User talk:Remsense

Page mover granted

Hello, Remsense. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

May music

story · music · places

Congratulations! - On the bicentenary of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, I remember our recent uplifting choral concert in pictures, on my user page and in my concerts (leading to the two at the church's article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me for the pure tangent inspired by perusing your music pages: it's never occurred to me before to ask what the history is, if any, surrounding the embracing of Bach's music by Catholic Europe. Of course he was born after the wars of religion had ended and it would be a while before his work was universally acclaimed, but surely there's some very interesting ecumenical history given the very distinct Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist musical contexts. Remsense诉 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about history, but believe that Bach - having been called the fifth Evangelists - is far more "catholic" in the word's original meaning than any group/denomination, and music a more universal and more emotional language than words. I am Protestant and sing in that Catholic church choir since their St Matthew Passion, and if you follow the concert history there was a first ecumenical project in 2000 - with Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Today is the Feast of the Ascension for which Bach composed his oratorio, - perhaps watch a bit how the closing movement was performed in Bach's church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Magdalena Hinterdobler is on the Main page today, together with an opera that reviewers deemed not interesting and too obscure for our general readers. The soprano thought differently, - listen and see. - Also on the Main page: a TFA by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

did you listen and see? - today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Were there particularly lovely insights in Hinterdobler and Holender's conversation? Youtube's auto-translating subtitles didn't help me much in this case.
2. I love Hedi Skoop's Ruhe sculpture.
3. I still feel I haven't quite lived my original introduction down. You're too kind to feel that way, but suffice it to say I've actively attempted to learn from my missteps. :)

Remsense诉 15:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The insights were less important to me than being able to meet the personalities a bit. You may have seen that the Holender DYK nom was - after already in prep to appear - rejected and discussed, and I wasn't too kind but stubbornly refused several offers of alternatives. The Hinterdobler nom went fine, and there was even interest for the opera while on the Main page, but now she is up for deletion. I should be thankful because that really raised interest ;) - My English isn't up to a phrase such as "live an intention down" - could you say that differently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me to rephrase, I have a bad habit of writing unclearly when I don't need to. What I mean to say is: I'm still embarrassed about my previous behavior a bit, but in a way I'm glad I was so foolish, because it resulted in me getting to know you better. Thank you for your grace in that. :) Remsense诉 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

that sounds lovely! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I heard lovely chamber music today, and the DYK mentions "profoundly human" singing (that you can watch), connected to a place where we'll sing in September --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving articles in May! - Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations to another GA! - Do you think Ethel Smyth has GA potential? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and certainly! I feel like I learn things everyone should know every time I read about suffragettes. Remsense诉 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll look into it, - so far my contribution to the article - written by many, mostly Sfjohna - was adding the infobox ;) - without any trouble, - for some reason I don't know the opposition seems to focus on men of FA caliber, - compare Clara Schumann and Imogen Holst. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

As if to demonstrate, today we look at Gustav Holst. Can we agree that the 2016 discussion (still on the talk!) was perhaps not the best use of everybody's time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

29 May 1913: The Rite of Spring - today's story, actually something I saw at that place in a revival. - 100 years after the almost-riot we had the infobox discussion, often mentioned in the arbcase? - Today a user who returned after several years said that nothing changed. Would you agree? I wouldn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

last offer in May: photos of the river Rhine, and the adjacent Eltville rose garden, - high water and interesting weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chinese characters

The article Chinese characters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chinese characters for comments about the article, and Talk:Chinese characters/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• If you do nominate for FA at some point in the future, one issue that I have not addressed at all (and that might come up) is the connection/overlap between this article and Written Chinese. —Kusma (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, you deserve an award:

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Chinese characters (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! —Kusma (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've said it more than enough, but one more time: I literally could not have asked for a better GAN reviewer, and I learned way more in the process than I even expected with your help. The article is really something I can be proud of in part thanks to you. Since I've looked at it far too much since October, I figure a FAC can start happening after I can look at it with fresh eyes. Remsense诉 10:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! Thank you for your hard work. Go take a break. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a great achievement btw, congratulations and thank you! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! That really means a lot. There's a bit more I want to buff out, but it means a lot to hear others have been enriched by it. Remsense诉 03:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Article description deleted by you

