that, it is not fair that one user may make edits effectively because they WP:LIKECONTENT, but others may not.

Maybe more substantively, I generally feel the stability of a text is of value in itself for editors and readers—with enough individual lateral, net-zero changes in aggregate, it is likely to constitute an erosion of quality and cohesion in technical writing. That may sound ridiculous given the nature of Wikipedia, but much of our process is either summarizing or supplanting tacked-on material into something fully thought through. Remsense ‥ 论 05:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say "stability of a text is of value in itself." I agree. I think you are also saying that the proposed change is not better (or worse) than the current text and, therefore, it should be rejected as pointless tinkering. Do I have that right? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fine distillation of the general position, but to be clear I see this change as a net negative because I WP:DONTLIKEIT, but that doesn't change the calculus here. If I agreed with the OP's analysis, that would naturally be outmoded, all else being equal.Remsense ‥ 论 16:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page jaguar) I looked briefly at this, and I agree with the revert, although I have a slightly different perspective.

WP:NOT is almost as old as the site itself, and even the section redirect WP:CRYSTAL dates back to 2006. If you search for "not a crystal ball" in the talk and project namespaces, you'll get over 11,000 results.

If people have been using this specific phrase for almost a quarter century, there's good reason to keep it verbatim in the subheading explaining it. Nomenclatural sclerosis it may be, but it's an established shibboleth (and nowhere near as problematic as "notability").

No one wants to be reading an archived discussion where someone says "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" (or worse yet, tell a new editor those words) piped to WP:CRYSTAL or equivalent, and click the link to read "Wikipedia is not about predicting the future".

I'm not sure what variety of "substantial" exactly covers changing the name of a subheading within site policy, but boldly altering something in such widespread and longstanding usage is just a recipe for confusion. Definitely something to get consensus about.

Also you inexplicably removed one of the page anchors to the section, which is linked from several pages in the Wikipedia: and MOS: namespaces. Folly Mox (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there is a tendency to conflate encyclopedic writing with that of our guidelines (in my own words, to apply the P&G to themselves). We wouldn't use the idiom crystal ball in articles, clearly—but the readership of WP:NOT has different needs, and given the state of the page it is implausible to me that a reader with basic English literacy could leave the page confused as to its meaning due to the use of this idiom. Remsense ‥ 论 16:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uninterestingly, WP:NOTCRYSTAL (the section, not the redirect) dates not to 2001 but to 2005, when it was added following discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 4 § Crystal Ball. (Seemingly partially inspired by a discussion at Talk:Kolkata/Archive 6 § Example supporting move Dacca to Dhaka).

My inaccurate reference to "nearly a quarter century" may be replaced with "nearly a quintic quintile quintine ... a full bidecade / vigintennium / kiloweek". Whoops Folly Mox (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense and @Folly Mox, thank you both so much for taking the time to set forth your positions at length. I was looking forward to a discussion with Remsense regarding whether the proposed change was meaningful and, if so, whether the benefit of the change outweighed the cost. Then Folly Max weighed in and explained that the cost in this particular case is higher than I'd calculated.

If I may, it is possible that this whole chapter could have been prevented if Remsense had made that case in their edit summary. Perhaps something along the lines of "even if this is a minor improvement on its own, the problem is that 'crystal ball' is of widespread and longstanding usage." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think another bad habit I've developed is—look at the above, I have a lot of thoughts—so instead of posting on talk to begin with or trying to write a clean distillation of it, I punt it over. Remsense ‥ 论 02:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I thought that when making the change from "a crystal ball" to "predicting the future" I was making it clearer that Wikipedia does not predict the future. I think the policy talk page would be the best place to discuss this so that more editors can share their opinions on the proposed change. Interstellarity (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, you are not meaningfully making it clearer. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 19:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Respectfully whether you believe she is relevant or not Lin Hsiang-ju still remains a daughter of Lin Yutang. She is 94 years old currently and I am in touch with her. I think she is a bit insulted you would delete her from the public record especially since there is an existing wikipedia entry on her with her impressive accomplishments. If you do not mind I will reverse your edit unless you still believe her existence is irrelevant to Lin Yutang. Her existence as a daughter of Lin Yutang is a matter of fact and not of opinion. The daughter of Lin Tai-yi also agrees with this sentiment. Thank you. Studydoc (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Mrs. Lin, but I can only judge these things based on the record in the light of our content guidelines, even when regards figures I have great fondness for, like Lin Yuntang and his family. Remsense ‥ 论 02:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Ming dynasty § Ming 1415 map

