User talk:Remsense/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Disruptive reverts of constructive adds

Hi @Remsense, your changes to Portugal have been disruptive per WP:DISRUPT, in that particular case, I added important information that up until that point was misleading the reader, namely the fact that no treaty whatsoever has been reported to have been signed at Zamora in 1143, that does not run afoul of WP:RGW since, even though is not well reported, and is extremely often and erroneously reported that there was a treaty, it's a well established fact that no such thing happened, it's only mentioned that there was a meeting between 4 and 5 of october 1143 at Zamora, and that Afonso I began refering to himself as king on the 5th, that fact lead to the misunderstanding that there was a treaty, which is false. This fact has been already cited in the article, yet you seem to have chosen to ignore it, also, your revert undid other additions that positively contributed to the article, again reinforcing WP:DISRUPT. If there's a new revert on Portugal without any reply by you on this topic, I'm afraid I'll have to make a report on this activityConsuela9890 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You seem likely to deduce that each edit you care to make is well established by virtue of you wanting to make it, and not according to anything our site policies say. Please actually become familiar with said policies so you can stop trying to brute force your way through processes and concepts you have so far chosen not to understand. It is increasingly difficult to assume good faith when you are cavalierly blowing past the obvious directions given on pages like WP:Technical move requests. Remsense ‥ 论 18:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not an assumption made by me, that conclusion was totally uncalled for. All me additions on Portugal were made citing sources, that particular source also quotes bibliography which, in case there's a worry of the nature of it, supports it. Plus, we are talking about historical events, and an important one of that, that makes your case for the use of WP:RGW very difficult to make, because of the amount of bibliography, some of which is cited on that said source, is considerable. I'm here explaining to you the reasons of my changes and I'm absolutly happy to talk about my record here on wiki when it pertains of wheter or not there should be an assumption of good behaviour. Please take care into reading the source I provided to support my modification to Portugal before making any further mislead conclusions.Consuela9890 (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Someone's blog drawing original conclusions synthesized from other sources is original research, no matter whether those sources are themselves reliable. You would know that if you bothered looking at the policy you've been linked at all. Remsense ‥ 论 18:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Very well, so if I cite bibliography on the article instead of the blog will I still have the assurance that you won't reverse those additions? I'm willing to do that if I'm assured about thatConsuela9890 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have an English-language reliable source that uses your preferred terminology, then that lets you start the discussion—you still don't get to cherrypick your preferred language, we're required to to weigh what aspects and terminology are most representative in our sources for each given topic. There are already multiple sources on Treaty of Zamora (not to mention the ones in Spanish and Portuguese) that use that term, so you have to demonstrate that those sources represent a minority position in the literature.. Remsense ‥ 论 18:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved administrator. I'm ready to start blocking when any of you resume your edit warring in live pagespace. You know what I don't see? A vigorous discussion about this disagreement on Talk:Portugal. I see Remsense warning Oos88, but I see no discussion on the merits of this disagreement. That's my recipe for fully protecting the page against anybody editing while you folks finally hash it out in talk. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything to recuse myself save that it should be somewhat evident from their talk so far that they do not engage in talk discussions—they have been flagged down multiple times by multiple editors and have so far refused. I had to throw my hands up and go to WP:RMUM to prevent a move war there, even though I have page mover. It's been completely nervewracking cleaning up after this person. I've already described the situation every way I know how, so if whatever pages are out of sorts in whatever way from now on I guess it's mostly not my fault. Remsense ‥ 论 19:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Very good then, I'll be adding those as soon as I'm available. I hope next time, we can have a discussion like this before we start undoing each other's contributions. Even though I'm certain I'm correct about the substance of Zamora, It was my mistake citing that particular source, a blog is not an acceptable source at all I'm appreciated for the clarification about thatConsuela9890 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The procedure is BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. BOLD, REVERT, REVERT, REVERT, REVERT, GET BLOCKED, is not the preference you guys would like. I've created a talk thread and I'm going around now warning everybody personally. Let's act in concert, not in disharmony. Learning something new via vigorous disagreement is why I log on every day. Please everyone stop the posturing and get to the merits. BusterD (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Japanese war revisionism

It's a true fact that when Abe posed with a plane with numbers 731. It drew angry wide condemnation from China and Korea. I see you constantly remove it in the article by saying people should not mention at all that Chinese and Korean people disliked that notion. That's not against WP:blp to say that his actions drew anger and why. I am willing to go to dispute resolution if you do engage me in talk or edit war with me. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable given I've already been a bit pigeonholed as if I intend on carrying water for Japanese nationalists. I want anything but, so I figure I've said my piece and others can figure it out on talk. Remsense ‥ 论 23:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I probably should have reworded that better. I didn't mean to say you were doing Japanese war revisionism. My topic was on Abe doing historical revisionism on Japanese war crimes and that people were angry at bim. My issue with you is that you made it seem like only one person had issues after you kept removing thay other people besides one Korean politician had issues too. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Rollback of Further reading additions

Please self-revert for the Further reading sections of articles within the area of Serbo-Croatian speakers. Ivan (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a Serbo-Croatian encyclopedia. Even to readers of those articles, the vast majority can't make any use of the resource. Remsense ‥ 论 05:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, what I'm trying to do is add links to resources with which to expand articles, mainly stubs. You could rename "Further reading" to "Bibliography". The only reason I kept them separate is so that I know the resources haven't been used yet. Ivan (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I really do not understand this argument when it gets proffered—I've just made clear that this resource is not useful, and I don't know how I'm meant to instead treat its inclusion as a stepping stone to further improvements. I've definitely made my point, though. Remsense ‥ 论 05:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not objecting to your reverts for the mountain ranges about which a vast literature already exists, but the linked articles are to what is often a rather large topical bibliography within a special edition of a mountaineering periodical. In the case of many of the smaller ranges and/or peaks, having such a bibliography on hand greatly speeds up the process of writing the articles, which I intend to do for the Dinarics and Julian Alps. All you have to do is delete the "Further reading" and alter "Bibliography" from a subheading to a heading if you object, logically enough, to non-English sources in "Further reading". Ivan (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Please Stop. I don't think you intended to revert this. Ivan (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't, apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 05:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Jeffrey Tripp

Hello Remsense! I’m sorry if I am bothering you, but could you explain why you reverted my edit citing Jeffrey Tripp? He is a biblical scholar with the relevant phd from Loyola and a member of SBL, as I noted in my edit summary. The article I posted is even critical of Richard Bauckham, so I do not think he is an apologist.

