User talk:Remsense/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

2025 Core Contest Finished!

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Equality (mathematics) GA review and check-in

@Remsense, It's been a while since you last updated the GA review, and I noticed you've been on and off Wikipedia recently. Last time we talked you said you had a family emergency—Is everything alright? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, I need you to be honest with me here. What's going on? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I was one day late in forecasting when I would be able to edit again, and I was working on the review while doing other edits. Will be done within a couple hours. Remsense ‥ 论 03:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. If you end up needing/wanting more time, that's fine, but PLEASE give me some kind of notice when you do. I feel bad pinging you so often. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Though, I'm mostly surprised there wasn't more feedback. I was expecting to be yelled at more – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense. I don't want to hurt someone, but if you ever have burdensome things in real life and may not responded to the review, you can ask for a second opinion. Hopefully, I can take over the review. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, would a second opinion help you? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

And for @Farkle Griffen, I recommend you should ask WT:GAN and do the similar advice I give to the reviewer. You might want to finish the nomination as soon as possible, and handing this problem to someone else, but I guess you have to wait for the reviewer's respond. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, can I get an update on what's going on? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Desperately trying to get work in on my ultimately unsuccessful entry as the Core Contest was expiring. I meant to ask about one of my points, so here: do you think it would be worth discussing more about concepts pre-Aristotle? Indeed, equally is traditionally a primitive concept, but work I've read on the early history of mathematics is interested in how exactly number itself arises, I'm not sure how directly justified it is though Remsense ‥ 论 00:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Oh, which article were you trying to submit?

My only worry is that it may be hard to source since in my experience, very few sources mention equality explicitly. Though, I suppose we could just use the sources for "number" and assert that it implies equality, like in the Prehistory section of Cardinality. We could also take some bits from the history of geometry for the history of "equality of magnitude".

On that note though, it might be worth making a "Number and maginitude" section. There's two facts that I've wanted to include in the article but couldn't find space for. The fact that "equality of number" is cardinality, and for real numbers, the fact that the statement $\forall \varepsilon >0\,(|a-b|<\varepsilon )$ is equivalent to equality, which makes real numbers extensional objects, similar to sets.

Not sure if this would be enough to fill a section though, or if it's even worth mentioning. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, thoughts? Though, perhaps this conversation should move back to the GA review. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Also, do you think you have an upper limit on when you think you'll be done? The last few have passed, and I do feel bad pinging so often for updates. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	Wow, I'm impressed with Chinese characters, which is WP:Today's featured article. Congratulations on reaching FA with such an interesting and complex subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 I've just noticed that your Chinese characters article is today's featured article and I wanted to give you a barnstar for it but @WhatamIdoing beat me to it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 Momentarily logging back in specifically to drop a congratulations here! TFA is a pretty big milestone. Really grateful for and proud of your work here! I'll be back eventually 🤍 Folly Mox (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to thank everyone here for this, and admit I'm just very bad at accepting compliments much of the time, as a factor of appreciating them, so I'm sorry it appeared like I just ignored them. Remsense 🌈 论 00:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Opinion on Equality (mathematics) so far?

Aside from formalities in the review, what's your opinion on the article? It'd be nice to get some feedback from another editor, and you're the only one so far I know who's read it. Since it's the first article I've really worked on, and I was more-or-less the only one editing the article for a while, I have no clue how it comes off to other readers. Were there details you really liked? Hated?