	The Original Barnstar
	You seem to be a a diligent worker on Wikipedia. Respect for that. EarthquakeRock (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to go and revert your "feeding the trolls" thing because it was not a correctly formatted edit request anyway but I do think Wikipedia is making a mistake on CCP vs CPC. MOS:COMMONNAME is cited as the justification but, if we look at academic sources on Wikipedia library, CCP China returns 35,277 results while CPC China returns 40,611 results. If we assume about the same overall ratio of false-hits for the search strings then we can still treat that as a 1:1.15 ratio in favour of CPC within the academic press. As such the COMMONNAME justification for using the wrong acronym kind of falls flat.

I'm not about to go 1AM about this - you can tell from how I brought it to your article talk - but I do think that Wikipedia should be open to the fact that this long-standing consensus is built on a flawed premise. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is my want is to stem the tide of systemic disruption—I personally do not think CCP is problematic, but I also do not really think CPC is either in the grand scheme of things. What matters is we have a choice, which is totally not a problem if it changes in the future—I cannot stress enough that I cannot justify having a preference for one or the other merely as names. If it's going to change, it won't be as the result of the usual routine on that and related talk pages by people who aren't interested in our present reasons why. Remsense ‥ 论 15:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My position remains that we should cleave to what is more accurate. I never felt like the COMMONNAME argument for CCP was correct - especially as the end result is us just being... you know... incorrect about a minor thing in a marginally embarrassing way. I am entirely sympathetic about wanting to curb disruption though. I'm just wondering if maybe it's time for a refreshed RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I don't really share your position as regards COMMONNAME's applicability, and likely as a result I would see another RfC as not worth it, but maybe I don't know the extent of the argument or evidence. Not saying to forget about it, but I immediately get the anxious pit in my stomach that tells me I need to !vote and them take a page off my watchlist for a month. Remsense ‥ 论 15:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I got here (this tab opened when I closed a previous one), but ftr I agree with Simonm223 here on the substance. I'm not sure yet another RM is indicated right now, but anything that's been the subject of like twelve formal and informal RMs over the past five years clearly doesn't have significant consensus.

Any edits modifying the redirect Communist Party of China to Chinese Communist Party (or the seldom seen vice versa) are unnecessary – and, without accompanying constructive changes, basically bad – as both terms are unambiguous and it turns out redirects still work. Folly Mox (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also worry I am potentially missing something. My understanding of the substance regarding distaste for CCP is that it connotes a crass ethnic constituency ("Chinese") rather than a national constituency ("of China"), but that is the extent of my understanding. This is not helped by instances of pejorative Anglophone usage, but in my understanding I don't see this connotation as staining the term itself. If there's more to it than this, I would very much appreciate being enlightened/pointed to where I can read more. Then, I would feel much more certain in my position, whether it's abstention or thinking one form or the other is more appropriate for Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 18:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you recently reverted multiple changes I made where I added images illustrating the topic. Some of these topics didn't even have any images and I believe the images add great insight. I have made these images specifically for wikipedia as I believe they have great encyclopedic value and put them in a proper free license.

I have not reverted your edit, instead I am adding the image again but on smaller sections with better explanations. I hope you appreciate them now and if not I'd like to at least have a topic of conversation on a talk page before reverting them.