I recently added a short description to the article Philosophy of Mathematics and it was reverted by you as you deemed it unimportant or just repeating the title. I am a fairly new editor and you're probably more experienced than me, but I believe there is no issue with it as similar articles like Philosophy of science and Philosophy of language both have descriptions, so I added it so that it will be in line with the rest. Also, I did not just repeat the title in my description, but I added a short description of it. In the end, you are probably more experienced and I'm not asking for it to be added back if it does in fact break the rules. Thank you

~~~~ JustaNormalLad (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Those articles shouldn't have short descriptions either. As a rule of thumb, when there's no way to describe the topic without merely repeating or rephrasing the title, there shouldn't be a short description. Remsense诉 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Basic Hanja for Educational Use

Hi, Remsense, I saw that you reverted my edit to Basic Hanja for Educational Use. To me it did not seem unreasonable that an article about the Basic Hanja for Educational Use would simply list them for reference, just as the Mandarin and Japanese versions of the article do; your thoughts, and do you feel it is likewise inappropriate for those versions to list the characters as well? Thanks, Arrandale Westmere (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! It might be worth taking a look at WP:NOTMIRROR as well. Basically, save for specific cases we are writing encyclopedia articles, which simply are not designed to contain mirrors of primary sources. It's generally considered best to put the table on Wikisource or Wikiversity. Then, you can link to it in a convenient little sidebar box using a template like {{Wikisource}}. If you need help doing any of this, please let me know! Cheers, happy editing Remsense诉 18:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the source of E=mc^2

Dear Remsense,

It currently says in the Samuel Tolver Preston article that Dr. Preston discovered the relationship between energy and matter before Albert Einstein was even born. It currently says this in the wiki article.

I challenge you to use reliable sources to post in the Samuel Tolver Preston article that would accredit Einstein to this discovery.

Otherwise just jump on the bandwagon of idiots that do not contemplate real scientific inquiry, discovery and critique.

Sincerely,

K00L-A1D

K00la1dx (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) comment: Preston's conjecture was unproven and unprovable, because its foundation premise – the existence of an "ether" (or "aether") – is fundamentally wrong, it doesn't exist. For the long explanation, see Aether theories. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Preston came out with Physics of the Ether 5 years before Einstien was born. It is all there E=Mc^2 derived from relativity and general relativity. There are several credible sources that site this including Dr Preston's own book. Physics of Ether again written 5 years before the birth of Einstein. Maxwells equations also assume the ether and he was not written out of history... K00la1dx (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Thank you for the Chinese characters! - Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

All wonderful! Thank you Gerda. :) Remsense诉 17:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Today's story is about an extraordinary biography, Peter Demetz. - I uploaded a few more pics but leave the link, because there's a new one of Graham and his mother who liked it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a tune used by Bach and Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Today I wanted to write a happy song story, on a friend's birthday, but instead we have the word of thunder on top of it, which would have been better on 2 June, this year's first Sunday after Trinity. The new lilypond - thanks to DanCherek - is quite impressive. As my 2 Jun story said: Bach was fired up. - Today's Main page is rich in music, also Franz Liszt and a conductor. Compare Liszt and Schumann: which difference do you see in the infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Your DYK about Chinese characters is brilliant! I hope I'll get to the PR. Would you have time for Schumann? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving article quality in June! - Today we have a centenarian story (documentation about it by Percy Adlon) and an article that had two sentences yesterday and was up for deletion, and needs a few more citations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Qing" era people in infobox

Hello hello, sorry to bother yet again. I was wondering of just how to refer to people born or died in the Qing dynasty to be referred to in the infoboxes.
I personally prefer "Qing China" as the term, and have used such in some articles. However seeing the discussion you had on Chiang Kai-Shek made me realise it probably wasn't best.
However, I do feel "Qing Dynasty", though appropriate, could be improved upon. So I am asking an experienced and skilled editor like yourself what you think of titling such locations in infoboxes as just Qing. Like how it isn't "United States" but U.S. in infoboxes.
Again, sorry for bothering. This is the third time isn't it. Zinderboff(talk) 17:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't like how U.S. is used in infoboxes, but that's a fait accompli. I do think "Qing dynasty" is ultimately the best option we have that's maximally consistent with non-Chinese biographies, but in many cases when an individual lived their entire life during one dynasty, I do think it's permissible to omit it. It's very silly when biographies of Han emperors feel the need to list that they were born and then died within the Han state. Shocker, that. Remsense诉 17:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning the dynasty might seem obvious in some cases. However, considering that most readers only skim articles, it can still be helpful to include the dynasty/empire/state for clarity.

