User talk:Remsense/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 09:55, 25 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)

Edit reversal

Why did you reverse my edit on mind, what was the issue?

Edart6 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally, it was not an improvement to the prose. Specifically, encyclopedic writing should normally avoid the first person. Remsense诉 16:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also unacceptable to tag edits as minor which may be controversial—as yours obviously was, since I had just reverted it. Remsense诉 16:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject China Dragon Star Award

		WikiProject China Dragon Star Award
		For your exemplary contributions to the project, particularly articles related to Chinese culture. Yue🌙 06:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I've very much been spinning my wheels lately and this helped give me a shot of energy to resume working on big projects in this space. You are very much a valued collaborator. :) Remsense诉 12:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh under Featured Article Review

I have nominated Gwoyeu Romatzyh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate tone in the Mnong people

I think the information in the Mnong people article "People used to consider the Mnong in the south and the Sedang in the north were the two most combative races in the Central Highlands." - that you reverted - is a praise not a blame, somehow similar to "they were the two most elite warrior races of the Central Highlands". It is about their old periods - their history, when they fought regularly, killed invaders, even captured people from other races to sold as slaves. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose this does not necessarily come across to a general audience that lacks adequate context—thank you for the elaboration. Remsense诉 12:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What's going on here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Agilulf2007 and see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller#c-Tursclan-20240626123600-Personal_attack_and_edit_war

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tursclan&diff=prev&oldid=1231091170

I haven't looked at it yet and it would save me time to actually write User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle which I need to finish by chemo July 4th if you have any insights. My first thought was attribution and sources. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look! Remsense诉 12:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Seek consensus with me

You said yet another undiscussed map which is strange considering that map I used is in the 3rd Tang dynasty emperor wiki's page, for many years.

Here. I provided evidence and everything. I want to see if I now have approval to change that incorrect 661 that doesn't show even the territories of Eastern Turks(Gokturks) that submitted to Emperor Gaozong of Tang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tang_dynasty#I_request_a_change_for_the_incorrect_661_A.D_map_when_highest_extend_was_669_A.D HabichuelasBeans (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This map has been deliberated intensely for months and years by editors of the article and it is firmly sourced; I wouldn't get your hopes up for changing it because we have very good reasons for it being the way it is. Remsense诉 20:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Reversion Normandy

Hello Remsense, I got a question: Can you explain me the reason why you are reversing my edit in the page about Normandy? I checked that policy, but I didn't see about battle result, can you tell me about that? I realized that in a disagreement it's better to negotiate to understand more than being stubborn, so please, explain me. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Right! Yes, there's a bit more on that page than I remembered. I created the WP:RESULT shortcut earlier to point more precisely to the passage in question—sorry about that—and now I get to use it. Basically, the |result= parameter shouldn't contain anything but "X victory", "Inconclusive", possibly in tandem with a "See § Aftermath" section link.

Also, equally minor, linking consecutive terms in a geographical locations is generally considered overlinking: Normandy, France, but not Normandy, France.

Cheers, thanks for reaching out to ask. Remsense诉 00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have an idea; can I describe the result based on the reference that it's stated in French victory? As it was in previous reversions, like this one: Invasion of Normandy by Philip II of France Where it can be stated as the Angevins lose Normandy, Anjou, and Maine to France and are annexed into the crown lands of France but retain Aquitaine. So basically, my intention in putting about the loss of Normandy was based on a reference, so can you consider this= Mr. Information1409 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, FYI ...

Since you seem like the kind of editor who would care to know: MOS actually doesn't apply to MOS itself (or indeed anything else outside article space). That may seem like a minor point, but it turns out to lend a lot of useful flexibility. In articles we want to present a businesslike look and formal tone, but behind the scenes at MOS, in policies and guidelines, and in essays and so on, we let our hair down. One particular place this shows up is in the ecumenical mix of AmEng and BrEng seen in MOS, even on a single page; see A rolling stone gathers no MOS. EEng 20:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure! I was already aware of that in principle, but was tongue-in-cheekily using "MoS" as synedoche for "best common practices noted in the MoS", if that makes sense. Thanks for checking in any case! Remsense诉 20:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel bad for a moment for that btw—after a certain point I knew perfectly well that I was Icarus waxing his wings. Remsense诉 06:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the DCWC!

See a    "developing" or    "least developed" country? Write about it to earn points!

Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, Remsense! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

• Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
• Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
• Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
• New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
• Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (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) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Proper nouns are "the"

It would be inappropriate for me to address you as "The Remsense"; proper nouns in general do not take "the." Rare exceptions do exist, but CDL is not one of those rare exceptions. It's already a problem that Wenlin named their product "Character Description Language" when that's a generic description of a category that also includes others; it looks like an attempt by them to stake a claim on the entire category, like a software company naming a product "Word Processor" to create deliberate confusion with other word processors. We don't need to contribute to that confusion by adding a "the" to make Wenlin's CDL sound like it has special status over other CDLs. However, if you really think it's necessary to refer to it with a "the," I think it would be reasonable to do that if the name were qualified (as in "the Wenlin Character Description Language") to make clear that it's specifically the Wenlin product being referred to and not one universal CDL above other CDLs. 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:B2A (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Proper names are often derived from phrasal descriptors. These are usually preceded with the definite article, but the definite article is not part of the name itself. I suppose it's common for technical standards with fairly generic descriptors as proper names often aren't. The MoS does not (and probably should not) mention this, so I'll demure. Remsense诉 23:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Why revert my edits?

