User talk:Remsense

Musical writing

Hi. There probably is no point further discussing about musical writing in the talk page of History of writing. You wrote there that you studied composition and indeed, I therefore respect your opinion. I am a music theorist and I wrote extensively on musical semiotics. Let's leave it at that, it is a good idea of WP that we remain anonymous...

You write that what music expresses is "non-conceptual" while (verbal) language "articulates the conceptual." Roman Jakobson discussed this in what he called "introversive" and "extroversive semiosis" (see Semiotics). Kofi Agawu expanded on this in Playing with signs (Princeton UP, 1991), also in Music as Discourse (Oxford UP, 2009). You may know that the IPMS (International Project on Musical Signification) argues that musical signification mainly is of the order of "narration." All this would be worth a long discussion, but I don't think that it concerns writing as such. Charles Seeger wrote an important (and famous) article about "Prescriptive and Descriptive Music-Writing" (The Musical Quarterly 44/2, 1958). He did not wonder whether music-writing truly is writing, he apparently had no doubt about that.

Musical writing has several aspects in common with verbal writing. It may not be as ancient, but I it probably is the earliest non-verbal writing. It shares with verbal writing that it was not at first meant to record sounds (of speech or of music), but rather to registrate aspects that didn't need to be expressed in speech or in music-as-sound (as philosophers of music write to distinguish it from music-as-written). Turning back for a while to non-conceptual vs conceptual aspects, one could also stress that literature, particularly poetry, at times may not be referential – and this may link with the fact that they often exist only in writing.

I won't intervene on the History of writing article, I have enough to do without that and it isn't realy my domain. I thought nevertheless that something might be said there about musical writing – or the title of the article changed into History of verbal writing? And let's further discuss it here, if you think there is anything worth further discussing. Best. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate your insight here. I want to emphasize that your comments reminded me to include some mention of these and other aspects in the article! Best. Remsense 🌈 论 02:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That is to say, I really appreciate the sourcing leads you've given me to explore, and hopefully I can ping you soon to see the work in this very interesting area proportionately reflected in the article, as well as in Writing itself, etc.

(Trust me, I only mentioned my own background so that you wouldn't feel you were potentially wasting your time writing insightful replies that would go totally over my head! I fully appreciate this is your domain, not mine.) Remsense 🌈 论 12:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

... and today look at the autograph of Beethoven's last piano sonata and listen to the pianist who wanted to serve the compositions most of all --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-26

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Weekly highlight

• This week, the Moderator Tools and Machine Learning teams will continue the rollout of a new filter to Recent Changes, releasing it to the third and last batch of Wikipedias. This filter utilizes the Revert Risk model, which was created by the Research team, to highlight edits that are likely to be reverted and help Recent Changes patrollers identify potentially problematic contributions. The feature will be rolled out to the following Wikipedias: Azerbaijani Wikipedia, Latin Wikipedia, Macedonian Wikipedia, Malayalam Wikipedia, Marathi Wikipedia, Norwegian Nynorsk Wikipedia, Punjabi Wikipedia, Swahili Wikipedia, Telugu Wikipedia, Tagalog Wikipedia. The rollout will continue in the coming weeks to include the rest of the Wikipedias in this project. [1]

Updates for editors

• Last week, temporary accounts were rolled out on Czech, Korean, and Turkish Wikipedias. This and next week, deployments on larger Wikipedias will follow. Share your thoughts about the project. [2]
• Later this week, the Editing team will release Multi Check to all Wikipedias (except English Wikipedia). This feature shows multiple Reference checks within the editing experience. This encourages users to add citations when they add multiple new paragraphs to a Wikipedia article. This feature was previously available as an A/B test. The test shows that users who are shown multiple checks are 1.3 times more likely to add a reference to their edit, and their edit is less likely to be reverted (-34.7%). [3]
• A few pages need to be renamed due to software updates and to match more recent Unicode standards. All of these changes are related to title-casing changes. Approximately 71 pages and 3 files will be renamed, across 15 wikis; the complete list is in the task. The developers will rename these pages next week, and they will fix redirects and embedded file links a few minutes later via a system settings update.
• View all 24 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, a bug was fixed that had caused pages to scroll upwards when text near the top was selected. [4]

Updates for technical contributors

• Editors can now use Lua modules to filter and transform tabular data for use with Extension:Chart. This can be used for things like selecting a subset of rows or columns from the source data, converting between units, statistical processing, and many other useful transformations. Information on how to use transforms is available. [5]
• The all_links variable in AbuseFilter is now renamed to new_links for consistency with other variables. Old usages will still continue to work. [6]
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

• The latest quarterly Growth newsletter is available. It includes: the recent updates for the "Add a Link" Task, two new Newcomer Engagement Features, and updates to Community Configuration.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Modern Monetary Theory

Thanks for your feedback on the revision. Can you please point towards any areas that you believe should be made more neutral?