Thank you Birjeta01 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Question on revert on Speed of Sound Wiki

Hi, I saw you reverted my edits on the Speed of sound Wiki claiming it was generated by a Large language model. I wish to clarify that I did not do that, and a major part of my contributed text was just a revert. That text was written around two decades ago. I nevertheless checked for AI written content on my changes using QuillBot's AI Detector and it reported 0% AI. It would be great if you could tell me why you thought the text was AI generated. Aishik Nath (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Why not a more comprehensive biographical information but a superficial one instead ? Moreover, it used to be like the way I edited it to be. It used to include the titles of field marshal, author, and revolutionary statesman before it's been changed to its current form. All the titles are relevant and serve his persona better. Enigmationn (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There's simply no need to overload the first sentence to the point of awkwardness. Remsense ‥ 论 21:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There's no need to keep it incredibly short either then. Besides, get to the page of Che Guevara for example and you'll see the awkwardness. Enigmationn (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Help needed for a template

Hi, Remsense! I needed your your help at wikt:pa:ਮੌਡਿਊਲ:ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰਡੱਬਾ. I'm unable to find the problem as I'm not a programmer and have no experience at all with Lua. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 10:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Question on your undo edit in Talk:Saint Augustine of Hippo

Why did you attempt to undo 170.55.94.210's topic inTalk:Augustine_of_Hippo#Height? As far as I can see, it served no purpose. Parting Shot^{Talk to me here. • Contributions} 02:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tpj

Template:Tpj has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 Core Contest has begun!

The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Reverted Edit In Conversions related

Hi Man ! Ive made some additions to the para where it said about 'primary' factor of new muslims but not about the conversions which although not an primary factor but has an huge trend in modern world . Ive spoken about it in talk page you can refer it for the sources and claims i have made . Expecting your reply . Thanks ItsTrueNow (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the explanation in the edit summary. Please read WP:LEAD for the long version. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

Oh sorry i'll correct the summary . Thanks for correcting me ! ItsTrueNow (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Just now noticed sir . The previous reversion of edit said about lack of much source so I've edited with more reliable, authentic sources so in the edit summary i have mentioned that 'added context with reliable sources etc etc' . Isn't this summary enough sir ? ItsTrueNow (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

PRODs

Hello, Remsense,

I'm not sure why you are using WP:YOUNGATH as a deletion rationale for subjects who had adult careers playing or coaching in professional sports. YOUNGATH a deletion reason for athletes who primarily played sports in secondary school but not professionally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible

Dear Remsense, Thank you for your interest in this article. You removed two images of an illuminated printed historical bible, (Vetus Testamentum, Brescia 1495) per Article is sufficiently illustrated; we do not need two large images of the same manuscript at the already cluttered top. (diff]) That's right, the top is cluttered indeed, however the remainder of the article is quite barren and can stand some illustration?

• Is it OK if i put the removed images over there, lower on the page?

I thought the photographed bible pages are gorgeous and worthwhile to show here. Thank you, Hansmuller UBL (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

Hi Remsense! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Edward II of England several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Edward II of England, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Warning both sides as I am not entirely sure who is at fault here.. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Preventing schoolchildren from damaging the encyclopedia isn't edit-warring, but thanks—if you actually believe your preferred change to be well-supported, you generally don't need to side with schoolchildren damaging the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

true lol... but IMO the portrait a few people put there looks more like it belongs, so IDK if that was vandalism per se. This needs to be discussed on the talk page I think, but people were not listening so I requested page protection. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 16:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need it, as long as people who would be interested in the discussion wouldn't be boxed out—I just care about shunting these discussions to talk where they belong—obviously I care more about that with you, someone who's working in good faith, rather than letting school IPs waste our time. Remsense ‥ 论 16:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings

The AfD hasn't been open for an hour yet, why would you close it? Schazjmd (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought the tool would give me a box to type in. If you think the SNOW close is inappropriate that's fine and up to you, but this has kneejerk bad faith written all over it. Remsense ‥ 论 13:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

When I saw it, you just closed as keep with no explanation, so it was unclear what you were doing. You've since amended the closure statement, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll be smarter about ensuring it doesn't do that for those onlooking in the future. Remsense ‥ 论 13:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an out of process AfD close. Amending it isn't enough; it needs to be reopened, because neither speedy keep criteria nor SNOW apply. I'll ask DRV for an admin to undo your close. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

SNOW applies plenty, and if your argument is genuinely that I used a tool that made me do it in two edits rather than one, you shouldn't be managing these processes, sorry. In order to avoid further hypocrisy on my part, I won't be throwing more hours into this pit, I hope everyone else who has to get involved knows how little is at stake for their contributions. Remsense ‥ 论 04:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings

I have undone your non-admin closure of this AfD for the reasons described in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 24. Please do not disrupt the deletion process by closing discussions in a manner contrary to procedure, or you may be made subject to blocks or other sanctions. If you want to close AfDs, please make sure that you thoroughly understand applicable procedure and preferably apply for adminship first. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

why did you reverted my edit at mariam yahia ibrahim ishag

why? 2600:480A:4A51:9300:E159:CFC5:9C65:79DD (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

unexplained editorializing

Hello, the note under bust of Mark Antony hints that identification has no reliable basis. However if you don't open the note (which few users do), there is no indication in caption that identification is questionable. What do you think? Askelladd (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