I seen you reverting two of my edits for being "not an improvement" on 2024-07-05 09:18:45 and 2024-07-05 09:22:32. The reasons you give for reverting my edits are of personal opinion, not community consensus. Why are you doing this? 6516' 09:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Were the reasons you had for making them something more profound than "you thought they would make the page better"? I disagreed and thought they made the pages worse, and gave concrete reasons why. These relatively minor back-and-forths over subtle details happen all the time, they're part of the consensus and editing processes. You're perfectly entitled to disagree, but I'm not quite sure if I'm being accused of misconduct or not. Remsense诉 10:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your reversion

You reverted a grammatically correct edit and reverted back to an incorrect verion. Empires do not refer to empires, only the term empire refers to empires. Terms go between quotation marks. Cheers. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple. We are constantly struggling with the use–mention distinction, but really we have very few articles that are about terms as such. For almost any article, just about the last thing you want to do is put quote marks around the term in the lead sentence. Almost any other solution is better, even a grammatically incorrect one if it gets closer to a proper fix. Remsense诉 18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Browser compatibility

Hi @Remsense, I tried both Chrome and Samsung, but both browsers show the exact same misalignment. Infogiraffic (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you consider posting a screenshot so I can see what it looks like? Remsense诉 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I will come back on this later. Infogiraffic (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, here you have it: https://snipboard.io/mos6C4.jpg. Infogiraffic (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I think I know how to fix it, I'll let you know when I finish. Remsense诉 20:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Seleucid empire map

Regarding the map you deleted, I understand there are roughly five maps of the Seleucid Empire. However, this particular map was significant because it depicted the empire's borders at the beginning of its decline, also their new territory and important cities at that time. For comparison, the Dacian Kingdom page has approximately ten maps. Could I please re-add this map to facilitate discussion? BalcanVali (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A discussion would be great, but it's really important that every claim made in an article is verifiable in a reliable source: that includes claims made in maps about territorial boundaries. I recommend starting a talk page discussion there in any case. Remsense诉 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

13 reverts

13 reverts on Talk:Orange (colour) over a minor comment is seriously out of control. You've been blocked twice recently for edit warring. Even if you were claiming an exemption for talk page vandalism, you would have needed to note it in the edit summaries as per WP:3RRNO. The better approach would be to stop before reaching such a high number of reverts, report the talk page vandalism, and either allow someone else to revert or wait 24 hours. The answer is not edit-warring with a vandal. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this was POINTY. Apologies. Remsense诉 01:04, 15 July 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

Reverting an Edit

Could you please elaborate as to why you reverted my edit? The name of the subject is Ngô Đình Diệm and thus, I changed every instance of 'Diem' to 'Diệm'. GeoGuru32 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Generally it's best to use the form of a name that is also the corresponding article title. It's a bit of a mess with Vietnamese article titles though, so I don't blame anyone for trying their best. Remsense诉 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. Alrighty, thank you. GeoGuru32 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) comment: I am surprised by this view. IMO, GeoGuru32 was correct and their edit should have been allowed to stand. For technical reasons, article titles often dispense with diacritics that need complex combining codes, but know of no policy that says the the body must do likewise. We should not needlessly get orthography wrong. I can't summon up any examples right now but I am certain that there are quite a few cases where necessary errors in the article name are clarified in the body. Remsense, I think you should reconsider. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Technical reasons are not why Vietnamese articles are (or should be) titled as they are: that would presumably be WP:NC like with any other article. This is an English-language encyclopedia, there are only orthographic errors in the context of English orthography in running text. Remsense诉 14:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@JMF I don't know how to thank on a talk page, so I'll type a message instead.

Thank you very much! GeoGuru32 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisting discussions

Hi Remsense! I saw you relisted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 9#Religion in China Redux, which you nominated. Please be mindful that relisting is supposed to be left to WP:UNINVOLVED editors, which you were quite clearly not in this instance. Just something to be careful of in the future. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Goodness, I feel I'm messing up constantly lately! Thank you, this somehow didn't occur to me. Remsense诉 03:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI

Hi Remsense, I have seen that you have reached 3RR in Bali. Following good practice, I don't template the regulars, but I'd better mention it (in passing). The actual purpose of my "visit" is to give you an idea who you are dealing with: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YilevBot. In a few days, we will be able to handle all the mess they produce with WP:BANREVERT and without having to worry about 3RR then :) Keep up the great work you're doing in Wikipedia, seeing your contributions in article and talk space is always a delight. Cheers! Austronesier (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That really meant a lot, thank you. It's not unique to me, but I find myself not at my best when I feel I'm not contributing my best. Kind remarks like yours really help one refocus on what matters. Remsense诉 12:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

ask

Hello How do I ensure that the photos we upload on Wikicomons are not subject to copyvio? because most of the photos I get come from certain sites, I surrender.. I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You have not taken those photos, you do not have the right to rerelease them under a free license for use on Commons. I recommend taking a closer read of what the form on Commons is trying to tell you while you're uploading, and see the pages it links to regarding free media. A helpful page is Commons:Copyright rules. Remsense诉 06:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion

Please explain how my edit does not warrant inclusion, who is to say you are the ultimate source of what does or does not warrant inclusion. It is a noteworthy fact and much more obscure adaptations are included in the article. Please consider undoing your edit as I enjoyed writing it and feel you have no reason to discredit it. HagenBradley (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Generally we discuss content on article talk pages, so that all editors interested may have a say. Remsense诉 07:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright man. HagenBradley (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A bit of help

