User talk:Remsense

Query

Do you understand what's going on at List of Neolithic cultures of China? A huge flurry of large edits from multiple editors—is this just table formatting? Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I did some tinkering on that table but decided not to intrude midstream—while I may be critical at the scope of inclusion, it seems innocuous enough even with the metatext—i'll swing around and make sure the table's editorially up to snuff when they've had their turn I reckon. Remsense ‥ 论 23:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

(This seems to have gotten lost in the reverts):

Thanks. It does seem a bit redundant alongside the table... perhaps it would work better as a template, akin to {{Rulers of the Ancient Near East}} – Aza24 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the Turkic winds—or were they Persian? Not sure! I'll take another look in a sec. While I've got your ear, I think there were also some other articles I wanted to ask for advice about...still haven't added my changes to the Zhuangzi article yet... Remsense ‥ 论 18:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries, happy to look at your work when you're ready. Speaking of the Zhuangzi, how would you feel about a move of Zhuang Zhou to Zhuang Zhou (philosopher)? I feel that the name "Zhuang Zhou" is so uncommon that its a disservice to readers to choose it. Xunzi was just moved for similar reasons, now we have Xunzi (philosopher) and Xunzi (book). Of course, the birthname would still redirect to the individual. Aza24 (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Aza24, well, about this regard, I believe it would only be valid if there were another Zhuang Zhou's for disambiguation purposes, otherwise I'm not really sure it'll be worthwhile, ngl. 177.105.90.42 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with an RSP question

Hi Remsense. I’m looking for input on the right way to add a source to RSP following an RfC. I’m writing to you because you are active on RSP. An MMA blog called Bloody Elbow has been determined to be generally unreliable prior to March 2024. There has been an RfC and two previous discussions:[1], [2], [3]. Based on my reading, Bloody Elbow now meets the formal WP:RSPCRITERIA but I think an independent editor(s) should make that determination and if they agree, implement the RSP. I would do it myself but I am a COI editor who represents an MMA league, ONE Championship, that’s been frequently written about in the blog. This blog is so unreliable that when new owners took over in March 2024 and turned it into a reliable news source with reporters, editors and fact checking, they deleted the entire 14 year archive of blog posts. Despite a discussion on RSN going back 12 years that the blog was not reliable, Bloody Elbow has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, including on most of the significant pages about MMA. Without the visibility of the RSP, I think the misuse of this blog will remain pervasive. Bloody Elbow’s reinvention by new owners as a reliable source is going to add to the confusion. People will think that that old blog content has the credibility of the new reliable news source, or - conversely - that the new source is generally unreliable because it used to be a blog. A delineation on RSP will very much help with the confusion. Do you have any guidance on how I can bring this to the attention of the right editors? Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Brucemyboy1212 did you still need help with this? Remsense ‥ 论 21:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Today I remember an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - see top of my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Today brought a timely promotion of Helmut Bauer to the Main page on the day when pieces from Mozart's Requiem were performed for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Need your help again with very small letters

You provided excellent help here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kompromat&diff=prev&oldid=1249461437 , and now I've encountered a similar situation with a Tibetan word at Tukdam. This little bit is from the lead ( Tibetan Buddhism, tukdam (Tibetan: ཐུགས་དམ, Wylie: thugs dam་) ), but the article is filled with them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, will you be able to help with this? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I will be, my apologies. Will take a look at this ASAP. Remsense ‥ 论 16:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I just wasn't sure if you had seen my message. There is no rush. Thanks again. Your skills and knowledge are appreciated! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean so sorry! Fixed the article, same deal—all I did was swap out {{lang}} with {{tlit}}. Remsense ‥ 论 22:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated!! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Help:IPA/German move request

@Remsense, I need your help by requesting move for this page from "Standard German" to "German", after failing several attempts for Help:IPA. 129.222.202.169 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Did Mike Novikoff says "goes bananas" that {{Requested move}} is removed? 103.103.88.100 (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you still need help with this? Remsense ‥ 论 21:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Uncited content

Hello. I've noticed you undid some of edits about removing uncited content. Well, there is a principle saying Wikipedia favors verifiability over truth. There is also another saying uncited stuff can either be challenged or removed. So I believe it is necessary to delete things that are unsourced. Anyway, by doing so, readers can be certain that the information they're reading is authentic. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nyam Nyam Tiger, just going about removing uncited text is not the way to improve the encyclopaedia. The first steps always involve: consulting sources cited elsewhere in the article to see if they support the uncited claims and can be used there; searching for alternative sources on the topic that can be used to cite the uncited passages; attempting a rewrite of the uncited text in such a way that the sources you've just consulted can be used for them.

There has never been a consensus in any discussion that content must be cited or be removed, except for certain edge cases about contentious topics, biographies of living people, and medical articles (I think).