I've tried to position any point as coming from what MMT states rather than as fact i.e., "MMT states that...", "This framework...", "According to MMT...", "MMT argues that...", "MMT is opposed to..."

Perhaps reworking "However, there is a growing consensus among mainstream economists, pundits, and finance executives that the insights of MMT are genuine and provide value for understanding how the economy works." into something like "However, there have been several mainstream economists, pundits, and finance executives stating that the insights of MMT provide value for understanding how the economy works."

FWIW I think the current state is an inaccurate and biased representation of MMT, which I why I am trying to make it more accurate and neutral. MwikiNpedia (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could make that decision unless the prose says something the cited sources don't, and you don't seem to have paid mind to what the sources already being cited say. We're not in the business of publishing original research. It's not acceptable to rewrite cited prose to a substantially different effect; that effectively puts your own words in the sources' mouths. Like I touched on in the edit summary, it doesn't matter what you or I think is biased or harsh—we are generally compelled to be biased and harsh if that's the verdict of our body of reliable sources on the subject, as it were. To opt otherwise would be to create a WP:false balance.

I see exceedingly little value in the tacked on NYT pieces from 6 years ago, and I really do not think it's possible that they would challenge the claims made in existing sources—which include actual peer reviewed scholarship, almost always a more reliable type of source than a news article from any outlet for a subject like this—to a degree that at all justifies the severe tone shift. What's more, you essentially claimed the articles wrote of a growing consensus, which they just don't say—and if they did, again, they would directly contradict the better-cited material already there.

FWIW, when I said talk page, I meant Talk:Modern monetary theory—content issues should generally be discussed on the corresponding talk page where interested editors can see and participate to reach a consensus. Remsense 🌈 论 11:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I followed the link you put in your response saying "you can leave me a message on my talk page." I'm happy to pick up the debate on the substance on the MMT page itself.

I'm new to making edits on Wikipedia and appreciate any feedback on getting better at contributing. However, I do believe that the current prose says something the cited sources don't. I have read cited sources and the current section does not accurately represent the research. Reading the Talk page on MMT now actually highlights that this seems be a problem many people have noticed but yet no one has put the time into redrafting it.

I reused existing sources and only contributed new ones where the point being made was significantly different and additional sources seemed suitable. However, you're right if you're su. "Puff pieces" seem an appropriate way of attributing public quotes from individuals made outside of any academic source. Considering that the current section is about public opinion, it seemed appropriate to me to update what public opinion actually is. The existing section cites 3 NYT "puff pieces" as sources already. If you believe that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, then I would suggest the whole paragraph is removed. Even the more explanatory parts of the section use the Bloomberg and WSJ as sources rather than academia. MwikiNpedia (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Reverts

IslaAntilia here. Hello. I noticed that you reverted two of my contributions today. I don't mind the France one, that's fine, I didn't have great sources, but I just wanted to attempt to turn the C-class article into a B-class article, and I thought that would help. I would've appreciated the line about the philosophers being kept in, because I think that source is fine and it deserves mention on the main page, but nevertheless. But you also reverted my edits on Sudan...and then re-did two of them yourself. I don't really appreciate my work being "stolen". I think my edit should be restored. Thanks. IslaAntilia (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Kid A

Have you even checked the Consequence article that you just reverted from my recent edit on the album? It's a completely different source to the one that you apparently said that is "already adequately cited". TheUser225! (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Please Respond on Talk

Hi @Remsense. I really don’t appreciate your willingness to revert my edits, make note of it on my profile, and not respond despite your continuing to make extensive, minor edits thereafter. I am seeking to be as polite as possible, but simultaneously this seems like a departure from the very mission you’ve set out for yourself on your profile. I would appreciate your response and engagement with my concerns, especially given that I was willing to do the same. This seems greatly un constructive, and teeters on bad faith. protecting your own peace doesn’t automatically solve the situation, it simply makes it easier for you.