Hi Remsense, hope you're having a great day! In June a tragic and deadly stabbing occurred in Suzhou, of a person targetting Japanese national leaving the Japanese School of Suzhou. A Japanese mother and child was injured, saved from almost certain death by a Chinese woman who died protecting them. The whole event made a huge wind of attention in China when it occurred, partially due to the nature of the attack but also the rhetoric by netizens.
I expected an English page to be made soonish after the events, however, that wasn't the case, with no page even now. I feel like this page is very important to have but I don't know if I have the ability or even mental strength to create/translate this page from Chinese. Could you be so kind to translate it, or inform someone who can? Thank you very very much. (here's the page in Chinese btw, or just search up 2024 Suzhou stabbing) Zinderboff(talk) 20:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I will absolutely take a look. Thank you for making me aware of this. Remsense诉 20:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There should be no shortage of RS for this article. Apart from Chinese and Japanese sources, a quick search shows articles from CNN BBC The Guardian etc.
Again, thank you for this, the whole affair really made me sad and lose hope in humanity a bit more than before. But I really shouldn't be surprised, though, seeing I too was taught since a child that the "Japanese were devils and the pinnacle of evil and destruction". Zinderboff(talk) 21:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I usually don't write about current events at all, but I've got something started at User:Remsense/2024 Suzhou knife attack—feel free to add to it. I'm going to try and suppress my usual perfectionism with my drafting so I can get this published promptly. Remsense诉 22:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently polishing the mess that was the translated material I dumped on the draft, along with adding sources. Please check later for further issues, thanks! Zinderboff(talk) 16:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about further delays—I think this is adequate to publish, lest I spend more time gilding the lily. I've gone ahead and moved it to mainspace. Remsense诉 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Remsense, Hope you're having a great day! I have no idea for I never looked into DYKs much, but does this article match the requirements for a DYK entry/nomination? A quick look at the rules makes it feels like it does fit the guidelines though I'm not 100% sure, and if it does fulfill the DYK would you like to nominate it? Thanks! Zinderboff(talk) 05:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Odoacer dispute

Hello,

Wanting to move our brief discussion the other day over my attempted edit on Odoacer#King of Italy here- I'm not seeing why listing the de jure and de facto status of Odoacer's polity is necessarily redundant. By that logic, wouldn't everything else in the infobox also be redundant, since these things are already mentioned in the article? Evaporation123 (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Personally I do find manually added de jure / de facto stuff highly tiresome, as if we don't have English phrases that can be employed to the same effect. I agree with Remsense in this case that de facto independent is redundant, since de jure under suzerainty implies independence in practice. If there were another polity that was the one with actual control over the one in the infobox, while lip service was paid to the Eastern Roman Empire, that would be non-obvious to warrant inclusion IMO. Kindly, Folly Mox (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Revert culture

Hey Remsense!

Checking to see if you are still alive and have not choked to death from boredom like I almost did reading about the church controversies in Kaldellis's new history. :-) Related to that, I do appreciate how you keep a close eye on the fly-by edits on the Byzantine Empire page as it's constant!

There was one that you reverted today where someone added that it was an autocracy. We had a similar discussion on the Roman Empire talk recently and several of us agreed autocracy is correct. My goal is we should try to keep these two articles in sync (for obvious reasons), but even if you didn't know that, we should also to strive for clear consensus on all topics when we revert and encourage people to bring it up in Talk if they disagree as it's worth a discussion. Regardless, I agreed with the revert this is more about creating a more positive editing culture by being more explcit. Thank you for your contributions! Biz (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, alright! My bad, thanks for letting me know. Likewise, thank you for your contributions. I've decided lately to impose a stricter 2RR on myself, or at least talk quicker. :)Remsense诉 21:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Glossary of Taoism

Hello, Remsense. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Glossary of Taoism".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

July music

story · music · places

The story is today about the first published composition by Arnold Schönberg which I was blessed to hear. Listen, and perhaps read what Alma Mahler (to-be-Mahler at the time, to be precise, who was present at the first performance) said, and yes that was too much for the Main page ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a Bach cantata premiered 300 years ago OTD. - A meeting of two women - the occasion of the cantata - is pictured in our local church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

3 July is the birthday of Leoš Janáček, and I'm happy I had a meaningful DYK in 2021. It's also the birthday of Franz Kafka, and I uploaded pics from his family's album seen in Berlin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Libuše Domanínská, the subject of yesterday's story, would have turned 100 today, but I missed that ;) - Overnight, Tamara Milashkina became GA and Lando Bartolini went to the Main page. I made my story about his almost unbelievable career, from Luigi in Il tabarro in Philadelphia in 1968 (with a nod to Liberty) up to Calaf in Turandot in Beijing in 1999 ;) - 4 July is also the birthday of Brian Boulton who was a pioneer of a concise infobox in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pictured on the Main page: Brian's Mozart family grand tour, my story today, and Mozart related to all three items of music on my talk: our 2023 concert, an opera in a theatre where a Mozart premiere took place, and those remembered, Martti Wallén, a bass, and Liana Isakadze, a violinist from Georgia (whose article would be better with more details about her music-making). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart again if you click on "music" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the cherished message on my talk! - I have a Bach cantata and three musicians who died on the Main page, so am busy and thus brief. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A heads up