Thanks! Alex Van de Sande (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really ever a good idea to go on a campaign putting your new media on as many articles as it is plausible on. It's disruptive and not paying due consideration to the needs of each individual article. That's in the best case. That is a WP:FAITACCOMPLI I will generally challenge save in obvious instances of particular aptitude.

In this case, though, I would find the graphic to be a non-starter on almost any page that doesn't cover a "vertical slice" of the subject matter. On articles like Quark–gluon plasma, the image consists almost entirely of content that doesn't actually help the reader understand the aforementioned plasma.

(Also, a side note that I already feel bad about because it really is a rather beautiful piece of graphic design, I am very much less eager to introduce media of this genre in a raster format, for maintainability and accessibility reasons. Almost any non-photograph that contains text should be a vector.) Remsense ‥ 论 16:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted all changes but added it to only three topics which I believe help clarify the topic and that otherwise had no images. I've also tried adding to specific areas like when compton wavelength discusses how it relates to the Schwartzchild radius etc Alex Van de Sande (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Avsa posted on my Talk, too, I'll respond here. I agree with Remsense's comments above, that the graphics are only marginally related to the topic pages you posted them on. Your version of the original figure from the paper is also very busy and hard to read, with many different font sizes. - Parejkoj (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I had not noticed there were two different editors, I was just confused on why my comments had disappeared! Alex Van de Sande (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Julius Caesar § Health and appearance paragraph ordering

Can you enter Recognized language in language 1? Where the Indegious language is included in language 2 so that it is more diverse Ahmad Shazlan (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the edit summary, start a discussion on Talk:Malaysia, as I am pretty sure everything is the way it is there for a reason, given my understanding of the language situation. Remsense ‥ 论 17:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread at AN/I regarding the trolling you were subjected to. I am required to notify you because I mentioned you. You can find it here. However please note I have not implied any wrongdoing on your part. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had closed that one. I would have used the tagline: "Napoleon Dynamited". — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I support the ban, I want to point out that this account's allegations are not entirely baseless, as indicated in the AN archives. This is not the kind of troll that simply enjoy enraging random people on the Internet. rsjaffe's humiliation after the ban is totally unnecessary either. Hym3242 (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My question is about the revert of my contribution on "Wikipedia:Independent sources".

I wrote "2025" instead of "2022". I don't understand your revert because I don't see the problem with my contribution. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please double-check what the point of the date is. Remsense ‥ 论 17:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view about the fact my contribution was unuseful. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Sorry I couldn't get there—I kept getting distracted, totally on me—but honestly there wasn't anything more than nitpicks in the first aborted run and I doubt there would have been anything else in the second. Really, really good work. To many more! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Congrats on the featured article, Remsense! Your work is a huge gift to the world and I cannot thank you enough for it. Toadspike [Talk] 20:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, both @Toadspike and @Gog the Mild. Remsense ‥ 论 21:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Remsense! The article you nominated, Chinese characters, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well! A massive effort with over 2000 edits in almost two years... —Kusma (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to both of you! Folly Mox (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to continue this disagreement, and I really don't want to extend a conflict but I want to say that one of your points about how color images are not visually "superior" is a claim I disagree on. While I understand taking color images and replacing them when not of a higher quality is sometimes really bad, I would like to point out User:Howardcorn33's point on the Louis Armstrong's talk page. He says "I am sorry but you are plainly wrong when you say that the color is irrelevant. Color is certainly a defining part of the physical appearance of a person." On someone who I put a color image on like W. E. B. Du Bois or Louis Armstrong, race is very important in their lives and legacies and to have a picture of them in color showing their race would be better, in my opinion, at an encyclopedic standpoint. Same applies to people such as Ella Fitzgerald, Shirley Graham Du Bois, etc. While it may not be a strong point, I believe it is important in an image and is a stronger factor than you paint it out to be. Wcamp9 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know you disagree and think color photographs are inherently superior, but you are wrong, and it is not right for you to impose your aesthetic preferences across the entire encyclopedia. I can only read the Du Bois reasoning as facially ad hoc, given the obvious reality that black and white photographs do not hide the skin tone of an individual being photographed—in fact, the worse fidelity of earlier color photography can do this, if anything. Remsense ‥ 论 00:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the discussion of this topic be kept to the talk page for Louis Armstrong. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 00:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I'm being forced to make the same boilerplate case across a handful of different articles at once, given what reads like an attempt to force as many through as possible by overwhelming the community's ability to object. Even if this is unintentional, it is harmful. I absolutely did ask for talk page discussions in each case, but the fact remains that imposing one's will across a wide variety of articles all at once in this manner is not how the consensus process is supposed to work. Remsense ‥ 论 00:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	It was a pleasure working with you on the Chinese characters FAC. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 10:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remsense, hope you are having a good weekend. I noticed that you reverted my recent edit. I thought I did provide enough evidence from the Freedom House article that scholars dispute the Chinese government's "cult" labeling. I'm curious about why you reverted me though.