Do you think it could have a shot at being a FA? or is that a long ways away... – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I have thoughts foolishly withheld so far while I tweak, but in short I think it does a great job! Sorry I've been so quiet in expressing my actual thoughts Remsense ‥ 论 16:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm circling back around tonight, and then I'll type up the notes I was taking on paper that I was going to do when finishing the review—but obviously that's not ideal especially here. Remsense ‥ 论 16:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Out of curiosity... when does "tonight" start for you? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Imminently! I was just thinking about suggestions that aren't necessary for the review but I hope you'll appreciate? I'm much more amateur with mathematics than other topics I've worked on, so I hope you'll bear with me. :) Remsense ‥ 论 00:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course! I'm just excited is all. And hopefully the article was simple enough then—my biggest worry was WP:Technical. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, Dedhert.Jr did offer to give a second opinion above, if you think it'd make the review easier for the math-heavy portions. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, You're a bit of a tease, you know that? That's not an insult, it just keeps happening. If you get a chance, I'd like some kind of timeline. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a mess. Let me just get the damned spot check over with, and then I can keep working on the article because it's clearly fine. No more disappearing, I'm going to do it right now. I stopped apologizing because it felt quite bad to do until it was over it. Remsense 🌈 论 02:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Happy pride month btw – Farkle Griffen (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, THANK YOU!! This is so cool! And, for what it's worth, I accept your apologies. Although, if you'd like to make it up to me, I would still like your opinion. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Etymology of Epistemology

@Remsense: Hello—hope you’re well. I noticed that my recent edit to the “Etymology” section on Epistemology was reverted. Could you please clarify which parts were deemed undue or redundant? I agree that some details may have been excessive, but I believe a concise etymology is appropriate since many encyclopedias include such sections. I’m happy to shorten or reframe the content—removing overly detailed explanations—while preserving a brief summary of the Greek roots and nineteenth-century coinage. Any guidance on how to align the contribution with Wikipedia’s style would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and feedback. Bahadur Tufang (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In other words, the article Epistemology is not about the word "epistemology", but about the concept it refers to. It's not typically a core concern for our readers to go into much detail restricted to the domain of linguistics and lexicography when weighing what information is most important for our readers who generally most want to read about philosophy. Remsense ‥ 论 09:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Being a Philology and linguistic enthusiast I extended the etymology section. Could you please guide me what should i do instead Bahadur Tufang (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

To me the article is clearly fine as it is, and further discussion of the etymology of "epistemology" shouldn't be added. Doing so would put unearned emphasis on a particularly narrow aspect of the subject discussed by scholarship from a relatively disjunct discipline—especially at the top of the article which affords it even more pride of place. Remsense ‥ 论 09:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bahadur Tufang, I think you might be interested in Wiktionary, where a correct, complete, and carefully cited wikt:Wiktionary:Etymology section is welcome for every word. They really need help. I suggest starting at the wikt:Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium, where the most knowledgeable editors can usually be found. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance Bahadur Tufang (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-23

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 Chart extension is now available on all Wikimedia wikis. Editors can use this new extension to create interactive data visualizations like bar, line, area, and pie charts. Charts are designed to replace many of the uses of the legacy Graph extension.

Updates for editors

• It is now easier to configure automatic citations for your wiki within the visual editor's citation generator. Administrators can now set a default template by using the _default key in the local MediaWiki:Citoid-template-type-map.json page (example diff). Setting this default will also help to future-proof your existing configurations when new item types are added in the future. You can still set templates for individual item types as they will be preferred to the default template. [1]
• View all 20 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

• Starting the week of June 2, bots logging in using action=login or action=clientlogin will fail more often. This is because of stronger protections against suspicious logins. Bots using bot passwords or using a loginless authentication method such as OAuth are not affected. If your bot is not using one of those, you should update it; using action=login without a bot password was deprecated in 2016. For most bots, this only requires changing what password the bot uses. [2]
• From this week, Wikimedia wikis will allow ES2017 features in JavaScript code for official code, gadgets, and user scripts. The most visible feature of ES2017 is async/await syntax, allowing for easier-to-read code. Until this week, the platform only allowed up to ES2016, and a few months before that, up to ES2015. [3]
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Meetings and events

• Scholarship applications to participate in the GLAM Wiki Conference 2025 are now open. The conference will take place from 30 October to 1 November, in Lisbon, Portugal. GLAM contributors who lack the means to support their participation can apply here. Scholarship applications close on June 7th.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 23:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Mao’s portrait

Hey Remsense, I checked the archives of Mao’s article looking for the consensus for the image currently used and couldn’t find it, and the image currently used wasn’t included in the options voted on.