All the best, and with hopes for a response - CSGinger14 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I am disorganized and sometimes respond to messages out of order. I didn't forget yours, apologies for allowing you to think I might've. Remsense 🌈 论 18:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Arameans article

Hello, when you have a moment could you kindly respond on the talk page? I've provided an explanation there for your review. How would you recommend we move forward from here in a way that avoids continued reverts? I've removed some repetition as you previously noted and restructured the passage with supporting sources to present this complex topic more clearly and accessibly, while maintaining a neutral point of view.PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Hello. I noticed the WP:AN/3 report involving the page House of Wisdom, which brought me to the other user's talk page. I'm not going to template you or anything but I wanted to mention that your comments on their page could very easily be considered biting the newcomers. The user seemed legitimately interested in improving Wikipedia and was struggling with understanding policy, which is understandable. Actually, most of the time we learn about policies and guidelines when we boldly screw something up and it's politely pointed out to us. It's okay for editors to make mistakes with referencing or the complexities of paraphrasing -- that's why people like you & I are here: to calmly point good-faith editors in the right direction, to answer their questions, and/or explain the policies. You were clearly frustrated with them, and even though you apologized, you then immediately swore at them after they tried again and asked for feedback. Everyone has bad days and gets frustrated, but if you feel yourself becoming upset like that in the future, it might be best to consider stepping away from the situation. All the best - - —tony 01:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue was that it was a copyvio issue. There's this two-track thing about it and BLP, where theoretically there is real legal liability at play that categorically supersedes policy, and it's easier to become frustrated over for how much damage it can do to the encyclopedia in terms of cleanup time when it goes undetected for any length of time. I'm just meditating on why that happened and developed far less amiably than it should've. Remsense 🌈 论 01:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Remsense, please join the noticeboard discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 July newsletter

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Hi dear,
I have searched a lot to find a valid content which proves the Persian Gulf has another name, but I was unsuccessful!
I need help. How can we correct the Page of Persian Gulf? Because there is no valid resource which proves this sentence:

The Persian Gulf,[a] sometimes called the Arabian Gulf,[b]...

I have talked with the user @Skitash, who persist on the name arabian gulf with no any resource!
This is an official historical theme, if you confirm, I kindly ask you to change it back to what it since 1000 years (at least) has been.

With warm regards
Payam A. PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• PayamAvarwand has posted either this message or another one with similar content to seven different user talk pages. I have warned them that if they don't stop they will be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-27

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Weekly highlight

• The CampaignEvents extension has been enabled on all Wikipedias. The extension makes it easier to organize and participate in collaborative activities, like edit-a-thons and WikiProjects, on the wikis. The extension has three features: Event Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation List. To request the extension for your wiki, visit the Deployment information page.

Updates for editors

• AbuseFilter maintainers can now match against IP reputation data in AbuseFilters. IP reputation data is information about the proxies and VPNs associated with the user's IP address. This data is not shown publicly and is not generated for actions performed by registered accounts. [7]
• Hidden content that is within collapsible parts of wikipages will now be revealed when someone searches the page using the web browser's "Find in page" function (Ctrl+F or ⌘F) in supporting browsers. [8][9]
• A new feature, called Favourite Templates, will be deployed later this week on all projects (except English Wikipedia, which will receive the feature next week), following a piloting phase on Polish and Arabic Wikipedia, and Italian and English Wikisource. The feature will provide a better way for new and experienced contributors to recall and discover templates via the template dialog, by allowing users to put templates on a special "favourite list". The feature works with both the visual editor and the wikitext editor. The feature is a community wishlist focus area.
• View all 31 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, a bug was fixed that had caused some Notifications to be sent multiple times. [10]

Updates for technical contributors

• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Move discussion

What exactly is it that you want now? Why are you trying to start an edit war for no reason? What does the fact that six months have passed since the last move have to do with anything? You are clearly not assuming good faith. Hauskasic (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to engage with the recent RM, I'm not going to waste more time begging that you do. I do think the most likely reason you thought to open another RM to reverse it was purely a lack of awareness of its content, not bad faith on your part. But if you keep insisting that result doesn't still reflect strong community consensus without any real justification, then it becomes quite difficult to assume good faith, yes. Remsense 🌈 论 02:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

What you are doing is not based on any valid grounds; it is simply an attempt to impose your views on me and to obstruct anyone who tries to fix something. How do you expect me to engage with the previous RM if it has already been closed? Hauskasic (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Read it, and then explain why the arguments presented therein were insufficient or somehow not indicative of how the final result turned out. If you can't be bothered to do that, then I question whether you're really interested in coming to the right conclusion based on site policy, instead of trying to get lucky ramming your preferences through. Remsense 🌈 论 02:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You have no civility and are in no position to judge my intentions. Hauskasic (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, your conscience is between you and God, but evidence suggesting any concern on your part for these things is lacking, and it's what's written out in the world that I actually care about. Remsense 🌈 论 20:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The United Nations refers to it as the State of Palestine. Everyone refers to it as the State of Palestine, only this encyclopedia doesn’t! Stop harassing me and mind your own business. Hauskasic (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

If you bothered with the extremely basic preliminary task of reading the previous RM, you'd know why these arguments are trivially flawed in terms of site policy. Would be a total waste of time to force people to come back and say the same things again just for your benefit. Remsense 🌈 论 20:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Your tone is provocative and repulsive. Hauskasic (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Not provocative enough that you'll do anything asked of you. Remsense 🌈 论 20:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The DCWC is open!