By the way, I appreciate your review for my DYK nomination. I really like your ALT proposal. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

To verify that scholars dispute it, I would really find it preferable to cite the scholars directly, not Freedom House. Remsense ‥ 论 03:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. For example, in the most cited academic book on Falun Gong published by Oxford University Press (311 citations), the scholar says

The entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong and the effectiveness of the group’s activities outside China (p. ix)

Let me know if you think we can now safely remove the Chinese cults category from that page. Thanks. Thomas Meng (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the page's categories represent the article body, which in turn represents a balanced picture of the reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 01:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ownby account is also one that has faced rather significant criticism for his credulous relationship to his informants and his politicized objectives. It might be widely cited but not in a uniformly positive way. And freedom house is not a reliable source. This was a good revert.Simonm223 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the cults category does seem to reflect the article's body, and I'm glad that you pointed this out because it made me land on the Media Campaign section of the article's body, which mentioned multiple scholars & journalists disputing the cult label, including Ownby's quote above. I'll put two other quotes here for your convenience.

One quoted cited in the body section is from Ian Johnson, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Falun Gong

Falun Gong didn't meet many common definitions of a cult: its members marry outside the group, have outside friends, hold normal jobs, do not live isolated from society, do not believe that the world's end is imminent and do not give significant amounts of money to the organisation. Most importantly, suicide is not accepted, nor is physical violence. [5]

The other one is a 1999 Washington Post article that says

It was Jiang [Zemin] who ordered that Falun Gong be labeled a "cult," and then demanded that a law be passed banning cults. [6]

Does that make you comfortable with removing the cult category now? Feel free to let me know what you think. Thomas Meng (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:History 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 10:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a discussion on the UK talk page if you would like to reply, I sincerely believe it needs rewriting and bringing up to date. 117PXL (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense, with all due respect, you haven't replied to my response for my recent edits. The article of Fascist Italy was used only to refer the Kingdom of Italy under Fascist rule. Therefore it was only a sub-article for the main Kingdom of Italy. But these two are not seperate entities as it still belongs to the Kingdom of Italy. For example, the National Legionary State and the Kingdom of Romania under Fascism were both sub-articles for the Kingdom of Romania, but when we use it on infobox battles where Romania is involved (For example, see Operation Barbarossa, or Eastern Front), we use the Kingdom of Romania as the link and not the Kingdom of Romania under Fascism in that period. But in the case of infobox battles involving Italy, we used Fascist Italy instead of the Kingdom of Italy which is quite absurd. Thanks. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hongzhi Emperor 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 08:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related to User talk:Pob3qu3#Statistics ......see Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#White Mexicans and blood type Moxy🍁 04:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism 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 22:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Milan Marjanović 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, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone. So what do u mean? I'm sharing my research that I've been studying for the past 17 years. SCM123ABC (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the page didn't clearly meet the criteria explicitly given to you, Wikipedia is very much not a place for you to publish your original research—that's one of our core content policies. Remsense ‥ 论 04:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:A Question of Time (book) 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, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multicellulary arosed much longer than the Ediacaran. The fossils of Bangiomorpha Pubescens and Proterocladus Antiquus are undoubtly considered pluricellular algae, and are 1 billion years old and there are also the fossils of Rafatazmia and Ramathallus which are also considered algae. Why my edits are being reverted? The page already shows a graph in which multicellulary is shown having appeared 1,5 billion years ago.