To my eye, traditionally identified suffices here—we wouldn't specify if that identification were equally accepted presently. Remsense ‥ 论 07:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

traditionally identified, in my opinion, implies that chance that the bust depicts him is more than 50%, when in fact chance is less than it, because initially identification was based on fact that all busts from the same era and two of them depict Octavian and Lepidus, which was eventually refuted. Askelladd (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Chinese philology

Hello, Remsense. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chinese philology, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Chinese characters scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 May 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Looking forward! - My story today is about an opera singer born OTD in 1870. I have problems to say something as informative about Mirella Freni, as the DYK nom shows. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The Freni hook was improved while I wrote this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Tout est lumière. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Check out my talk: for a great woman's Johannes-Passion (listen!), our music in detail, and three people who recently died and are on the main page (where she isn't). My call for collaboration has the first "no", and the second - for the Easter Oratorio - seems inevitable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Conflict of edits (solved)

Hi, unfortunately there was a conflict of edits in the article you were editing; could you restore your latest changes without affecting mine? Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I solved it, don't worry;  Done. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My user page

Hi, on my user page I don't know how to make the userbox scrollable (on mobile devices, only the left half is visible), could you please help me? Thank you in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Incidents noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding another editor you have interacted with. The thread is Dustfreeworld's editing of project-space pages. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:POV railroad. — Newslinger talk 16:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Basque langauge

Maybe check the formatting and fix it before just undoing my edit. I didn’t mean to delete it all just the pronunciation part under "Example" section. ArianTe (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how I'm supposed to know that, but thank you for clarifying. Remsense ‥ 论 19:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Stonehenge

I think the picture looks better and shows off the landmark in full, instead of a close up. Sorry for the issues caused, and sorry you had to revert my edit.

Kind regards. Derryanne (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Rem

The mistake you make for hell was the reverts CoolBaljeetFan12 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Constantine XI Palaiologos Religion edit

Hi Remsense, I’m sorry if my edit to Constantine XI’s page seemed disruptive—I didn’t mean to cause issues. I changed the religion to “Eastern Orthodox” because I found no reliable sources supporting “Eastern Catholic, previously Eastern Orthodox.” George Sphrantzes notes Constantine’s last eucharist as “immaculate and divine” (Sphrantzes, G. (1980). The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes 1401-1477, trans. Marios Philippides, p. 141), aligning with Orthodox practice, which resonates with my interest in Orthodox traditions. The 1450 synod under Constantine also elected an anti-unionist Patriarch (Sanidopoulos, J. (2020). “Was Emperor Constantine Palaiologos a Uniate?” Mystagogy Resource Center). I’d like to understand the consensus for “Eastern Catholic.” Can you share the sources behind it? I’m happy to discuss on the article’s Talk page to find a solution. Thanks! Charalambus (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Venus edit war

Hello there Remsense, yes its me. I came here to apologize for what i did to the Venus page and how rude I was. I was under the impression that the famous Mariner 10 photo of Venus was true color, it did not help that the file name said it was true color. IF i had known it was a faulty image, I would've stopped. Sincerely, Informing and Uniting. Informing And Uniting (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I really appreciate it. I know frustration among editors here generally stems from them wanting to help in improving a resource meant for something like the shared heritage of humanity. I know as well as anyone that managing that frustration is non-trivial, and it may be a lifelong process, important as it is. I recognize you're already learning from the experience, so all that matters is you feel able to contribute going forward. Cheers, and happy editing. Remsense ‥ 论 22:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my apology. Feel free to revert any of my other edits if you feel the need to. Informing And Uniting (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hatnote at Joule

I see you have reverted my expansion of the hatnote with the edit summary per the template doc, this is redundant both because 1) Joule is linked prominently in the lead already, and 2) can be found in the disambig.

However neither of these reasons 1) and 2) appear at Template:About/doc. Am I missing something? Or, are you referring to some other page when you say per the template doc? Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I was thinking as well of what WP:HAT says. My bad. Remsense ‥ 论 00:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

That's quite a long guideline... but the term redundant does not appear in it that I can see. Are you applying any clause in particular? Andrewa (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If a disambiguation page exists for a given term, then linking to it should be enough. For example, if the article is X then its hatnote will link to X (disambiguation); it should not have entries for other topics known as X, like X (Grafton novel) or X (charge), because they are already listed in the disambiguation page. However, such an article may be linked if it could be expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question: for instance, Turkey is about the country, but many readers expect to find the article about the bird at that title; therefore, the hatnote there correctly reads

I suppose the question hangs on whether people are looking for Joule or the joule. It's hard to argue that anyone with an SI unit named after them wouldn't be receiving considerable traffic, though...just to be safe, I'll go ahead and put it back. Remsense ‥ 论 00:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton - The (Almost) Hamilton-Monroe Duel

Hello, Remsense. I'm writing this here because I wish to try to get my point across without doing so through an edit war, as that would only harm the article. You keep reverting my attempt to add constructive information to the Reynolds Affair section, which is information that explains how Hamilton and future President James Monroe almost got in a duel over the affair. I do not understand what you mean by: "This seems like minutiae for a generalist biography... encyclopedia articles don't generally need to traffick in the recounting of primary sources". All I see is you reverting my hard work I spent an hour or so trying to word correctly, and refusing to hear me out. I'd like you to explain that in a way that may be easier for me to understand, because I don't want to get into an edit war, but you don't seem to be listening. The information is not only a cool fact for anyone reading the article, but can help provide new information to a reader who otherwise possibly wouldn't have found the information. Please explain. Thanks. Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 17:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"It is cool" and "I worked hard on it" are unfortunately not good arguments for the dueness of material in an article. Space isn't free, and we have the notion of due weight and proportionality to which articles should generally adhere. I have been and continue to hear your arguments (though they should be going on Talk:Alexander Hamilton where others interested in the article can see them) but when distiling our sources into an article, inclusion isn't our default.