See a    "developing" or    "least developed" country? Write about it to earn points!

Remsense, for the second running of the Developing Countries WikiContest, it is now open for submissions. Welcome to the contest! You can now list your work at your submissions page to earn points. The coordinators have addressed some of the queries at the last contest and we are hopeful that it'll turn out great for you—yes, you! If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

• New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions on the talk page.
• Got open nominations? List them at the review requests sidebar.
• Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews. Remember, reviews now award 10 points!
• Not sure if your article qualifies? See the scoring rules for more information or contact a coordinator.
• Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open throughout the contest, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you the best of luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (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) 03:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Error report Wikipedia

Eorr on this template List

| frame_style = border:none; padding:0
| list_style = text-align:left; display:none
| 1= Jembrana 
| 2= Tabanan
| 3= Badung
| 4= Gianyar
| 5= Klungkung
| 6= Bangli
| 7 = Karangasem
| 8 = Buleleng
| 9 = Denpasar}}

Cannot showing and hide, Is this intentional or is the template simply outdated?

Indonesianinfo2 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks as always

Talk:Centre (geometry) and their other games. DMacks (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't even say this because it might encourage them somehow, but honestly the trickiest LTA in their tactics. (Of course, this acknowledges the assumption, if we have to peer into the murky depths, that most LTAs want to be found, otherwise many would try at least a little bit to be covert. And also the surviorship bias that entails, etc. etc.) Their "talk tag; wait a month; talk edit request across the IP space" stratagem still takes me a moment to recognize. Remsense 🌈 论 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Marble Arch (Libya) 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 19:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Confusing edit summary

I can't comprehend your edit summary at Special:Diff/1298329561, which is for an IP user who isn't blocked. Do you mean that the user is a block-evader? Can you report the IP to WP:AIV? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I did report them. Yes, as I stated in other edit summaries (that only I've seen all of, I now realize) they're User:Jiwood23. Remsense 🌈 论 21:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Capital after colon

Could you explain your latest revert to my edit? It's my understanding that capitals aren't used after colons. If you want a capital in this sentence then the previous colon should be replaced with a period. TheRealStang (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I linked you MOS:COLON. I think it usually looks wonky too, but I think the effect is encouraging one to try dashes, splitting sentences, or something else other than a colon in many of those instances. Remsense 🌈 论 00:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, capital letter after a colon is a strange American custom. So see also MOS:ENGVAR. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

Why does every quirky element of orthography I come to despise bear the mark of my own countrymen? JMF (and sundry) could you please show me some rank graphic design or typography from a Commonwealth realm so I can disabuse myself of stereotypes before they bear fruit? Remsense 🌈 论 00:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

That was potentially the wrong anglicism to try out. I want rank in the bad sense.) Remsense 🌈 论 00:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Remsense, please don't engage in self-disabuse in public. EEng 01:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a bad habit of mine. Remsense 🌈 论 02:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Advertisement with three super­flu­ous apostrophes

Does the "Greengrocer's apostrophe" count as a "rank graphic design or typography"? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Laconian (dog) 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 18:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Religion of the Shang dynasty

Hi @Remsense, I've made quite many edits to the article since the GA review since I was irritated by many uncited / improperly cited chunks together with missing information in the article. Would you mind taking a look at the article again to see whether it's drifted too far away from the standard of a GA? Strongman13072007 (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Request to add some important information in Rajput article

Hello @Remsense Kambojahistory (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

hope you're doing well!

I'd like to politely request updating the "Origin and Varna" section of the Rajput article to include Sakas (Indo‑Scythians) and Kambojas, which are currently missing.