DaComputer (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing the existing material and your additions. Please give me a moment, because this isn't my wheelhouse—the existing material seems to have jumbled up its citations at the very least. Remsense ‥ 论 17:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Codex Campianus 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 19:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Svarta ballader 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 11:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you copy and paste material from other articles you should both attribute it and make sure you have copied over the sources called by references in it. I have done the latter for you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added anything to that article, and I know that attribution is required for WP:CAC. Remsense ‥ 论 20:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong person. DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Cat in the Hat Comes Back 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, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albuquerque_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=1274154153

It makes it clearer to read in my opinion. 23:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC) RealOliverCarrard (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See that editor's contributions. Wondering if it was because of a word they didn't like! Doug Weller talk 16:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be bizarre to me (if the only candidate I can discern is the one in question), if only because it appears several times further up the article. Remsense ‥ 论 16:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your contributions are appreciated, especially when you do hard-working edits every day! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills 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, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you reverted my edit on function composition, but the reason I made that edit was because I was unsure whether "the composition of A and B" meant (A o B) or (B o A). This edit would've been helpful to me and I would expect the audio-notation to exist somewhere in the article.  AltoStev (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "audio" here. However, if you do think the edit is particularly helpful, please restore it. Remsense ‥ 论 00:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you're a (queer) Christian in NY interested in early music. Depending on where you are in NY, you may want to check out Saint Ignatius of Antioch Church, NYC! 50.74.221.246 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! For the sake of transparency, I have a pretty deep interest and basically positive affection for Christianity and Christendom, but I would not presently consider myself to be a Christian according to the public definition (which I think is pretty reasonable to use, of course). I live in the Hudson Valley, fwiw. Remsense ‥ 论 04:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened the ANI, here is the link for your reference: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Pob3qu3 disruptive editing via OR/SYNTH against consensus

You reverted my edit in the Babylonian captivity article with the claim that the Bible can't be used as a source for what the Bible says, but this is only true when doing interpretation. Since the Bible plainly states: "Surely at the commandment of the LORD came this upon Judah, to remove them out of His sight, for the sins of Manasseh", it's not an interpretation to say it was punishment from Yahweh, it's just parroting what the Bible says.

And regardless of that, the second half of my edit was about the captivity's linguistic impact on Hebrew, and was sourced with an article from the Cambridge University Press. Blagai (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I took some time and here's a second source supporting my paragraph:

Introduction To The Hebrew Bible And Deutero Canonical Books, John J. Collins, page 303

I will put the edit back now, with this source as well. Blagai (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... with (canned) edit summaries that read "certainly not an improvement whatsoever" etc. I am happy to see that you reverted yourself shortly after, but you could have spent more time before you made that initial revert. The clearly worded reasoning by IP editor should never be dismissed with this kind of potentially rude message. This kind of behavior is hurting wikipedia and please stop. I believe you are in good faith, but this kind of behavior has worse consequences than you probably pictured. That good-faith would-be editor? He/She may never see that you reverted yourself, and we would just lose a contributor.

"certainly not an improvement whatsoever" is a very rude phrase (especially "whatsoever") and should only be reserved for obvious vandalism.

On further investigation into your contributions, I have found more of these reverts with poorly written and canned revert reasons. This can't be good for wikipedia. Hym3242 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy the past week or so. Thanks for your patience. Keep in mind you assume responsibility for the merits of content you restore to articles, and you shouldn't impose the interpersonal misgivings you have with me on the content quality of articles. Your core conception is just trivially wrong here, unfortunately: I haven't failed to assume good faith in any of these cases, and it should be clear that good faith isn't in itself sufficient reasoning why content should be retained. When one says an edit didn't improve an article, it means just that. Many good faith edits are not an improvement whatsoever to articles, including ones I make from time to time. I would prefer they be reverted, and if I don't understand why I go and talk about it and a consensus is reached. These disagreements and resulting discussions are extremely ordinary parts of the collaborative editing process.