Hi Remsense, hope you're having a great day. Just a heads up that I've nominated the Suzhou knife attack article for DYK. This is my first nom so I have no idea if I messed it up or not. Cheers! Zinderboff(talk) 11:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, cheers! Looks totally fine to me. Truth be told, I feel a teensy bit nervous about having my writing about such a sensitive event be promoted on the Main Page, but I only say that with the trust that it doesn't at all come off like a discouragement or anything like that, I'm glad you went and did it! Remsense诉 12:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I attributed you as the primary author (whatever the thing is called when submitting the DYK nom). Is that alright? Cheers! Zinderboff(talk) 15:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fine! Remsense诉 15:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Parameter normalization

Some of the things I noticed:

• When there are multiple authors, this script removes the 1's from the first one and moves the others to the end of the citation. They belong together, and the juxtaposition 1/2/3 is clearer.
• Some editors (including me) find |surname= and |given= easier to keep straight than |last= and |first= when dealing with a mix of Western and East Asian names.
• |postscript= logically belongs at the end.

But most of what it does is impose the script author's stylistic choices, contrary to the usual principle of not switching between acceptable styles. Kanguole 17:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for making the difference in preference more clear to me. Remsense诉 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example of Citation bot restoring the 1's removed from parameter names by ProveIt. It's a recipe for eternal robot wars. Kanguole 10:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean: eternal robot wars? Folly Mox (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That sort of thing, yes, though in this case both bots are user-triggered. In theory, the editors triggering them take responsibility for the edits, but in practice they never do. Kanguole 11:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kanguole sorry for burdening you about silly style stuff repeatedly—I'm trying to be a bit more communicative about this stuff—it seems you strongly prefer the hyphenation of ISBNs as given in the source, right? Just so I know what rule I'm following. Remsense诉 09:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The placement of hyphens (if present) is specified by the ISBN standard (see ISBN#Overview). You can get the full data here – select "pdf sorted by prefix". Various conversion tools are available, but it may be simplest to use {{format ISBN}} – this template is supposed to be subst'd, but subst doesn't work inside citation (and other) templates, so you can just use {{format ISBN|9780123456789}} and a bot will do the replacement soon enough. Kanguole 10:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea this was the case—thanks for teaching me something as well! Remsense诉 10:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

And thank you for showing me the easy way to fix it...I'm just going to write to e script first because I suddenly have a lot of backtracking to do to remedy my unbeknownst-to-me bad behavior. Live and learn. Remsense诉 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction: the bug with subst: is only inside <ref>...</ref> tags – it works just fine in a separate list of citations. Kanguole 11:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Glossary of the Chinese language and writing system

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses revert

Dear Remsense,

I had just made an edit to the sidebar for the Wars of the Roses page, adding a note specifying that the House of Tudor was supported by Yorkists, which was reverted - I know this small clarification might seem unnecessary but I really think it adds very relevant and appropriate clarity. Without the note, it inaccurately makes it seem like Henry Tudor was against the House of York (rather than against one faction of it) and that his victory was just another episode of Lancastrians vs Yorkists - which is very much not the case on close examination of the belligerents.

As historian Rosemary Horrox puts it in Richard III (2020): "the opposition which brought down Richard III was not a reactivation of the Wars of the Roses, although the choice of figurehead might make it seem so. It was more truly a violent splintering of the House of York, which fatally divided the Yorkist polity far beyond any rifts that might have been caused previously by hostility to the family of Edward IV’s queen. Simply put, the former servants of Edward IV rejected his brother’s seizure of power."

Further, A.J. Pollard writes in The Wars of the Roses (1988): "Unlike Edward IV or Richard III, [Henry VII] did not come to the throne at the head of a powerful indigenous affinity. He led an ill-matched coalition of die-hard Lancastrians and excluded Edwardian Yorkists. He was the adopted head of the remnant of Edward IV's household" 92.29.56.96 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course there's no dispute that it's verifiable fact, but the issue is that infoboxes are not meant to contain every nuance of the topic. A rule of thumb is if it needs a footnote, it should probably remain in the prose of the article where it can be properly explained, and not in the infobox, which is for key facts at a glance. Remsense诉 16:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

okay, thank you for your response! 92.29.56.96 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtfulness! Welcome to Wikipedia. Remsense诉 16:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Zhuangzi filial piety

Hello, I won't object to your removal but do you happen to know a better source discussing filial piety in the Zhuangzi? Even if it doesn't belong in that section, it came to my attention because I was researching it. So it's still relevant for me. If we can come up with better sources, we can make a section on filial piety.FourLights (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I could not tell you off the top of my head: I will investigate my sources the next time I'm actively working on that article. I have been slowly trying to fill out the "themes and analysis" parts so that will certainly have a place, but I've really been dragging my heels since it's nigh impossible for me to figure out how to structure discussion that includes both work done in the context of western philosophy, and work done in a Chinese tradition that simply doesn't work in concepts of "metaphysics" and "epistemology" Remsense诉 12:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Roman military awards

Hello! I noticed you made some reverts with respect to my edits on several pages regarding Roman military awards, specifically for Marcus Agrippa & Crassus.

While I understand your reasoning per your explanation in the edit log of Crassus, would that then apply to the following pages: Julius Caesar, Pompey, Scipio Aemilianus, Gaius Marius, Sulla, Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, Aulus Atilius Caiatinus, Metellus Pius, Scipio Nasica Corculum, Gaius Duilius, Fabius Maximus, Pompey Strabo, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, Gaius Sosius, & Publius Ventidius. In particular, I noticed you've made recent edits to Pompey and Gaius Marius and did not make the same objections for those pages.