It seems like 1950A won the vote, but that doesn’t seem to be the photo used, and I’m not seeing where the decision to use the 1957 image was made. If I’m missing where that decision was made please let me know. Bagabondo (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The RM

Holocaust falls under APL and EE. APL is ecr per the list you gave. I was just trying to be helpful and do what needs to be done. Would you be ok with a self revert? Mikewem (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The page does not fall under APL to my understanding, nor should it. If it did, others very likely would've been pruning non-EC contributors to the discussion like in others subject to the APL ECR sanction. Remsense 🌈 论 03:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I should’ve started with hello and how are you. Pleasantries, etc.

Are you asking me to present WP evidence that The Holocaust involves antisemitism in Poland? Mikewem (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you very much for your level-headedness. Remsense 🌈 论 03:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s all because I’m secretly hoping to convert you to the “the” side. (Kidding, of course!)(or am I?)

But seriously, it’s a huge task to do this work all through text. Things happen. Ls sometimes look like Is. I’m always happy to see a positive resolution to temporary hiccups. Thanks for your commitment to the project, and happy editing. Mikewem (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

George W. Bush revision history

Hi Remense,

It seems like we have some disagreements on the George W. Bush article. I'm a little unhappy with your decision to undo what looks like most of my edits, many of which I think should have been uncontroversial and informative, e.g.:

-Changing "Bush flew warplanes in the Texas Air National Guard in his twenties." to "From 1968 to 1974, during the Vietnam War, Bush served in the Air National Guard, though he never deployed to Vietnam." More encyclopedic in tone, provides specific dates and context.

-"In his first term, Bush signed a major tax-cut program and an education-reform bill, the No Child Left Behind Act." to "In his first term, Bush signed two major pieces of tax legislation, commonly referred to as the "Bush tax cuts," and an education-reform bill, the No Child Left Behind Act." Clarifies that the "Bush tax cuts" were two specific bills, and notes the popular understanding ("tax cut") while also preserving encyclopedic tone ("major pieces of tax legislation," which is how the relevant article describes them).

Obviously, we want to avoid an edit war; if we don't see eye to eye on this, I think my edits should stand while we take it to the talk page--although if you have specific reversions you'd like to defend, I'm open to being persuaded.

Would you be willing to undo your reverts and go to the talk page? Mosi Nuru (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

His military service just isn't a key point of his biography. I've also taken another crack at Roanoak colony working on your rewrite, what do you think? One point I perceive is you felt some need to repeat yourself even within the lead, so I cut down on that as much as possible. The ideal of four full paragraphs is definitely arbitrary and shouldn't be held to dogmatically, but it does help guide refactoring. Remsense 🌈 论 04:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

That's troubling, because it strongly suggests you're following my edits specifically, see WP:HOUNDING.

It also confuses our current conversation, because I didn't come here to talk about Roanoke Colony, I came here to talk about George W. Bush. Mosi Nuru (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Perusing one's contribution history isn't hounding—that I'm actively asking your opinion on whether I did well iterating on your edits certainly shouldn't, I don't think. What's motivating me here is getting more quality squeezed into the bit of prose that 400k+ readers will primarily engage with when reading these articles every month. Remsense 🌈 论 04:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, in order for us to maintain an assumption of good faith, I would strongly appreciate it if you refrain from reverting edits I have made on other articles.

Now as far as George W. Bush - what I would most appreciate is the following:

1) You undo your reversions.

2) We take our issues to the talk page - we can use your comment as a reference point, and let other editors vote on whether my revisions are a net improvement.

3) We'll both leave George W Bush alone for the foreseeable future and let other editors.

Is this acceptable? Mosi Nuru (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I really don't think your changes were an improvement viewed together as a package, for some of the reasons I pointed out above. Some of your observations (omitting "immediately") were correct, but you'll have to gain consensus for e.g. details of his military service being lead-worthy on talk, given I don't see them that way at all. Remsense 🌈 论 04:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to take it to the talk page. I will, of course, refrain from making further edits unless a consensus is reached in my favor on the George W Bush talk page.