In this case, it's not my job to debunk every point made in an edit summary—I couldn't do that here because the explanation simply did not make sense to me—it did not align with the reality of the change. That's shadowboxing with the attempts of someone to articulate their feelings who quite possibly does not know what they are talking about. It's fine if that is the case for an editor, but going point by point at face value often helps no one and wastes time—especially in the age of AI-generated edit summaries where I often am not engaging with someone's actual thoughts at all. I'm wrong sometimes, but I'm not in the other editor's head with them, and it's a ridiculous discursive double standard to impose much greater standards (in both specificity and actual cogency) only on the editor restoring a superior version of an article, as opposed to that the one making the change away from it, given those are essentially equivalent actions and the real distinction is which edit is actually an improvement.

Given the state of an article (Halley's Comet is an FA) it's more reasonable that consensus for the status quo is stronger and intuit it is how it is for good reasons—an IP needn't intuit that dynamic specifically, but it's just not my fault if someone bounces off Wikipedia because they tried once to fix something that wasn't broken and it didn't stick, or because they act as if I said something I did not say, sorry. That's their life story, not mine, and I don't agree that reversions of this kind have the effect you assume they do. It's my job to outline the actual effect an edit has, and engage in a dialogue if asked for an explanation. Please refrain from imposing some particularized pathology on me or others by cherrypicking a few edits you assume must have a certain effect while ignoring the plain meaning of what was actually communicated. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 23:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never revert people solely because I think they are bad editors and want retribution or harassment -- I review your reverts on a case-by-case basis. Some are genuinely good, with well-written reasons in a way that makes the original editor and other editors realize where they are wrong, and what they may do next if they still want this content in the article, which also by the way avoids discouraging new editors. I only revert your reverts to force a better explanation from you: they are never personal. You seem to adopt a tactic of blaming everyone that opposes you or closely watches your edits are acting with interpersonal misgivings, which we are not unfamiliar in politics. By inciting confusion and anguish with not-so-obviously toxic acts, it gives you the weapon to accuse others. I would say this is the most efficient way to deter prospective editors.

Your defense reads like your edit summaries: they talk a lot about general ideas, with condescending tones (I suggest you count the potentially rude words you have in this response), but all miss the point. I am not accusing you of not assuming good faith, I am talking about adverse effects of your general habit at engaging people that you do not realize. This you never mention. You say that writing a good summary is waste of time and helps no one, ignoring that the reason I wanted them is to avoid discouraging editors. You "engage in a dialogue if asked for an explanation", but that seems never the case. A search in AN brings up at least one incident concerning a mini-editwar involving you and another editor, where the editor you repeated reverted says that "I simply never got a good reason for the reverts to my edits". I think this illustrates the point well. This kind of allegation seem to be common in people that have attacked you, they often mention how your actions discourage them greatly. And how many editors simply silently left wikipedia without resistance or even a word about you? Even when asked for, you seem to never provide a directly on point explanation for your reverts. And I don't think I have cherry-picked them. You also never mentioned why you chose to revert your own revert just moments later when you could have spent more time reviewing it in the first place.

You say that edits and reverts are "essentially equivalent actions". I am afraid I would have to disagree with that. Reverts are particularly discouraging for new and occasional contributors -- I think we all know the sinking feeling when we receive the "your edit was reverted" email in the novice days. Reverts really should be more cautiously executed and reasoned than normal edits for this reason.

