User talk:Remsense/Archive 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Remense,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) You undo your reversions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you the best of luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Eorr on this template List

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

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

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

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

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Marble Arch (Libya) on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Laconian (dog) on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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