Uncited material can indeed be challenged or removed. It is expected that editors will temper this activity with constructive contributions. Your edit history shows an average byte change of -454 bytes. You should try to help improve uncited content; remove it as a last resort. Folly Mox (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, if the behavior @Nyam Nyam Tiger was engaging in was desirable, we would have a bot do it. I do not care how bright the WP:BURDEN line is if it encourages editors to turn their brains totally off in their editing like this. Moreover, I do not feel the need to carefully assess such edits (within reason, I'm not restoring BLP slander), since they were explicitly made with no discernment to begin with. It's essentially unsolicited, disruptive WP:MEATBOTTING. If you can't articulate a good reason that considers anything at all about the text in context—as opposed to simply stating "the policy allows me to, so I do"—the edits you are making are bad. Remsense ‥ 论 23:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Topic on WP:ECR

My new topic added on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch got removed because of WP:ECR. Apparently the topic falls on the Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions. Since I'm not interested on creating an account, could you at least give me help on getting my complain heard? 179.6.1.90 (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ECR aside, I don't think there is a lot one can do concerning this—this particular subject has been discussed quite a bit, and I don't think we're ever going to be happier with something other than what we have, coupled with editors going the extra mile on a per-discussion basis when nuance is required. Remsense ‥ 论 00:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Reason for revert

Howdie, re my contribution 05:19, 24 October 2024 for 'Moon': The baseline version says: "Because of this small tilt, the Moon's solar illumination varies much less with season than on Earth and it allows for the existence of some peaks of eternal light at the Moon's north pole, at the rim of the crater Peary". My clarifications were to say that some peaks of eternal light exist at both the Moon's north and south poles, gave examples of the locations receiving maximum illumination, and pointed out that 'eternal' should not be taken to literally mean 'always' (or 100%). All of these statements supported with self-references, and cited references. What is the rationale for deeming the update 'deleterious' please? Novanotes (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Sedition

Hey! I just noticed that you reverted my edits on Sedition page. I added lines "Sedition as defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by Section 147 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" to the page. You reverted my edits by mentioning "not a minor edit, unclear what the use is here, how is it defined?". The minor tag was wrongly inserted by me while publishing my edit. Also the use of the edit was that Indian Penal code has been repealed and replaced by Indian Parliament in 2023 with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. So, section 124A is now not applicable in India. So, I added this information to indicate this change. Gurkulsahoo (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gurkulsahoo: not only did you use the WP:Minor edit tag, you also failed to provide a WP:Edit summary to explain such a substantial change. So of course it was reverted, what else could you expect? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously denying that Ancient Rome is not the only significant foundation of Western Civilization?

You haven’t even looked at the sources I provided, which weren’t necessary to begin with, since it’s obvious that Rome is not the sole basis of Western culture.

Asking me to discuss this on the Talk page is like debating whether the Sun is a star—it’s absurd. Do you consider yourself an educated person? Nocceta (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we care about what specific claims reliable sources make for a given topic. We don't synthesize claims ourselves. One of our core content policies is verifiability—that is, verifiability, not truth. You put sourced information in with the sources; you do not change what was written to something that the sources don't themselves substantiate, nor do you cite sources that are not actually about the topic in question to draw your original conclusions. All you need to do is cite a source that makes the specific claim you want to cite, that Rome was one of the progenitors of Western civilization. It should not be that hard to do.

For what it's worth, it's funny you use the Sun is a star as an example—because how on earth would any of us know that if we couldn't point to a source that directly says it? Remsense ‥ 论 23:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you had spent even a few minutes examining the sources, you’d see that Rome is indeed recognized as one of the foundations of Western civilization. You could even contribute by adding a source you prefer, but instead, you've chosen to be antagonistic, simply deleting content and responding mechanically. And by that unreasonable logic, proving the Earth isn’t flat wouldn’t simply involve explaining its roundness with sources; instead, it would require finding a specific quote stating, ‘No, the Earth is not flat.’

No, you’ve just bent Wikipedia’s policies in the most absurd and Kafkaesque manner possible, wasting both your time and mine on a simple, self-evident issue. Congratulations, I suppose lmao. Nocceta (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It is preferable to keep content in line with the sources cited: when prose is changed from what its sources say and it is not immediately noticed, it can take years for someone to discover that and fix it. This may sound trivial or antagonistic to you here in this case, but it is an important general principle to ensure that that we don't invent our own claims or formulations that do a disservice to readers. Remsense ‥ 论 23:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll reiterate on this: yes, this is evident to you and me, but we're not writing for ourselves , are we? We already know! Why would you write it at all if it were self-evident? Consider someone who's learning about this for the first time. and cite sources that directly back up your claims accordingly. Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It is far more detrimental for Wikipedia to imply and promote the idea that Western Civilization is solely a Roman product—a clear error and misinformation in the most objective sense—than what you claim about changing the prose.