Just asking for further clarification on the matter. Thank you! User:Reviewer1830 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC) Just asking for further clarification on the matter. Thank you! Reviewer1830 (talk)

Hey! I would say those articles have the same issue. Editors get jaded with this stuff very quickly, as many (all?) articles are flawed in a number of ways, and we can't fix or even notice them all, so we often only fix individual things we notice in individual articles, leaving new editors confused at the inconsistency. Cf. WP:OTHERCONTENT. The key is getting a feel for the underlying principles, which we all struggle with at first. Cheers! Remsense诉 13:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

DCWC August update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:

• Magentic Manifestations (submissions) – 338 points, mainly from nine good articles. He's a contender for the "most submissions for a single country" specialty award, with nine submissions for India.
• Arconning (submissions) – 305 points, including from six seasonally-appropriate Olympics-related good articles.
• Generalissima (submissions) – 290 points, the bulk from her featured article about Greenlandic interpreter Qalaherriaq and two China-related good articles.
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) – 245 points, mostly from the achievement of bringing Genghis Khan to featured status.
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) – 144 points from three good articles, including two about Kiribati elections, and four reviews of good article nominees.

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (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) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Thought experiment

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Thought experiment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Bludgeon

You may also need to read wp:bludgeon, I can hardley tell them and not tell you. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly. I've said my piece, but it definitely was 5 replies overdue. Remsense诉 14:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

I'm done editing my comment regarding "Socio-linguistic register" or whatever.

Sorry for the repeated edit conflicts. Jruderman (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Remsense诉 04:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

African language oral literature

You very hastily undid an edit when I was STILL WORKING on the Hausa article. I have several important oral literature references to add, starting with proverbs and also Hausa folktales. I have been adding oral literature sections to African language articles for the past several weeks as you can see on my user page. The point of using PUBLIC DOMAIN sources is so that they can be consulted by others and used for AI language training, etc. The availability of Hausa texts in the public domain is especially important, and the Hausa language article is a logical place to put those references, as I have been doing for Zulu, Swahili, etc. I hope you will please engage in a dialogue with me before you delete the content I added to the Hausa article. I had just prepared the Robinson material when you deleted my work. I restored the work, included the Robinson material, and will now wait until I hear from you; thank you. Laurakgibbs (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I see that you again deleted my content without engaging in a dialogue with me. I don't think you are folklorist, and I think you do not understand the importance of orature (proverbs, etc.) in documenting the history of African languages. Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurakgibbs (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit a second time. I stated my reasons in the edit summary; if you're still working on material that is in an incomplete state (i.e. pure primary source information and quotes without secondary or tertiary analysis, as is what we provide on an encyclopedia), it's best to do so in your sandbox rather than on the article itself, as other editors may not know you're still working on it. Remsense诉 23:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been my practice to do the edits one reference at a time to make dispute resolution easier, but I can certainly do all the references at once and edit the article in one go if that is what editors prefer.

But the main issue is this: your reasons for deleting the content do not make sense in the context of African language studies, for the reasons I explained (and those are just a few of the main reasons; this is a complex and important topic, and I can explain in as much detail as you would like) -- I see the Hausa oral literature section is back; does that mean I can continue to add the oral literature sources that I have collected for Hausa? I will add them all at once if that is the preferred practice.

I hope there will not be any further problems re: oral literature additions to African language articles; if you do have questions, I am glad to answer them.

Thank you. Laurakgibbs (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, we publish tertiary analysis based on secondary sources. We do not include original research, and our use of primary sources is very limited. Please keep that in mind, as these topics are important but do not require original research. I understand well that oral tradition is inherently distinct from written tradition, but Wikipedia is not capable of communicating the former without it being mediated by the latter, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources I am citing ARE research, ethnographical research conducted by anthropologists, missionaries, colonial officials, etc. who put the language material IN CONTEXT, providing translations, commentary, etc.

Some of the articles I have edited had random proverbs from random websites, and I have left that content there (although that is the kind of content I think would be eligible for deletion based on your criteria), but the whole point is that I am adding secondary sources which can be consulted online at the Internet Archive. Laurakgibbs (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The concern is that the research in this particular is over a century old, which is borderline unacceptable for a straightforward analysis without more recent sourcing. Standards and methods of research, as well as the applicability of the information itself change over time. Remsense诉 00:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you moved the convo to my user talk page, I have replied there to your more recent comments. I am keeping in mind the tradeoffs here; I appreciate your concern, but I am still confident that this Internet-Archive-based project to systematically add oral literature references to the African language articles will be a step forward in this area of Wikipedia that is very much in need of additional references. Laurakgibbs (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

feedback

I request that you help me consider whether there might not be a better arrangement for the data in my first three sections. At the moment I will try creating a third section. Or send someone you consider even-minded. Thank you.FourLights (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look ASAP. Remsense诉 22:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Soooo

Where do we go from here? As far as i can tell there are still multiple issues that never really got answered.