The most concrete fact here is the article is already 14,000 words long: Wikipedia:Article size would strongly suggest that if we're cohering the article it should generally be slimming down, not tacking on. The figures given on that page are rules of thumb, but serve as an anchor by which we can begin discussing what is right for each given article, and those who think their case is an exception usually don't have compelling reasons to so think. Remsense ‥ 论 17:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Then can I at least put right before Hamilton then published a 100-page booklet... : "This led to Hamilton and Monroe having an argument that almost culminated in a duel, before the conflict was averted by Aaron Burr."? I still want to add information that the two almost dueled, even if I can't go into too much detail. Ali Beary _(talk!) 14:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas

Good afteroon Remsense, I respect your opinion that "this isn't a worthwhile addition to this article"; but because your opinion does not accord with mine I have added a topic to the article's talk page to seek consensus among other watchers, so letting you know here in case you wish to follow that discussion. Your comment in the edit summary implies that my motivation to add links is "having a list get smaller". This not correct, as no targets are set by WikiProject Orphanage and the reasons for needing to improve cross-article linking are stated at WP:ORP and also referenced in the curation steps for New Pages Patrol. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 12:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the existence of a hyperlink only affects the origin article directly, and not the destination. I see a lot of motivated de-orphaning that effectively forgets that the quality of the origin article is all that actually matters. In aggregate, tunnel-vision or otherwise decontextualized de-orphaning does make the wiki noticeably less cohesive for readers, and that's why I push back on it when I see it. Remsense ‥ 论 13:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

Hi,

Can you please justify the removal of the map in the article about Arvanites? The map shows the extend of the Albanian population in what is today Greece and is very relevant. I would kindly ask to undo your changes. SolderUnion (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

What reliability do we have in the map being accurate of any particular situation? Surely there are newer ethnographic maps of the region at this time that would be suitable? Remsense ‥ 论 23:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Please adhere to neutral point of view. The Albanians could not do any propaganda in 1850. The Greeks could... SolderUnion (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The word "propaganda" didn't even cross my mind. It's entirely a function of its age. Again, there are scant circumstances where we can reasonably cite sources centuries or older at face value. See, e.g., WP:AGEMATTERS. Remsense ‥ 论 23:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't apply here. This is primary source. Don't worry. Everyone in the Balkans has approximately the same blood. We all have a little Albanian, Slavic, Greek, Thracian etc blood... Only religion and language changes... SolderUnion (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

What? I'm saying I don't automatically trust a century-old ethnographic map, and you haven't given me any reason to think otherwise. If you're adding it as an illustration of the period, again, that's a different matter. Remsense ‥ 论 23:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Sack of Constantinople

Can you reinstate the following as it's not controversial.

Alexius IV Angelus, the son of deposed emperor Isaac II Angelos persuaded Boniface of Montferrat and the Venetians to help him reinstate his father and make him co-emperor of the Byzantines by diverting the 4th crusade to Constantinople. As a return he promised to give them 200,000 marks of silver and to submit the Eastern Orthodox Church to Rome. Additionally he promised to pay for the provisions of the expedition and to join the crusade against the Saracens. SolderUnion (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

serial comma lta dossier

@Remsense considering asilvering's request, is that something you'd like to do or should i start putting that together, i dont want anyone to end up doing double work. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Beat ya I think. Remsense ‥ 论 15:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

could you add in the other ip i found as well? id do it myself but dont want to edit anothers message like that. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Question

You removed my request of move. And gave me an article of "historiography" of historians. My title was on the timeline of that event specifically on Europe as the page was it self about western Europe and refered as Dark ages. A$ianeditorz (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that wouldn't make sense either, since if you take a single look at the article you'd know it's not specifically about Europe. Remsense ‥ 论 16:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

But I think mostly it is. Can another article made? Like similar to Parthian Dark Age, Byzantine Dark Ages and Greek? A$ianeditorz (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

That's the geographical division that makes most sense to discuss this period for, given how integrated events are between Europe, North Africa and West Asia. Labeling it as the "Dark Ages" makes no sense, because they weren't at all dark in West Asia

Can another article made?

No, that's called a WP:POVFORK, and we deliberately avoid those. Dark Ages isn't the WP:COMMONNAME for the period in Europe either—it's not even close—so even your cited motivation just isn't the case. Remsense ‥ 论 16:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. I also thought it would be biased. Thanks A$ianeditorz (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

A Different Approach Would Be Appreciated

Hello,

I just saw you went ahead & corrected my edits where I went ahead and added direct links to timezone identifiers for different countries.

You’re response of “how many people do you think would like to see those articles” seemed very abrupt and honestly not very kind or supportive.

I am not doing spam edits, and would appreciate a more professional response should you find other mistakes I make.

I am still learning my way around Wikipedia. I have another account “ThaGreenlander” where I have been editing for 10+ years so I am not brand new.