You could choose to be proactive, search your preferable source and help to improve Wikipedia, or you could cling to your interpretation of the rules without contributing constructively.

I rest my case. All the best. Nocceta (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If the "one of" claim is so vital, it really should not be difficult to source yourself as the person who is making the change. I encourage you to do so. This is not meaningfully my personal interpretation: WP:BURDEN and WP:SYNTH are fairly clear about this. Remsense ‥ 论 23:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Put it this way: no one wants to take your (or my) word for it. Remsense ‥ 论 00:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No, remember that first I have to endure a torturous Kafkaesque wait in the Talk purgatory just to discuss this highly controversial topic. Nocceta (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not forcing you to discuss anything, I'm just trying to explain why it's important to cite our sources. You're free to scamper off and do so. Remsense ‥ 论 00:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sharbel2

What the heck are you talking about? You do not have the authority to modify my block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I struck it after going back to self-revert it to find I was too late, because I realized it was a joke based on what the user themselves said that really was not going to land. Apologies, I know other things are much more important at ANI. Remsense ‥ 论 04:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Your removal of material I added on the papacy is pure editorialism

I cited a reputable source in fact the Vatican itself

```` Montalban (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We're a tertiary source, so why are you citing the Vatican itself if the point is to contextualize history? If there's no secondary source coverage of an event, it shouldn't be mentioned in an article like Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy. Remsense ‥ 论 18:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Remsense. I'm just posting to let you know that List of World Chess Championships – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 22. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

your refrigerator cannot be the product of a purely physical mechanism

@Remsense,

You reverted a 355 byte contribution I made, to another user (with whom I have never* interacted), on talk:physics. There is more context, for anyone willing to witness for themselves: see here.

It*’s tragic. On many levels it*’s tragic. And I’m not even thinking about my “small-self.”

your refrigerator cannot be the product of a purely physical mechanism

“Only inspired insight guided by faith in the simplicity of nature somehow revealed the interplay of the concepts of energy and entropy.”-Herbert Callen, p.461, “second edition”

To find such a fundamental opposition to personalism in one person is Extremely tragic. (You are the ground of your refrigerator’s reality, not the other way around!!)

To find such a fundamental opposition to personalism in the whole of Wikipedia, is extreme and tragic, extremely: Tragic!!!

“[A]rt cannot be kept sacred except by the consistency of its contents with its sacred normal character, and with the Ideal which, as embodied beauty, it shares with truth and good.”-not physics

For the l=oxv=e of l=ixf=e, Please repent! NedBoomerson (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jehovah on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Chuckles987

@Remsense, Martinevans123, and DrKay: I noticed that all of you have placed notices on Chuckles987's talk page. It is very clear to me that Chuckles987 is yet another sockpuppet of BlueDIAMOND20s. I have reported the issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueDIAMOND20s, but diffs are required. I cannot find a good example of a diff at the moment (although the editing behaviour is exactly the same). If anyone finds a good example of a diff, please add it to the sockpuppet report. A list of some of BlueDIAMOND20s's sockpuppets can be found here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BlueDIAMOND20s. Thank you. Khiikiat (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates

Hi! I have been cleaning up WP:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates and Special:WantedTemplates and I noticed that your javascript page is transcluding Template:Ubl\n. Due to a "feature" in the backend software, even though this is a javascript page, the software parses braces and brackets the same to generate links. It would be very helpful if you could add

 // <nowiki>

to the top of your script page and

 // </nowiki>

to the bottom of your script page. Because these <nowiki>...</nowiki> are inside of javascript comments, it won't impact the functionality of your script, but it will keep the backend sofware from thinking you are transcluding templates. Thanks in advance for your help! Plastikspork <sub>―Œ</sub><sup>(talk)</sup> 15:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for making me aware of this. That looks good, right? Remsense ‥ 论 21:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit in City

Hey Remsense, may I know why is this edit reverted? I'm merely amending a link to the target article. hundenvonPG (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBROKEN. Remsense ‥ 论 21:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverting and undoing sourced material concerning the presence of Denisovan ancestry in South America and its' abscence in North America

The editions to the articles I edited explicitly contained references showing how Denisovan ancestry absent in North America were present in South Americans.

Let me quote from one of the sources.

https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/ancient-dna-south-america

“There is an entire Pacific Ocean between Australasia and the Americas, and we still don’t know how these ancestral genomic signals appeared in Central and South America without leaving traces in North America,” said Andre Luiz Campelo dos Santos, Ph.D., first author, an archaeologist and a postdoctoral fellow in FAU’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science."

Since the references says so and the references' studies are from reputable universities, I don't know why you reverted my edits. I hope we can come into a consensus concerning this matter. Truly Yours. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)