That being said the birth places in Chinese biographies are frankly all over the place, not helped in the slightest by the PRC-ROC division. Even China FAs have no consistency when it comes to birth places ('China' for Li Rui, 'Qing Dynasty' for Luo Yixiu, 'Song Empire' for Shen Kuo, or just nothing at all for Shunzhi Emperor). As a reader it is honestly quite annoying.

What do you think can be done to improve the mess what is the birthplaces for Chinese biographies? Zinderboff(talk) 18:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no consistency, which I don't think is the primary problem. Each article should serve its own needs first and foremost. Sometimes there's a compelling reason, but I don't think there are many possible cases for exception from best common practice here.

The thing to do in my view is try to improve biographies in general, and treat them with care. Infoboxes are theoretically meant to summarize the contents of an article. They're important to readers, but have to be treated as a derivative by editors. Ultimately, the issue that infoboxes are inconsistent just reflects how much work there is to do on Chinese biographies et al. on the whole. I think it's difficult to motivate the body of active editors working on China-related articles to worry about finer points of detail when outstanding problems with vital articles are much larger; I understand your frustration but I also understand why others choose to focus on other things. Remsense诉 18:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am planning to make three more articles of Chinese biographies later, I know I'm not the best at writing long works and thus often focus a bit too much on small details such as this. Thanks for the advice! Hope your day is going fantastic. Zinderboff(talk) 18:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You as well! I'm flattered by the thought to ask—I have pretty particular opinions but I think it's important to have particular opinions even if they change a lot! Remsense诉 19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Universe

Hello sir or ma’am, I want to ask what exactly was it about my phrasing that you disagree with. The description seemed fair enough regarding the subject matter, and it didn’t seem repetitive either. Firekong1 (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary: Some physicists have suggested there may be other universes beyond our own, known as the multiverse hypotheses does not scan, as the implication is that the suggested universes are themselves what are referred to as multiverse hypotheses. Also, ultimately to my eye your version communicates the same information with an additional clause—adding redundant material, which is generally the opposite of what we want to do. Remsense诉 02:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, can find a way to better phrase it in stating the multiverse theory in a better way? Firekong1 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the passage is pretty clear and elegant the way it is, but if I may assume: I can understand why it might be a particularly unclear one for a non-native speaker. I spent some time trying to rewrite it so that it begins with Is Some physicists have hypothesized a multiverse because I think that may be more clear, but I haven't been able to write it to my satisfaction. Remsense诉 00:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I’m a native English speaker, it’s my first language. I just feel the wording could be redone better. Firekong1 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, completely vacant assumption on my part, sorry. In that case, I think you should discuss it on the talk page, as I really do think the sentence is fine. Remsense诉 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I shall bring it up on there. Thank you kindly for sorting out this misunderstanding. Firekong1 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Here be dragons

I noticed you combined the angle-bracket and char markup. You probably weren't aware that the need for {{char}} was challenged, what does it do that {{angbr}} doesn't or shouldn't do already. (The successful defence was that, when you want to isolate a glyph for inspection, the markup must not confuse the issue.) See Template talk:Char/Archives/1#Nomination for deletion of Template:Char. IMO, you need to choose one or the other according to context: using both is unwise. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much, I wasn't aware at all. Can I say I don't quite understand the specific argument, after reading the deletion discussion? Is it that no-op is ideal for glyphs, or that angle brackets should be used for both glyphs and graphemes—I cannot see this—or something else? Remsense诉 18:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: this isn't an innovation, I only thought this notation was worth adding because I have seen it used in graphemics publications. That doesn't mean we should use it, but I want to assure you at least that it's not up to me. It seems possible we should only have {{char}} or {{gph}}, but it also seems possible we use the former in general contexts and the latter in more involved graphemics discussions. Remsense诉 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I am probably unduly sensitive because it was the context for my only ever block, a completely thoughtless NPA violation.

Anyway... The no-op is an irrelevant side-show: as part of their backlash against it, the main antagonist to the very existence of {{char}} changed its effect first to angle-brackets and then to "no effect", all rather disruptive; it was never a credible end-state. Another proposal was that {{code}} is an existing alternative, but rejected because it does everything in mono (compare © v. ©, @ v. @, and of course you can wrap {{char}} in a {{serif}} if need be, such as for apostrophes).