Thank you, NightExplorer96 NightExplorer96 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please explain on the editor's talk page? They're reverting you and as an admin I can't really do anything without explanations, notes, and warnings. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings and structures

Hello, Remsense,

Please, please leave a redirect when you move an article of a long-standing or older article. You didn't when you moved this article and that created dozens of broken redirects that could have been deleted by an admin or bot. If you are unsure, then check "What links here" before moving a page and if there are lots of redirects pointing to the article then definitely leave a redirect behind. Alternatively, you can manually correct all of these redirects yourself but that can be time-consuming. This is very important especially when you are correcting a bad or undiscussed article move. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I thought I fixed them all from following the original editor and it totally slipped my mind to check elsewhere. Real apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 23:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Tallest buildings and structures

I responded to your comment at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures#Move proposal. But also, can you explain why you reverted my edit at Great Pyramid of Giza, and what you meant by your edit description of "cannot read"? I suspect that you thought my edit misinterpreted the note about the Lincoln Cathedral's height, but I'll give you a chance to explain. - Burner89751654 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Culture of California/styles.css

Template:Culture of California/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Reminder

Just as a reminder: you're at WP:3RR at Buddhism. You beat me with the third one, so no worries about eyes watching that page. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Mazel tov. Since I have you here, given the recent parallel discussion I did actually read Carrier (2014) cover to cover over the past few days. Curious if you ever did and what you thought—my feelings are mixed. Remsense ‥ 论 04:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You read the whole book, in just a couple of days? - astonishing. I never did; I got hooked on the CmT by Earl Doherty, and rwad quite a lot of him; it was fascinating, and awakened a warm interest in Christian origins. But eventually, the 'mainstream' convinced couldn't be correct - too complicated, an historical origin is simply more realistic. And besides, or additionally, I also read Dunn and Hurtado; they're brilliant. For Dunngoes the sayings 'He's forgotten more than I will ever know'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Selective pinging?

At WT:MOSNUM#Consider keeping romanizations in running text confirmation, you didn't ping participants Kusma, DeCausa, Herostratus and Seefooddiet. It's not obvious to me why you'd omit them. If perhaps you thought to only check that those expressing doubts wouldn't object, I'd suggest that the engagement of other editors in resolving the matter and finalising text might be valuable, that they might even have more to say by now, and that they do at least deserve the same courtesy. NebY (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I always feel like I'm annoying people pinging them, so I only pinged those who I saw as having some critique or concern. Bad habit I need to do away with. Remsense ‥ 论 13:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping them myself shortly if you don't. I felt it would look better for you if all the pings came from you, that's all. NebY (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry. I'll do that. Remsense ‥ 论 14:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! NebY (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Removal of under construction template

Hello, Remsense. What was the reason for removing the under construction template specifically for Constitution of Zambia and not for others? I understand that the excessive use of this template in certain scenarios can discourage edits being made (like "claiming" the page). I also understand that the template should be used exclusively for larger contributions. I don't have a lot of editing experience, but I am currently in the process of developing an understanding of how different templates work and I saw the page needed expanding and thus thought the template was needed to show this. Thank you for helping me out as a freshly-born editor. PoliglotoArtificial (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said before, I wouldn't worry about it so much. It's actually more difficult to get in other editors' way than you might realize. Remsense ‥ 论 14:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for helping me PoliglotoArtificial (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Reverting Edits

Dear Remsense, may I ask why you delete entire edits only because you do not agree with the title or because you think it does not improve the quality of the article? I try to improve articles here on Wikipedia and I am convinced you share the same goal. However, I think instead of simply reverting edits, it is nicer to either address the points for improvement on the talk page or make the improvements yourself. Deleting everything is not helping the quality and disrespectful of the work other users put into it (always assuming the edits are not obvious cases of trolling, etc.). Could you explain why you reverted my edit on the article about the Nile? To me it seems like the main reason is because of the title. Well, I think the section mainly discussed/discusses the water sharing dispute directly linked to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and issues closely related to it. Therefore, I decided to change the title after adding a couple sentences, to make it easier to find for other people. However if you disagree with this, I am happy to discuss any alternative title. Jas24A (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I would understand this if you were making additions on the margins, but you've basically rewritten the entire section, seemingly with an intent to change its POV to one more exclusively focused on conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia. That's why I'm asking you to post on Talk:Nile, so disagreements you may have about what the section is actually about can be sorted. Remsense ‥ 论 14:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The section already was about the conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia and their respective allies in the region. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is just the most prominent and most relevant case where this dispute plays out. Therefore, I think I did not change the POV of the section but just made it more tangible and detailed.

Anyhow, I will post on Talk:Nile to discuss the changes. If you have any suggestions (alternative title, structure, etc.), feel free to engage there. Jas24A (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib

Hello, you have deleted all my contributions in Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib. Could you please explain why? Peoplic (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

For the same reasons explicitly given for your additions to other articles: you have largely repeated information already in the article, and cited your additions with a source from the 17th century, which is totally unacceptable. You've unfortunately spent a lot of time trying to cite it on every article possible. Remsense ‥ 论 10:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

huh what did you do 2600:480A:4A51:9300:2681:3AB3:C30B:F7A6 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

When not to unpipe

Please don't use the Unpipe script in navigational templates. See WP:DOFIXIT. Nardog (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you—I think I did come across this recently, so I apologize if I did this even more recently. Remsense ‥ 论 12:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Question about Reverted Edit

Heya, I saw the revert that you did on my edit, and I had a question.

First though, I recognize that:
1: "Violate" was probably the wrong word to use in my edit summary, instead I should have used something such as "because of" or similar.
2: WP:Weasel was the wrong WP: that was referenced in the edit summary; I was thinking of WP:Alleged.

In WP:Alleged, it says that So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. So, wouldn't the edit have been "correct" despite the incorrect edit summary?
Thanks in advance. 98.181.115.166 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, Remsense,

I know you as an experienced editor. But as an experienced editor, one who is knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works, after reading over that RFC at Talk:Femosphere and the ANI discussion, it seems obvious to me that you were enjoying poking the bear, and by that I meant, Daft Elephant. They obviously were not handling the situation very well, in a number of ways including OWN but I think you were saying intentionally provocative statements to them to put them in their place. All newbies have a learning curve, sometimes it is a steep one, but I think once Daft Elephant had learned the ways that collaborative editing works, they had the potential to be a good contributor here. I'd just like to ask that if you come across another new editor, well-intentioned but on the verge of a frustration breakdown, please think twice about pushing them over the edge to where they self-implode and find themselves blocked. I'm actually surprised that their actions ended up in an indefinite block and even though I think they are 80% responsible for that by their actions and responses and 10% to an admin who didn't want to put up with any nonsense, 10% was due to you lighting a fuse that caused them to blow up.