According to historians like Richard M. Eaton, Burton Stein, Nicholas B. Dirks, and K. S. Singh, many Central Asian and frontier tribes—including the Kambojas, Shakas, Hunas, and Gurjaras were assimilated into the Rajput community through socio-political processes such as Rajputization between the 7th and 12th centuries CE. This would ensure the article accurately reflects their recognized role in Rajput identity formation.1

Could you please consider adding a statement such as:

> “Central Asian and frontier tribes like the Sakas (Indo‑Scythians), Kambojas, Hunas, and Gurjaras were integrated into the Rajput identity through a historical process known as Rajputization between the 7th and 12th centuries CE.”

Thanks a lot for your time and efforts on this important topic!

Kambojahistory (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

References

GAN Biases

Hello, @Remsense, I am asking you on suggestion of User:It is a wonderful world. Do you think that the article Tomorrow's Pioneers is too biased to be a GA, it definitely wasn't before, however it has been made better. I am asking you as a second opinion. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Many LUA errors in citations and references after Jun 30 2025 reversion to Prostate Cancer article

For reasons I don't understand, your minor reversion of an edit to the Prostate Cancer article appears to have triggered massive damage to the References section; nearly half the references now throw errors. Please investigate. Ross Fraser (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I can't see what errors you're talking about: the References section seems totally intact and functional. Could you be more specific in what you're seeing? Remsense 🌈 论 19:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't see any errors either and I have the option that reveals broken {{sfnp}}/{{harv}} references. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 61.72.97.214 (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Problem of evil#The Inductive Argument From Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition

Hello, Remsense,

I think I've said this before to you but please do not be so dismissive and condescending to new editors who come to talk pages to talk about articles and ideas. You can't know that an IP editor you talked to months ago on a different talk page is the same person as someone you encountered today. You must do a better job of Assuming Good Faith, especially with new editors, you could literally be chasing people away.

I can see now that if you are ever blocked in the future, it won't be because of problems with your editing but due to problems with civility. Please ease up on cynicism and try to remember the enthusiasm you had as a new editor. All of this here is just asking for an adjustment in your attitude and comes after encounters with you on ANI over the past year. You are generally right, on-the-mark regarding policy but it is the way you talk to other editors that can use some adjusting. Think this is possible? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I know you don't know that they're the same person, but I do know that. I haven't fleshed out the deep-dive exposé as it is a non-trivial exercise, but they don't need me to, given they also know who they are, alongside multiple admins who've had to block them over and over the last several months. You have not done this, but for editors who have happened to have these pages on watchlist they are a well-worn presence by now. They are not subtle, and it is frankly not difficult to identify them once one is familiar (which is an amount of work I don't expect you to automatically do!). They are not welcome here and we shouldn't have to put up with their insidious nonsense they've already wasted so much of our time with. Remsense 🌈 论 05:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

This is poor request, editors having to deal with long-term proxy disruption need support, not reprobation. CMD (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

This would be an unacceptable social dynamic if I were wrong. I know it would be ideal if I could just show the magic collection of three diffs so the connection is obvious at low volume to make things as easy as possible for admins taking a look, but I'm not quite clever enough to identify those diffs, unfortunately! Remsense 🌈 论 05:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Sock work is tricky because it often relies on significant familiarity of the farm, but that can also lead to undue paranoia. This seems a pretty clear-cut case though, and if you do have a pattern of civility issues as is being alleged, such allegations should come with an example that isn't a response to proxy-jumping. CMD (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I just don't get why the instinct is to go and comfort the IP on their talk in a manner that makes it seem like my concerns are totally vapid and worth ignoring, which is clearly just going to encourage them to wreak further havoc because they'll be more convinced they can get away undetected. All that instead of, say, asking anyone else in the history of any of these pages or the admins in any of these block logs if they have a similar sense of what's going on. I don't mean to turn things around because admining is hard and certainly more stressful than the sock work I find myself having to do sometimes, but I'm really at a loss with the logic here unless the assumption a priori is I'm completely full of it. I make mistakes in this vein, but I think I've earned a bit more than that. Remsense 🌈 论 05:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Reason for the reverts

Hi, I noticed that my edits were reverted. Could you please explain the concerns you had so we can work together to improve the articles. Maybe I missed some rules here? if I missed any guidelines or rules, I’m happy to adjust accordingly Iseeyouu1 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Guimbal

That edit you reverted was made using AI. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Republic of Nothing 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 21:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:To a Kinder World 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 00:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Query about reverts

Hi. I'm wondering why my edits were reverted when they were: the correction of the spelling of a link (to match that of the article to which it links, i.e. the correct spelling of the individual's name) & the replacing of a comma with "and" before the last item in a list, which is standard practice in written English? Thanks. EditrixOz (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

states' rights

Please see my comment at Talk:Abraham Lincoln Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)