Closing admin only seemed interested in one of them so that didn't really got anywhere Trade (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

? Trade (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about this situation in particular, and no one else seemed much convinced of the utility of a general RfC a la the 2010 one, so I am afraid I don't have much more to contribute to this. Remsense诉 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Jomon people

My edit regarding the affinities between prehistoric Chinese peoples and Jomon and subsequently, descendants of the former, doesn't seem at all objectionable and is backed by recent genetic studies. AngelusVastator3456 (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to gain consensus for the additions at Talk:Jomon people. Remsense诉 04:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

American Left - moved

Could you please reverse your move of American Left to American left which was made on an uncontroversial technical request.

As stated in the Foreign Policy Research Institute style guide, which is based on the University of Chicago Press’s Chicago Manual of Style: "Political groupings other than parties are usually lowercased: independents; right wing; leftist. But: the Right, the Left." Other style guides are consistent with this usage.[6]

Note that MOS:IDEOLOGY, the reason for the move, says that ideologies should be in lower case, but the Left is not an ideology. In any case, it is a guideline not a policy, so editors could determine that other factors apply.

Any move request should have been posted to the article talk page as two previous requests were.

Thanks.

TFD (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally my bad. Thank you for letting me know. Remsense诉 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I greatly appreciate that. TFD (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey! A little help on Talk:Colombia

Hey, I have noticed you re pretty active on Wikipedia and have spoken with one of the users who submitted n edit request, I was wondering if you could make the two edit requests on the talk page. Teotzin190 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look! Remsense诉 04:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A friendly question.

Recently I stumbled upon the article Gējì which has numerous, numerous problems. Since I am new to the whole WP:CHINA thing, I don't really know how to go about bringing the article to the attention of the project so that it could be categorized as needing attention. There are presently over 200 sources on the page, many of which are in Chinese, and many of which are not formatted properly. Likewise, the article is meanderingly long and in desperate need of copyediting. I had originally had the mind of working on it and improving it myself, but the vastness of what needs to be done doesn't make it a suitable solo endeavor. How do I go about categorizing the article so that others from WP:CHINA might be inclined to clean it up? Brocade River Poems 06:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. This is a notable topic, but the Wikidata link for the zh.wp article goes somewhere else entirely. I'll try to find and address the classical sources soon, and see what I can do about the other citations. Nan Nü probably has plenty of articles that could be used as sources, but iirc that journal is hosted at Brill (RIP). Folly Mox (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Admittedly the vastness of what needs to be done on the article has left me feeling rather overwhelmed, so much so that I don't even know where I would begin to start. Brocade River Poems 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Brocade River Poems 00:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Electric industry in Austria-Hungary article

Why do you repeatedly sabotage my edits related to the electric power industry and electronics, as if the article on the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were solely your own sandbox? Have you perhaps acquired Wikipedia? What makes you think you alone can decide what is important in the article and what is not? Additionally, I have restored information to the article that was present in the lead for YEARS after you arbitrarily deleted a section. It is clear that your editing is a case of Wikipedia: I just don't like it.--Mandliners (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"I like it" is just as facile as "I don't like it". The actual issue, like I was trying to say, is you're putting content directly in the article lead, which is meant to be a summary of the article body. In my view, even if you were doing this in the expected manner and putting the content in the body first which is then summarized in the lead, this would be undue weight as a summary in the article lead. Remsense诉 20:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle Record

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cao_Cao&diff=prev&oldid=1239676509 Hi! I'm not sure what rule I'm breaking by adding a battle record here? It's simply the same thing adapted from the page on Alexander the Great. I see your reasoning is that "it's clunky", which I don't understand, and "communicates nothing that the prose doesn't already", which is not technically true, as there are battles there that are unmentioned in the prose, and, even if it were true, I wasn't aware that a chart like this was only allowed to exist if and only if it had unique information. By that standard, I'm not sure any battle records would be allowed to exist on Wikipedia outside of as their own separate articles. Yet, we can certainly see that this is not the case, as Julius Caesar, Hannibal, and the Alexander example above shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyyuuta (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think the table serves much purpose on Alexander the Great either; it has many of the same design problems in that article as well—this is why direct comparisons to other articles are fraught justification for inclusion per WP:OTHERCONTENT. If there are battles that are unmentioned by the prose, that's a separate issue, since they would need to be specifically cited. Moreover, if they are not mentioned in the prose, it is distinctly possible they are simply not important enough for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia article about the subject. Remsense诉 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

To begin, I want to draw this back to one of your reasons - "it's clunky". I can see that you also think it's clunky in Alexander, but I still don't understand why you think so.

Next, you say that direct comparisons to other articles are fraught justification for inclusion, citing WP:OTHERCONTENT. Which, yes, is principally true. However, you said directly preceding this that it "has many of the same design problems", which is a direct comparison between the two articles in and of itself and of their problems. Even ignoring that, WP:OTHERCONTENT would only be an argument for articles not being compared, not for the nonexistence of a battle record.

Next, you say that "[i]f there are battles that are unmentioned by the prose, that's a separate issue, since they would need to be specifically cited", which I can agree with. I can also place citation to those battles in the battle record.

Next, you say that "if they are not mentioned in the prose, it is distinctly possible they are simply not important enough for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia article about the subject". At the risk of WP:OTHERCONTENT, I want to note that this is a general principle, applied to all general-purpose encyclopedia articles. This brings me back to the end of my last post, which is that by this standard there should be no battle records outside of their own article in general, for if the battles are covered by the prose then the record is redundant, and if the battles are not they are not important. Note that unlike in my last post, I am not nesting this argument in the comparison of other articles, or at least such that it is no more a comparison to other articles than your quoted point is.