I'm sorry we couldn't see eye to eye on this. I'm still assuming good faith, but please avoid reverting my edits on other articles. Mosi Nuru (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush#Request_for_comment:_Proposed_slate_of_revisions_to_opening_section Mosi Nuru (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Blood vessels and Misinformation

Please inform me about the existence of a bodybuilder with a bodyweight of 140 kilograms with pure muscle mass of 50 kilograms. Because that's what your edit says. Subsequently, please scroll down to November 2024, that is when I initially added the correct factoid to this article. This is our concern. You alone should not get to decide when people realise — "the sooner people realize". 183.83.159.119 (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

Can you explain the basis for this? KylieTastic's note instructed editors to link articles to von Wuthenau.

Whether you agree with it or not, von Wuthenau's argument for such contacts is notable, based upon the sources on his article. There's nothing wrong, let alone egregiously wrong, with including them in the trans-oceanic contact article. He is absolutely a notable scholar in that field, even if he has not been included up to now. If you disagree, please explain. SpaghettiClams (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Why??

Hi! Could you explain why my edit in the 'Three Kingdoms of Korea' article was reverted? It doesn’t appear to be vandalism. Soheil rahimi7 (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Recent Changes Barnstar
		I notice you keep watch across a large number of articles. This is very appreciated! Bogazicili (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits to the World War II article

Hello. Its seems you have reverted my edit in the World War II article where I changed the flagicon of the Kingdom of Italy next to Benito Mussolini in the commanders section. Your message was just "Correct Before". Could you explain a bit further so I can understand why did you reverted me. Thanks PrimeNick (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI...

Re your post to User talk:Wh67890 and their draft "Draft:Magnetic force", I stumbled upon something interesting... The Draft's talk page oddly ends up - through that mangled redirect - at Talk:Lorentz force and Lorentz force is an actual article. - Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

AH and SPI

I had a look at those other two accounts and think you are probably right that they're socking. Have you logged an SPI? I'm mobile until tomorrow so if you have not I can tomorrow. Simonm223 (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Undoing an edit without argumentation

Re: [4].

Please, provide arguments for why the version before my edit is preferable to my version, addressing the arguments I made on the talk page. "Still pretty needless" is not an adequate argument. You wrote: "you ... reiterated what you did". This is not entirely correct: I expanded on my previous comment using the relevant Wikipedia guideline AND added another, Due Weight, argument. If my points are not adequately addressed within a reasonable timeframe, I will restore my version, which better aligns with the guidelines of this project. I also believe I made my arguments rather clear and easy to understand, therefore I am not sure why it was necessary to mention LLMs. --82.32.183.231 (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You made arguments, but the fact remains the results aren't as claimed to my eye. It's fine how it is, and overengineering articles makes them brittle, as it were. There's not much to argue other than "I'm not sure what that actually did." Remsense 🌈 论 00:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I will need to ask you again to address the concrete arguments I made on the talk page. Please, also provide argumentation for why my edit makes the article more "brittle" (mentioning the relevant Wikipedia guidelines). I explained on the talk page what my edit "actually did". It is not fine when a name in a language spoken in a country with a 370-mile long coastline along the body of water the article is about is placed after the name in the languages that are spoken in countries hundreds of miles away from this body of water. Of course, one could also make an argument that there shouldn't be that many translations in the article in the first place (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). --82.32.183.231 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This is the way Wikipedia works. Anyone is welcome to contribute but not all contributions are accepted. Policy WP:ONUS explains that it for the contributor to secure consensus for the change they want to make, using the talk page. If the argument is persuasive and enough fellow editors are persuaded by it (and thus not persuaded by the objection), only then can the contribution go in the article. Trying repeatedly to bully your contribution into an article is counter-productive: the focus will change from the contribution to your behaviour. So don't.

(BTW, you don't have to have an account but it makes it more likely that you will be taken seriously if you do.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not reached by voting or merely undoing an edit without engaging in a meaningful discussion. Yes, the one intruding a new version should argue their position on the talk page if reverted. However, if those wishing to retain the existing version don't address the points made by the editor wishing to make a change on the talk page, the proposed new version becomes the consensus version. Alternatively, through discussion, compromise version can be written. What is against the rules is to undo substantiated good-faith edits with mere "the version before was fine" commentary.