Like I said, you are very experienced and knowledgeable, you have nothing to prove. Now, you can use that insight to help new editors or shut them down by pointing out their ignorance and mistakes and I hope you start choosing to use your talents to build up editors who are imperfect but trying to learn. I hope this message comes across well because I really think you can be a force for good instead of mistaking beginners for vandals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

why did you reverted my edit at mariam yahia ibrahim ishag

why? please explain im trying to be neutral though 2600:480A:4A51:9300:7512:BF07:288B:B181 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:History of China/styles.css

Template:History of China/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Why were Virus Updates Reverted?

Hi- I noticed that you reverted my edits to the virus page almost immediately (within 7 seconds) after I posted them. This is not enough time for you to have reviewed the versions to determine whether my revisions were an improvement to the existing text. Can you please provide me more context as to why you have reverted them? I feel that my updates provide a clearer and up to date explanation about the latest in Viral Evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virus&action=history

I am more than happy to take any constructive feedback, but would like to post my updates as I believe they provide a better explanation of the topic.

Thanks! Nataliemgreen (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Chief executive officer

An article that you have been involved in editing—Chief executive officer—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Legend of 14 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Mass Edit Reversion Campaigns

Your actions give the appearance of being engaged in odd revert campaigns from your mobile phone, instigating edit warring, and includes not giving intelligible and clear explanations for this behavior. This looks to be in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. Please read WP:REVERTRARELY and WP:REV. Each reversion should have a reasonable explanation, nor should it have the appearance of unfair bias.

Please respect other editors. Reversion is not to be used because someone feels like it, just because they don't like something, or as a form of unfair targeting.Wukuendo (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Odd reversion campaign or response to odd addition campaigns is a fairly clear matter of perspective. Like I already told you in edit summary, I see no reason for mention of this little-known language in every possible location where it possibly relevant. It's not WP:DUE, or at least you've made no attempt to demonstrate that it is (i.e. that its mention is of any real relevance to readers, and doesn't amount to advertising.)

(I don't care about that essay, I care about actual site policy. If I wasn't meant to use the revert option, it wouldn't be there, and I'm not required to have the same feelings about being reverted that you do.) Remsense ‥ 论 14:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Your behavior is violating the spirit of Wikipedia: (1) Nearly all of your reversions were without explanation. This is in the record. (2) "I don't care about..." What you personally like or don't like, is not actionable policy of Wikipedia. You are not "Wikipedia's boss or owner" nor are you in the role of an administrator. (3) Disagreements on article details or policy are to be discussed on talk pages with other editors. Preferably, before actions are taken or as the result of consensus. You have ignored doing this, and instead have instigated an edit war, which is on public record. (4) Making accusations against an editor or language, has to be proven, otherwise we can say such things for any language or any page.

Your actions are a violation of the policy on neutrality. Read the article (WP:NPOV) again. "Avoid stating opinions as facts". "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints." Other languages are allowed to be represented. Other editors are allowed to make contributions. If you state the purpose of your massive reversion campaign was because of your opinion about something being "little known", than your actions should be against all such languages. All "lesser known" languages should have been removed, along with an explanation or comment on talk as to why that's so. Your actions look very much like specific targeting, which can be proven.

Lastly, do not violate WP:3RR. You are being repeatedly asked to be reasonable, provide explanations, show specific policy, and get consensus from other editors.Wukuendo (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I gave you an explanation, whether you go out of your way to ignore it or not. If you have questions about how WP:NPOV applies let me know, but don't pretend I didn't give you a reason based in site policy. Primary sources, which are all you've cited, do not demonstrate WP:DUEness of something's inclusion. Stop wasting my time and address the actual concern of why this language mention is relevant for readers, as demonstrated in secondary or tertiary sources about each of these concepts. Otherwise, all you're doing is advertising obscurities and uselessly cluttering up many articles. I don't have to treat that behavior like it's constructive, because it drowns us. Remsense ‥ 论 14:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to but in on someone else's talk page, but I had been considering reverting these edits myself. Wukuendo, the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion of this material. Remsense's edits are standard process here (see WP:BRD), and they are obviously not in violation of any policy. I concur that adding all these references to a language with such a tiny usage share (around 0.19%) is WP:UNDUE. MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

No explanation was given for nearly all of your initial reverts. That's on public record.

Editors are allowed to boldly edit. The onus is on the person reverting the edit and give explanations.

Being neutral, would mean that all so-called "lesser known" languages would have been removed, but no such actions were taken. That can be seen on nearly all articles affected by this behavior. You have given no proof that the languages removed were "lesser" than various others you allow to remain, outside of your opinion.

Doubling down on personal opinion, is not neutrality. We are all equal.Wukuendo (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to also butt in on this talk, but Wujuendo, you got it backwards. You said, "The onus is on the person reverting the edit and give explanations" but WP:ONUS says, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Masterhatch (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

My changes to the articles came with references and explanations. Reverts were initially made without explanation. Then additional reverts were made with an opinion of "little known", without proof, references, and in violation of the policies about neutrality (WP:NPOV). "Opinions are not fact". Objective proof is something like programming language rankings. I'm interested in doing what is fair and ethically correct. Trying to force other editors to capitulate to such bias, is not neutrality or being reasonable.

"We consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" (WP:WEIGHT). GitHub rankings and TIOBE are valid third party neutral sources. Furthermore, the reversions are contesting inclusion of a specific language, reflecting personal opinion and "I don't like", while other languages have no references nor proof of the assertion being made that they are more popular.