Finally, I have a suggestion: How about if I were to simply create a separate page for the battle record? Either as a "List of..." page with just the list or as a "Military career of..." page with a short prose summary followed by the battle record? Lilyyuuta (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Most commanders (e.g. Napoleon, Genghis Khan) do not have a separate table for battle records in their articles: It just doesn't seem a useful addendum to the prose as it exists, as all it does is reprint the same information but divorced from helpful context, especially if the mostly redundant columns are removed from consideration. Tables take up a lot of vertical space, which matters especially with an article that's already too long—Cao Cao is 15k words, which is absolutely too long for any article per WP:AS. In my view, editing work with this article would generally be paring down, not building further up, at least until we have a better view of what else may be refactored into an ideal version of the article. I don't own this or any article, so you're free to put the table back if you really think it adds a lot, but I have a feeling other editors could agree with my points. Remsense诉 21:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Confucianisms

Hi just noticed that you changed a recent edit of mine, If you could suggest a better way of putting it then that would be great. The main point is that the hereditary timeline is incorrect as Confucianisms was the main philosophical influence then in its decline Taoism and Buddhism (as initially it was not indigenous) then Neo Confucianisms as a response. There are no real references that state it is the other way around, you may have not noticed this but it is a kind of historical negativism if left as it is. Your thoughts please. Foristslow (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is, personally. Neo-Confucianism was formulated in response to Taoism and Buddhism during the late Tang; this is an adequate one-sentence summary which is elaborated upon in the article itself. You may be reading detail into it that it is not really stating for a general audience? Remsense诉 00:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply I am including the actual sentence from the article. "Confucianism developed in response to Buddhism and Taoism and was reformulated as Neo-Confucianism". You may notice that it does not say what you you are claiming it to say. It starts with Confucianisms being developed in response which is misleading especially for a lead statement, and is historically incorrect, hence me pointing out historical negativism. Your thoughts please. Foristslow (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

would the simple explication of "Confucianism further developed" clear things up in your mind? Remsense诉 01:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

yes but also a) As a result of Confucianisms decline b) and due to the growing influence of Taoist and Buddhism Neo- Confucianisms was established as a response. Or there about"s. Thanks for working this out with me. Your thoughts please. Foristslow (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That is funny very clear ok yes "further"is fine also just including "due to the influence of Buddhism and...." Neo Confucianisms was.... Foristslow (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Question about DYKN

Hi again, hope you're having a fantastic day!
I think that the Suzhou knife attack article passed DYK review since I saw the person who reviewed it citing it for their own DYKN. However, I have no idea what this means.
Will I know when it would be on the front page, or which hook would be used since the review said the alt hooks were better? Thank you in advance, I hope you're having a great time wherever you are in this world. Zinderboff(talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Approved hooks get put into a pool, from which they are selected by an admin to assemble one of several preparatory sets that's arranged a few days ahead of time. Remsense诉 20:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Zinderboff(talk) 03:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! - I have a Bach cantata open as GAN, BWV 101, turning 300 on 13 August. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview ("celebrate the art of women") and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. - I try to get back to your PR, really, but day after day there seems to be something less patient than Chinese characters ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving article quality in August! - Today's story is about a stage director, - watch Aida, so tender so cruel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Help? My story today is about a woman, nominated for RD but needing support as I write this. A composer died whose article is long and mostly unreferenced. And some articles open for review, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do You know or recognize that root word is synonym of "etymon" ?

Please answer me: YES OR NO ? etc Thanks. Pasquale Di Massa (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that's beside the point. Not every synonym of a term needs to be or can be included in the first sentence. In fact, there's likely a problem if the first sentence mentions more than one or two. There's the rest of the lead, and indeed the remainder of the article where such facts can be included if need be. Many alternate terms or alternate forms of terms do not need to be explicitly mentioned at all, though I would include "etymon" somewhere in this article's case. Remsense 诉 19:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'm italian and in my language only 2 synonyms are used (etimo AND radice di parola). Please, culd You insert in definition: basic meaning of lexical cognates word, to link to cognates ? It's logically very important to have a an english international definition. Pasquale Di Massa (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Etymon is used in English, but it's important to note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary: in most cases we can't include terms solely based on usage in other languages. In any case, I'll take a look. Remsense 诉 20:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, at list linking to "cognates word" is very important in definition. Pasquale Di Massa (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Grange

Please will you explain what you are doing by nominating the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Grange and closing it as Keep 10 minutes later? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC).

Sorry for the blip—I just changed my mind, and should've been more clear about that. Remsense ‥ 诉 22:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Rania212's comment at Talk:Kingdom of Aksum

Hey, I hope you're well. I'm wondering about the thinking in deleting that comment. We do have WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. I don't think the conversation that Rania212 wanted to start was likely to go well, but there aren't a lot of circumstances in which we can delete others' Talk page comments. I plan to weigh in on the Greek discussion at some point—I've just been too busy to do the appropriate work with sources. But I'm not going to weigh in on the comment deletion beyond this note. Take care! Pathawi (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, the question they (in effect) asked is one that was already comprehensively answered for them months ago. More than with most analogous talk page disputes, it's fairly clear that they do not misunderstand the answers they have been given; all that's left is the uncivil rhetoric, which can only generate further disruption. Other tries to reduce net disruption might include immediately closing the thread. The guideline says deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. I agree, but given the history on this particular page of rhetoric being multiplied without substance instead of merely ignored for its substancelessness, that's why I thought removal was the best try here specifically. In short, I think it plausibly makes more sense to remove such posts, assuming each of the particular conditions mentioned above (AGF for the user effectively exhausted; clear tendentious track record by the user; environment where for one reason or another disruptive rhetoric has historically been amplified or otherwise rewarded) are clearly the case. Thanks for having me articulate my reasoning, cheers! Remsense ‥ 诉 01:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Person