To cut a long story short, the char template avoided the TfD challenge on the understanding that it would only be used for tiny glyphs like ` and exceptions like <. Since then, of course, people have found it useful for other things so the compromise restriction seems to have fallen by the wayside. But I'd rather not risk opening that bag of rattlesnakes again. So if you do decide to use both, best be prepared to defend the decision. Probably no-one but me will ever notice . --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The context is very much appreciated in any case! I think in situations like {{Infobox grapheme}} the vertical lines would be absolutely undue clutter and {{char}} is far more appropriate, for one thing. Remsense诉 19:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unicase

Template:Unicase has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Whose

Did you mean to remove my edit?[1][2] all material verifiability is, doesn't seem to make sense without adding 'whose'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't at all, my fault for not checking thoroughly. Remsense诉 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to make sure I hadn't muffed something up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Explain why it is hyperlinking

Explain why it is overlinking in simple terms. I would like to compare your reasoning to the many links within the article to make sure they follow the same rule. If not, I suggest you implement the same rule for the rest of the linked words in the article and revise it completely. Otherwise, you can't just pick and choose what definition you wish to use on a case by case basis. Docholliday11 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I have. Remsense诉 14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Docholliday11:, [(talk page stalker) comment] The rule is explained at WP:OVERLINK. If the article has other violations, the correct response is to clean them out. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just checking

Re: this. The university name was not needed but was "|p=Jiǔ Jiāng" clutter? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a tricky balance, but I find it to be the best compromise among several slightly unclear options. I find it hard to justify repeating the diacritical pinyin after the undiacritical pinyin characters are already provided in most cases. Doing so would seem to add information most readers will not use—though I think characters are still required in any case—and those that would use the additional information it can likely derive it from the characters either from reading or from checking in a dictionary.

I do have opinions about these things that are particular to me, so I'm happy to have them questioned so that others can decide whether they agree. I know you are supervising many student editors, so I apologize if I've ever come off as WP:BITEy, I appreciate their work and yours. Remsense诉 04:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think I agree with this removal, at least from the standpoint of common practice. Usually the tone marks in the transliterated name of an article subject are confined to the pronunciation guide in {{Infobox Chinese}}, and they are present in that location at the Jiujiang article.

I'm less convinced by the rationale that tone pronunciation can be left to checking in a dictionary: Jiujiang is pretty unambiguous, but there are many cases where a graph will have multiple possible pronunciations, and we should provide the correct one. [M]ost readers will not use [the information] doesn't personally particularly sway me either. For any given fact / claim in an article, statistically it's probably not something readers will necessarily use or be looking for, but if it adds to encyclopaedic understanding I feel we should include it (subject to the obvious exceptions).

As a tangential ramble, it's always somewhat mystified me that we're expected to copypaste the non-keyboard characters for toponyms like İncirlik, Kahramanmaraş, Čierna Lehota, Rožňava District, et cetera, but including tone marks in pinyin transcription – which can change the meaning of the spoken pronunciation entirely – are to be removed except in infoboxen. I suppose it might come from an academic legacy where tone marks are included only in glossaries and language learning materials, but it's always felt a bit parsimonious. Folly Mox (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Also apologies in advance both for the second notification this will generate and also if I came off as disagreeable or unkind. I'm petsitting an extremely energetic and needy enormous puppy this weekend and I'm experiencing more stress and exhaustion than I'd prefer. Folly Mox (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said, and don't feel like I have a one-size-fits-all solution for it! Remsense诉 23:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Problem editor?

Special:Contributions/Westernethinicity33 Or am I wrong? Doug Weller talk 18:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've yet to be reassured by their edit history, I'll put it that way. Remsense诉 18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No time to check them all, but for instance [3] where they say “ Evidence of absence. The article doesn't say that the evidence shows that alternative medicine is ineffective .” The source says “ Although scientists have studied the use of some alternative medical therapies in Ménière’s disease treatment, there is still no evidence to show the effectiveness of such therapies as acupuncture or acupressure, tai chi, or herbal supplements such as gingko biloba, niacin, or ginger root.” Doug Weller talk 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And this is weird.[4]. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary "Removal of contradiction. Choking is older than the internet, and the internet was not invented by tiktok as the media from stolen territories insinuate. Moreover, the source is unreliable." The source is The Indian Express which RSNP says is reliable.. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Took that to RSN. On iPad watching tv with wife, bed soon. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