You wrote: "you don't have to have an account but it makes it more likely that you will be taken seriously." The linked Wikipedia article actually doesn't actually say that. All edits should be judged based on their adherence to Wikipedia's policies/guidelines regardless of whether they come from a registered account or an IP address. Arguments in discussions should be evaluated based on their logical soundness and foundation in policy, not on the status of the person making them. It would actually be a case of bullying (the word mentioned in your comment) to do otherwise. --82.32.183.231 (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

But the debate needs to take place on the article talk page, not by edit warring in main space. See also WP:bold, revert, discuss. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

China infobox and Xia

I've tried to remove that multiple times. It just kept coming back like a hydra. CMD (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The conflation of Erlitou with the Xia is probably better supported in Chinese-language sources than I intuit so it's something I don't go out of my way with anymore, but that's laziness on my part. Remsense 🌈 论 02:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

(That is to say, the topic frustrates me too much to go on campaign about, but bless others who are up for it.) Remsense 🌈 论 02:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I have some doubt it's Erlitou rather than just the general mythos. Nice work protecting Talk:Rainbow table, finally, such things get declined to often. Talk:Garena one day. CMD (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Hello! I noticed you reverted my last edit on Bangladesh, where I changed the text to "Proclamation of independence from Pakistan". The article is about Bangladesh as a country; therefore, it doesn't need to mention again that the proclamation was for Bangladesh's independence. I mean, it would have been logical if the proclamation was for an intermediate state of a different name. However, it is logical to mention the country, i.e., Pakistan, from which Bangladesh proclaimed its independence. Am I wrong? Please share what is your opinion in this case. Kind regards — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 13:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Definitely one to take to the article talk page, to seek consensus. FWIW, the US article has "independence from Great Britain". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC) ((talk page watcher))

I have started a discussion here, Bangladesh#Infobox:Establishment. You are invited to make comments to reach a consensus. Regards — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 08:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Reverts on My Edits to the George V Page

Hello, In response to your reverts of my edits on the George V page: I was trying to improve the wording and make it more formal, as it is a page about a member of the royal family. It wasn’t that the original text wasn’t good, but some of it felt a bit too casual for a biography of a royal figure. For example, I changed phrases like “on his father’s death” to “upon his father’s death” to give the wording a slightly more formal and polished tone appropriate for this kind of page. My edits were respectful and accurate, and I believed they were constructive improvements. From my understanding, constructive edits are those that improve clarity, tone, grammar, or style without changing facts or adding personal opinions. I thought my edits fit this description. Thank you.

ItsShandog (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summaries, your edits aren't improvements to my eyes—instead, they're needless lateral changes that seemingly amount to a matter of taste. No article is finished per se, but it's worth pointing out that George V is a featured article, which means it's undergone a fairly deliberate review for copyediting at minimum. It's often more conducive if you articulate why specific changes should be clear improvements in the edit summary, so others can more clearly agree or disagree with your reasoning. That's hardly mandatory, but worth a suggestion if you're concerned about larger chunks of work getting undone. Remsense 🌈 论 15:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, Remsense. I appreciate that the George V page has undergone detailed review as a featured article. I understand now that edits should clearly improve the page rather than reflect personal style preferences. Going forward, I’ll be sure to explain my reasons more clearly in the edit summaries to help others understand the intent behind my changes. Thanks again for the guidance! ItsShandog (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Roman Republic

Roman Republic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —GoldRingChip 21:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Undoing Edit to Empress Theodora

On the page you linked to discussing the advice given for moving pages, it said that if you have no reason to believe it could be remotely controversial to change the page, then be bold and go for it. You for some reason I have no conception of claimed it was egrigious to move it without discussion.

A name that is accurate, beyond doubt in the historical record as to the social rank Theodora once held, and which has utility that the current name lacks seemed to be one that would not have even crossed my mind or the three thousand kilometre radius around my mind as something that should be controversial and so that is why I moved the page on my own initiative. Gingeroscar (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)