Assuming good faith does not mean letting them stick, and I not accusing you for not letting good faith edits stick! I am accusing you that your reverts provide no clue as to where they are wrong and how they might improve. Reading your edits and responses suggest otherwise: you sometimes revert with "disruptive editing" or vandalism when the editor is simply clueless about how things work. You jump to allegations about the editor's intentions (like "interpersonal misgivings") and accuse them of "make content across the site worse" etc. I have to say that they don't exactly sound like you are assuming good faith, and I don't think I used to hear that kind of allegations from any other good editor. If you oppose, just illustrate the reason. No accusations needed. I would like your direct response to this one.

I am puzzled about the double standards part: if we really treat edits and reverts as equal, when I encounter edits like yours in the wild, I would also revert them for not being obvious improvements and poorly reasoned. It seems that you are adopting an inverse double standards.

P.S.

I have trouble understanding some of your sentences like the first sentence of the second paragraph. Would you care to explain it for me?

I want you to know that your last sentence is particularly and unnecessarily hate-inciting and I am not feeding you.

PP.S.

I want you to know that a good editor never reverts others' reverts with summaries like that. It really makes you seem to be the one that is reverting others solely because they disagree with you. Hym3242 (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make a very specific point clear: I only revert your reverts to force a better explanation from you. Do not do this again. Per above, it is completely unacceptable on multiple levels. You are not my boss. It is not your job to follow me around and police my reverts removed from context. I am not required to have the same preferences or emotional responses about reverting or being reverted that you do, or address your hypotheticals as if they have actual answers, so quit imposing your specific conceptions of ideal conduct onto me. I am not required to write every edit summary to your personal satisfaction, and the idea that I should has clearly already been WP:POINTy in its effect on your own conduct.

(If I were to, in turn, impose my own personal taste and emotions about reverting onto you, I'd implore that you get over me reverting you months ago on Chinese characters already, given that's very likely the spiritual origin of all this. If I were to impose my own feelings onto you, I'd make clear I don't care about making you feel okay about it, that anyone who wasn't eager to disrupt the encyclopedia to prove a point would've navigated that situation just fine, and would opine instead that you need to move on for the sake of your own dignity. See how totalizing and humiliating that analysis is, how uncharitable it is and how many assumptions it makes about you? That's what you're doing, so cut it out.)

I should make clear that the cases at ANI you specifically point to are a pretty particular sample, and don't exactly represent a slice of editors I care about ensuring the utmost comfort of, given the reasons they were at ANI to start with. They were often actively wasting my time or otherwise acting in bad faith, and I was not interested in giving more of my time to them beyond what policy requires of me by writing up further explanations they weren't going to engage with. Frankly, I wish in several cases that they had been discouraged from editing faster, and you would wish that too if you weren't trying to take their remarks out of context to use as a rhetorical cudgel.

If you actually have specific concerns related to the content of each page or if you have questions about specific reverts, discuss them with me like normal—I'm acutely aware I make individual mistakes of this kind and try to make fewer as time goes on, whether your analysis has picked up on that or not. I do not, however, accept you as the ultimate authority on which of my reverts are mistakes, and I did not ask for a holistic "performance review" from you. I will not be engaging with it further. You're not entitled to me baring my soul or ethos before you at even greater length to holistically satisfy your suspicions. Your expectation that I do so is exhausting.