How reliable the Joshua Project is?

I'm curious about your edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mnong_people&diff=prev&oldid=1212008091. Your summary is "Not an RS" but I can not understand why an organization that lasts for 29 years and has its own article in wikipedia since 2009 is considered as not an RS. Leemyongpak (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how either of the two criteria you mentioned correspond to a source's reliability. See WP:JOSHUAPROJECT. Remsense诉 04:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I understand now. Leemyongpak (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! Remsense诉 06:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

About Beijing and Guangdong

Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can participate in. I only corrected the errors in the header and updated the new content, but never deleted your content. I also carefully read the hidden content. Please cherish the fruits of others' labor. You must also read the errors in the entry summary. Thank you for your understanding. Moreover, in the introduction, how could you think of the item involving GDP as "municipality"? How can the "GDP" data indicator be related to "municipality"? If you still don't understand, you can read other excellent entries. I am more concerned about the two English entries about Beijing and Guangdong. One is the capital of the country and the provincial administrative region with the highest per capita GDP, and the other is the province with the largest economic size in China. The content and quality need to be improved, and I have been trying to supplement them. Thank you again for your understanding. You can make comments on the entries but you cannot delete the content added by others without authorization. This is disrespectful to others. User:Cncs wikipedia 20:46 UTC June 13, 2024

• Just now I saw that you have revoked all my updates and additions. It should be stated that all data are preliminary data, and they have been reviewed and officially released by the National Bureau of Statistics of China, and the data are credible. Even if it is revised again later, it will not deviate too much from the existing data. Moreover, including the revised data officially announced by the provinces and the whole country, it will be revised again after the national economic census every five years. As long as the data is official, it is reliable. For the provincial and important city entries, first, I updated the latest data in 2023; second, I corrected the display errors caused by the previous editor, such as the Guangdong entry; third, I corrected the data errors caused by the previous editor, such as the Jiangsu entry. You cannot revoke other people's edits at will, just as I cannot revoke your edits at will. Moreover, I only pay attention to it in order to correct errors. I hope you can understand. User:Cncs wikipedia 21:19 UTC June 13, 2024

June 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Russian Civil War) for a period of 3 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Remsense (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I said before, I think my previous 24-hour block was correct. Following it, an RFC on the page has made consensus clear. That's an important distinction: with that in mind, I do not think I've done anything wrong. What was I meant to have done differently? I've messaged them on their talk page, there's a very visible ongoing discussion on the article talk page showing clear consensus, and I haven't violated 3RR (knowing that's not coterminous with edit warring, of course). Their edits have to be undone by someone, it shouldn't matter that I'm the one who happens to catch it first. Remsense诉 09:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The original appeal text shown above is probably not convincing, but I won't judge what an uninvolved administrator would have said. I can unblock based on Special:Diff/1228816741, however. Welcome back and feel free to remove these messages; they're not meant to be a wall of shame. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Remsense, please see the bottom of [5] for a detailed explanation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chinese characters

On 15 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chinese characters, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to legend, the invention of Chinese characters (examples pictured) caused grain to rain from the sky and ghosts and demons to wail in frustration? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese characters. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chinese characters), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Why did you do this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:List_of_writing_systems&diff=next&oldid=1223794231 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't really be able to guess why simply Hieroglyph (which seems to imply its own general category, but redirects to Egyptian hieroglyphs) would be one of three articles listed for an "Overview of writing systems" section. Remsense诉 06:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Review Article

Hi I've created this article Draft:OneStream Live can you check the content and sources and what is your idea to be in main space Editorjummy (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi I am MD. Mahian Khandakar. I wrote something about The Double (Tv series) but you delete it without any thoughts. I hope you will learn your mistakes.

You delete my edit without any thoughts. MD . Mahian Khandakar (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for your original research, including your interpretations of media. Use sources, and say what the sources say. Remsense诉 16:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you should do it. huh MD . Mahian Khandakar (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