None of the articles in question had this special new criteria of needing to be more popular than others listed, in addition to their notability, which looks to be a diversion away from the issue of trying to force personal opinion as policy.Wukuendo (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not the right place to justify the inclusion of V and/or Pony in those various articles. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Significance of V (Vlang) and Pony. NebY (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on the last edit at Decimal separator (indicating they aren't backing down from warnings of this misbehavior), I've blocked them completely for 72 hours. I considered a partial block (from pagespace), but given Wukuendo's current inability to understand BRD, CONSENSUS, ONUS or WEIGHT, I thought it safer to just end involvement altogether at this time. Given Wukuendo's eventual block expiration I'd appreciate editors taking the time to make the case at the link NebY has added above. BusterD (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review timeline

Just a quick question. You picked up my article for GA review a couple days ago now, but haven't begun reviewing dispite being fairly active on Wikipedia? (Edit: Woah! Over 1000 edits so far.) By all means, there's no rush, and I have no issue waiting—I'm just confused is all. Is there a reason you're waiting? If so, when are you planning to start? I'm gonna try to keep my schedule clear. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Remsemse? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Was just tabbing to it, my bad! Remsense ‥ 论 16:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, take your time. I'm in no rush. Just wondering what's going on. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, all right then, keep your secrets. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, if it's possible, could you give me an idea of when you're wanting to start? I'm free for the next few days... and after next week, I might not be free until May. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for this—was planning on getting the bulk done today. Thanks for letting me know. Remsense ‥ 论 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Farkle Griffen I am beyond sorry about my disappearance—I had a family emergency and wasn't able to edit. Are you okay with me resuming the bulk of the work now and possibly wrapping up after you're able to address any concerns I bring up? Remsense ‥ 论 00:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense I understand, and I hope everything is okay! That's alright with me, but I might not be able to make any large edits until May, if you're okay waiting a bit. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense To be clear, I'm okay with you resuming now. The "if you're okay waiting a bit" was specifically about large edits. Sorry if that was confusing. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, my schedule cleared up a bit early. I'm available whenever you are. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, It's been a few days since you last edited the article. Is there anything I can help with? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Farkle Griffin, this will be done by Monday. I've been sick and again should've communicated this to you. All I have left is the spot check for sources, and I have real perfectionist issues where I have truly inconvenienced you because I really want to do reviews right and get in my own way. Remsense ‥ 论 16:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, I hope you feel better soon! Though please don't feel bad. Waiting isn't something I care about, and I appreciate a good perfectionist. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, just checking in. Still planning to get it done today? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Decorative?

In the Communism article my edits were reverted and you cited that it's purely decorative but when I look at articles of Nazism and Fascism there are clearly visible images of the ideologies leadership, on that basis is it appropriate for me to add a picture of Karl Marx in the Communism article as he is the founder of the ideology?. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't put those images in those articles either—that someone put content in some other article doesn't mean it's a good idea or one that adheres to site guidelines, either there or elsewhere. Like I said, it seems purely decorative, and guidelines are pretty clear that images should ideally have pertinence and clear value for illustrating aspects of the article subject. By talk page, I meant Talk:Communism and Talk:Democracy so others who care to weigh in regarding the article can see and do so. Remsense ‥ 论 10:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Remsense. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 06:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Citation styles in Book of Revelation

I've been trying to get a discussion going in the talk page of the article Book of Revelation about choosing the citation style. I don't know where you stand on the issue, but I would like to get your input since you are one of the more experienced editors on Wikipedia and you edited the article recently. 66.215.184.32 (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Why did you revert an edit made by SoojinHD219134star at the article List of potentially habitable exoplanets? You undid that of a registered user WITHOUT giving any explanation in the edit summary. Unsource? Redundancy? Undue? Masqueraded vandalism? No reasons were given.2402:800:62C2:9575:4D3:DD62:894A:46AC (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It wouldn't be vandalism, but I would assume that it being unsourced led to one of the reasons of why, its always good to cite things and follow Wikipedia's WP:MOS (and policy) to prevent deletions. Anything not properly sourced may be challenged. I cant speak for them but that's what I think.

Not everything that isn't cited would be deleted though. JamesEMonroe (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I started a community consensus at the KJV talk page

I think the .txt file, if it could be archived, would be great as an alternative download with only 4.08 MB of space, I don't know, I just wanted to make a contribution. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you posted a reply at the KJV talk page, I will talk with you there. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Prolific Nyam Nyam Tiger vandal

FYI, that same user Special:Contributions/Nyam Nyam Tiger who just indiscriminately trashed a number of the articles on Chinese characters is also making constant section blanking and indiscriminate deletion edits from this IPv6 block: Special:Contributions/2603:8000:e800:5f4e::/64

Same pattern of removing entire paragraphs or sections based on a couple existing CN tags (which were often intended to apply only to a sentence or two), and as you mentioned before, a bot could do that kind of mass editing, but such a bot isn't wanted here or it would have been deployed by now. And I really don't think Wikipedia should be taking advice on how to rip apart articles from someone whose main productive contributions here seem to all be in (*checks notes and contibutions pages*) articles about children's TV cartoons. 71.2.163.69 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I was just typing up another ANI post when they got hit with a 31-hour block from SFR. I'll go and file it in the likely event they reappear. Remsense ‥ 论 14:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced content

I see that you and another user have reverted my contributions that are mainly about removing unsourced content. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what I’m doing. Obviously Wikipedia recommends that we cite our content for authenticity. If a content gets tagged with "citation need", then the content’s authenticity is in doubt. I do agree that tagged content should be given a chance to be cited, but some of them remain that way into perpetuity which would necessitate removal. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me be as clear as possible. No, "citation needed" merely means just that: that a citation is needed, so that readers know where they can learn more. If someone actually has particular doubts about the correctness of content, they'd tag it instead with {{dubious}} or {{disputed}}—or more likely, they would simply remove it on the spot.