You've acquired this idea that you feel you need to teach me a generalized lesson about WP:BITE or whatever. You do not. Leave me alone, ask about specific situations or edits, or take me to ANI if you think my conduct is egregious in terms of violating site policy. Do not post on my talk page again unless it is one of those two things. To reiterate a concept that is actually policy rather than just personal preferences regarding conduct—do not disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point. Remsense ‥ 论 01:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please allow me to say something here. While I may not be aware of the whole issue, from my earlier experiences I truly think Remsense is a good editor who has made many contributions in Wikipedia. No one is perfect or has unlimited time and energy. If you have some sentiment, you may want to try to communicate in a more polite and friendly manner, instead of trying to police such editors. Hopefully this will better solve such things. Thanks. --Wengier (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I make mistakes that I'm embarrassed of, and you can see my contrition regarding that in my talk page history over the past year. If I'm not doing well enough to avoid the same mistakes over time at volume—I've repeatedly admitted I overstretch myself, and have been trying to dial it back down as it is often the cause of mistakes—that's a position I understand. What I won't accept is all the additional axe-grinding and policing on the OP's part, especially given how transparently it all stems from one incident whence they felt a totally unjustified need to impose their personal preferences on my edits going forward. Remsense ‥ 论 07:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if you’re aware, but the original article, before I or you ever touched it was using BCE/CE in the first half and BC/AD in the second half. The information you tried to give me to prove your point literally said the entire article had to stick to one or the other. I was choosing one to make it stick to, and you reverted it because you felt you wanted it the other way, and tried to blame me for starting it. I didn’t start it, I was fixing the inconsistencies. I typically don’t get too annoyed, but the stuff you are trying to pull is pissing me off. I hope you simply just didn’t realize your mistake, and it wasn’t malintent. Have a good night. NathanBru (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I showed you to the relevant guideline, which explains which should be used. I actually have no idea where you got the "sandbox", but frankly you don't have a reason to be pissed off if you took the first passage that aligned with your personal tastes and ran with it regardless of its provenance. You don't just get to flip everything to your preferred system if use is inconsistent—that's exactly orthogonal to the point of the guideline, which is to avoid needless fighting back and forth. Remsense ‥ 论 02:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quote exactly for me where it says that CE should be preferred. Because what I saw was half CE, half AD. It MUST be consistent throughout, meaning one MUST change. There was no existing style, as both were used, meaning a choice had to be made. I made it, and then you undermined it, thus starting this little issue. It says that it does NOT matter which it is, saying “The default calendar eras are Anno Domini (BC and AD) and Common Era (BCE and CE). Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context. Apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles with regard to changes from one era to the other.

Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article. Exception: do not change direct quotations, titles, etc.

An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed.” NathanBru (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It MUST be consistent throughout, meaning one MUST change.

Please read the linked sections (MOS:ERA; MOS:DATEVAR) in their entirety; they are more elegant than I am in paraphrasing them. That's the point, I promise I didn't assign you some byzantine riddle. Remsense ‥ 论 02:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read both sections, but neither was used predominantly, we do not know which was originally added, and we do not know the first person to insert the date. NathanBru (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can peruse the early edit history of an article to determine where an era system was originally added and which it was. If you want me to do that since I'm more experienced with the interface, then I will and adjust the article to fit. Apologies for the confusion so far—like I said, I really hate how poorly I paraphrase guidelines sometimes and prefer to just point to them all else being equal. Remsense ‥ 论 02:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you would like to. NathanBru (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do ASAP, thanks for engaging in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 03:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remsense! I noticed that the new user User:WinterExiled (edit history) has been making massive POV push including removing contents without explanations recently. Editors like User:Vacosea previously reverted some of his earlier edits, but this user's behaviors apparently continued especially in articles related to Tibet (two examples among others: [19] and [20]). Please take a look at this. Thanks! --Wengier (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's worse than just those two articles. I've put a level 3 vandalism warning on their user talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are definitely many more articles involved than the above two examples, including massive unexplained removals of language templates and scripts (mostly Chinese-language ones, such as this and this, along others). These were also unexplained content removals. —Wengier (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing well at the moment, so it's unlikely I will have the energy to personally review these at this moment. I hope someone else can do it in my stead, since it seems pretty egregious. Apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 02:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope things will be better soon. In any case, the said user has been blocked and their edits have been reverted by now. —-Wengier (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Sorry to hear that you are not doing well! - On the main page Edith Mathis, who portrayed young women by Mozart, the video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances, - yesterday's story. - "places" come with food and flowers, - sharing with you, with best wishes! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a look at (redacted) diff on (redacted). Not sure if it's a concern or if you want to take steps to suppress it (or cycle IP's). Oblivy (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy: It's best to not bring attention to the diff. Contact the oversight team. They'll remove the personal info. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 13:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reported the IP via email, but please keep that in mind next time. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 13:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]