A goat for you!

I've been seeing you all over Wikipedia lately so I thought that I'd visit and leave a goat here for you to enjoy! Thanks for all your work here (and congrats on the GA/DYK). PS: I love your signature :D!

GoldRomean (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! My breadth sometimes leads to work that isn't my best, but I'm glad other people are seeing it as largely constructive. Remsense诉 03:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Philosophy page

Let me preface my message by saying I admire your commitment to helping other Wikipedia editors and maintaining pages. I noticed you reverted a recent edit of mine, citing no improvement as the reason. In my edit I reworded a sentence and changed "like" to "such as" and I was surprised you couldn't see my reason for doing so because I thought it would be relatively apparent to skilled writers. I disagree with your claim that my edit made no improvement. "Like" is colloquial and is thus ill-suited for a page talking about such a serious topic as philosophy, while "such as", especially when used with the category noun in the middle, is several notches higher in register. I teach college writing, and this kind of stuff is taught to undergraduate students as they learn to write formally and academically. There are numerous academic and nonacademic sources online that talk about things like this. For example see Cambridge. Pomodecon (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This use of "like" is not colloquial; it is perfectly ordinary English. If you need external confirmation of that, the OED doesn't list it as such. Remsense诉 10:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Cite the OED page please. Make sure to include the relevant text, because I (and other people) may not have access to it. 2. That flies in the face of not only established writing and editing convention but also countless sources. 3. Any reason at all you think the OED, which is behind a paywall, is more reliable than other freely accessible online sources, including Cambridge? Pomodecon (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I'm a Boat Race partisan, clearly. I'm not going to argue with you at length about it. There's a reason this very common usage isn't explicitly proscribed as colloquial in the Manual of Style. Remsense诉 06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"Arguing"? That's some highly charged language. Well you are the one making a far-fetched claim that contradicts almost all usage sites, and when prompted, failed to produce a reliable source to back up your claim. I on the other hand gave you a reliable source right off the bat. Pomodecon (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(I'll argue a little bit, but this is all you'll get.)

which is behind a paywall

You know this doesn't matter per WP:PAYWALL.

OED:

like¹

A. having some or all of the qualities of another, each other, or an original. B. resembling in some way, such as

And here's Collins as a bonus also not marked as colloquial:

like¹

[...] such as: a modern material, like carbon fibre

Remsense诉 06:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You know this doesn't matter per WP:PAYWALL.

The Wikipedia page you cited is immaterial in this case, as it is about verifiability. I am not sure if you are unable to discern different statements, or you are, subconsciously or otherwise, lumping them together. If anything I'm the one who suggested you do what that Wikipedia policy page says by telling you to cite a paywalled source clearly so that other people can see and verify it.

Just because there's no "colloquial" tag in the two sources you saw doesn't mean it is in the same register as "such as" or has the same level of formality. The OED editors never purported to have included everything in their dictionary.

Cambridge, in case you didn't bother to check: "Such as is similar to like for introducing examples, but it is more formal, and is used more in writing than like"

Italics

Hi there. If anything, MOS:WAW seems to support my edit. It says Use italics when writing about words as words, and even specifically A technical or other jargon term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized. Wolfdog (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say this could be the case for genealogical relationship, but not genetic relationship in the paragraph in question. It looks very odd to italicize the former but not the latter, though. Remsense诉 13:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I did both. Would you only budge on my italicizing geneaological then? Wolfdog (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a word for years of the supposed "Uyghur genocide."

What's even the point? You care so much about the Chinese culture, but don't care about the shit that actually matter. I get that you care about the integrity of Wikipedia, but you do realize it still has a heavily western slant, right? Great on you for being a cog in the machine. You'll totally go far in life with that NPC mindset. Let's check back in twenty years. Oh wait. You're still a random editor in Wikipedia. If you are Asian, it will be even more hilarious. NPCs never make it far. HahaNormal (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Etruscan civ

Hello
The old section mostly dealt with Historiography (and revisionism) rather than Archaeology (i.e. Pelasgians vs Autochthonous etc.) an issue well taken care of in both sections 'Origins' and especially (new) 'Genetics'. I decided to re-organize said section with an Archaeological focus i.e. new burial structures and new influences (Orientalization) vs prev. Villanova etc. if you wish to maintain the older section then a fusion would be best, but i think there is very little in the old with an Arhcaeological focus. Agilulf2007 (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)