If you insist on these misinterpretations of how Wikipedia works going forward, the resulting disruption you cause will certainly result in additional blocks, and probably an indefinite block sooner rather than later. Remsense ‥ 论 15:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I will note that uncited material, whether or not it is tagged, is always open to removal. There are some exceptions there - for instance if it's lede text where the citation exists in the body - but it's not policy uncompliant to remove uncited text and if it is restored then it should be restored with a citation. Or with an explanation of why the citation is not required.

However it's also not a requirement to remove it and an editor who believes citations exist will often put a CN tag on it specifically to remind editors to look for a possible citation. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's acceptable for an editor to get a bee in their bonnet and decide themselves that uncited content is no longer permitted on Wikipedia. Again, the difference is whether an editor actually uses any discernment, as you'd happily agree meatbotting isn't ever acceptable conduct, and this is essentially a case of that. This isn't really relevant when looking at individual cases, but it's likely to be totally clear when observing greater patterns of behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 15:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you're saying looking over the associated edit history. It's one thing to do a thorough read of an article, note stale CN tags and determine whether they are, in fact, unsupported by sources. It's another thing altogether to do what looks likely bot-assisted filter-searches on the tags and then randomly deleting the material. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi

My Edit on Larry Bird was Reverted and was tagged as vandalism, wanted to know why. Destinyokhiria (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Because I was totally careless and mixed up your edit with the one you reverted. Sorry! Remsense ‥ 论 00:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, No Problem 😊 Destinyokhiria (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know so I could fix my mistake. Remsense ‥ 论 00:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

😊 Destinyokhiria (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

May music

story · music · places

check my talk today for two pics of Margot Friedländer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

musings on 15 May --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you today for Chinese characters, "about a writing system (really, a set of systems) used continuously in some form for over three millennia, facilitating some of the most ramified literary culture and communications technologies in human history. While all writing we know of has its origins in symbols that represent units of meaning instead of units of sound, Chinese characters are the only such symbols that are still used; all other systems have been replaced with fundamentally phonetic writing. To those used to the latter, they represent evidence of how differently writing can function."! - Amazing!! Enjoy TFA day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

the stats were above average! - reasons to look at Bach (and listen): it's a recent GA (not by me), he assumed the position of Thomaskantor OTD in 1723, he's up for PR, and several of his cantatas for GA, and his Easter Oratorio for FAC --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

reverted edit on sparta

Dear Remsense, I saw you reverted my spelling edit on the page of Sparta. Could you help let me know the reason for the revert? Im a pretty new editor and im hoping to improve my edit quality. kind regards! SarahSmithLay (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

There weren't any spelling corrections in your edit. I also linked you to an essay explaining why use of would should be limited in most circumstxances. Remsense ‥ 论 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Evolution

[1] sorry but what is "dogmating"? And am I wrong in trying to adhere to WP:SD40? it's lio! | talk | work 12:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh goodness that was a bad typo on my part, I meant to write "dogmatic", my apologies.

Remsense ‥ 论 12:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As for your second question, the consensus for SD40 is actually pretty weak, if you look at the corresponding talk page you'll find a lot of exasperation and friction caused by editors (including past me) variously losing sight of the basic purpose of short descriptions in favor of making them strictly adhere to criteria of form or length. A short SD that doesn't aid readers trying to navigate to the article they want is categorically worse than a long one that does. Remsense ‥ 论 12:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense: got it, I've always believed that SD40 was based on the truncation of long short descriptions due to technical restrictions. it's lio! | talk | work 05:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh and this as well - I wouldn't call an excerpt from the lede "totally useless". What about just removing "mechanism of evolution" since it's not in the first sentence? it's lio! | talk | work 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No reply so I've gone ahead with this. it's lio! | talk | work 05:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

[Talk page stalker]: Hm, not at all sure that's a good idea, as it's core to the concept. Will revisit the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap A lot of things can be "core to the concept" - what matters is the most essential part of the description, which should logically be at the very front of the lede. I'm not going to push it though, feel free to revert. Have a great day, it's lio! | talk | work 09:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but in this case evolution-by-natural-selection is definitely the core concept, and in Darwin's thought up to 1859 the two parts can barely be separated; clearly, with sexual selection and drift, other mechanisms can now be visualised and the individual moving parts can more clearly be distinguished. For a short summary, the initial Siamese-twins pair need to be presented as one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Etymology of biology

Hi. You reverted the whole section. Why? First, let me say that many, many similar articles include an etymology section: examples Sociology#Etymology, Philosophy#Etymology, Astronomy#Etymology, among so many. Second, in this case it's valuable, because it is a widespread misconception (mentioned in thousand of books and websites) that Lamarck coined the term, even though it was coined two years prior. Wikipedia is a great way to set the record straight --Jbaranao (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Many articles have a top-level Etymology section that don't need one. It should be a brief parenthetical statement at most. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Remsense ‥ 论 21:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. If an etymology is section is needed (if, say, there's some usual story to a term's history) then it should usually be the article's last section. Starting the article with an etymology is like saying to the reader, "You may as well stop reading now. This article is full of useless junk you don't care about." EEng 23:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not what I see all around, but ok, I will add it at the bottom --Jbaranao (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

But please note, I said it belongs at the bottom (or, at least, not at the top except in unusually situations) -- if it belongs at all. There has to be some special reason that the etymology somehow helps the reader understand the topic itself. EEng 20:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The /32 you reported at AIV

They have announced themself as PVR in the past few days, which is probably why they're following you around. You can see a few other user talk pages he's been hanging out on (me, it's me, I'm the one), and maybe why Sir Sputnik blocked user talk space edits. Izno (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear! Thank you—I wouldn't've suspected I had done enough to end up in their crosshairs, but here we are. Remsense ‥ 论 03:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

To answer the question from your AIV post, limiting the range block to just the user talk pages was not a mistake. I was specifically going after PVR's WP:PROXYING attempts. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I figured! Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 23:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)