Hi Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

can you take a look to my sandbox page and help me to add the sources inside the article Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging from what you've written, it seems fairly clear that this person is not sufficiently notable for an article on Wikipedia. There can be no help with sources because it isn't likely that any sources exist, as this person has not done anything to attract independent coverage by them. Please take another look at WP:Notability and perhaps Help:Your first article. Remsense ‥ 诉 08:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Here you can see the full name of the topic he has more than 15 sources in Arabic and Turkish and language Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Ali-Al-Suleiman/author/B08FTH58CJ

and news sources from Daily Sabah and Trt World and Anadolu Agency Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no indication that this person meets our notability criteria, apologies. Remsense ‥ 诉 08:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

did you check the sources above? for the big news sites in turkey? Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There is reliable + significant coverage on this topic Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

you can see google news also ! Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, we have the Daily Sabah interview—I almost have to treat the TRT and Anadolu pieces as one, since they are so similar in content. As these are all public media outlets, there's actually been discussion that's recorded concerns with WP:TRT and WP:ANADOLU when they write about topics that are related to official government narratives. Having read the articles, I fear there's a bit of that going on here. Remsense ‥ 诉 08:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense regarding Anadolu Agency, TRT World, and Daily Sabah, these are reliable media outlets when it comes to non-political matters. We also have coverage in Turkish, such as Akşam and Yeni Şafak and Albawaba , and in Arabic, we have comprehensive coverage of the topic.” Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

unreliable source?

hello, i was wondering why my edit was considered unreliable? Omagari is a known type designer who formerly worked for Monotype, i think his blog should be considered a reliable source Svenurban (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

in case you couldn't find it, the revert is at Special:Diff/797180441. Svenurban (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, sorry—yes, I think that should be fine if that's the case. Feel free to put it back. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Just seen this. I'd endorse that it's a solid source to add, Omagari is very knowledgeable on this. Blythwood (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

What's your point of removing the word "mainland" when mentioning Taiwan

Please carefully read WP:NC-CN before arbitrarily reverting my edits with your handy Twinkle tool. Thanks! 38.150.67.44 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I helped write a fair chunk of that page, so you needn't worry about that. There's no reason to specify mainland China in those cases—a distinction is not required—so it's seen as tendentious to add it for no real reason. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's apparently controversial to say "China and Taiwan" instead of the politically neutral term "mainland China and Taiwan", per WP:NC-CN.38.150.67.44 (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No it is not; you are deliberately misreading it. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, if you think the word "mainland" in mainland China is by no means acceptable, I suggest you remove all the words of "mainland" in pages like Mainland China and Cross-strait relations. Please tell me how I had "misread" the articulate guideline. 38.150.67.44 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not unclear what areas are being spoken about, and no logical inconsistencies are being made. It doesn't make sense to say someone moved from China to Hong Kong, because that's moving within the same country. Taiwan is a different country, so areas where it can be confused with merely "China" are narrower. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"Due to potential ambiguity, it should only be used when a distinction with Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan is required"

Taiwan is apparently mentioned in the guideline, as its status as a "country" is disputed and not without controversy. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:TWRFC. This is not a situation where there is confusion, as they are two different countries. and are treated as such in a straightforward manner, unlike with HK & Macau. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Off the topic. Again you cannot just equate China with mainland China, the latter of which is for distinction with HK, Macau, and Taiwan. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

China and Taiwan are two separate countries. Thus, a simple mentioning of both is not confusing. We may need to distinguish them historically or in other specific contexts. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We may need to distinguish them historically or in other specific contexts

Exactly as you said, that's why we should use the term mainland China per Due to potential ambiguity, it should only be used when a distinction with Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan is required 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope, as this isn't one of those specific contexts. There is no confusion as to what is meant here; I'm saying that for the final time. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

How are these Chinese dialect/language articles not "specific" or relevant here? I repeat, these languages or dialects are used in both mainland China and Taiwan and entail distinction. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Because there is not a situation where "China" would be confused with Taiwan. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No, there is. Again, how do you believe that there is no distinctions when talking about two regions of mainland China and Taiwan using the same language/dialect? Directly address my question please. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no potential for confusion unless one would insist that "China" would include Taiwan by default. That is not how they are treated on Wikipedia, so we're good. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That "China would include Taiwan by default" is at least a consensus among international organizations including UN, WHO, ISO. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Good thing they are not the ones who tell us what to write. Please see WP:NPOV, and then WP:TWRFC for how it applies. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are the ones who didn't abide by WP:NPOV here, equating China with Taiwan is simply not politically neutral as the neutral term should be mainland China. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Equating China with Taiwan obviously creates confusion as readers may question Wikipedia's neutrality. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:NPOV endorse equating China with Taiwan, the latter being a disputed region? 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It certainly endorses following what English-language reliable sources do, which overwhelmingly treat China and Taiwan as separate countries. Specifically, see WP:POVNAMING. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

By your logic, why does WP:NC-CN recommend the use of mainland China? Should we all use the controversial expressions like "China and Taiwan" in all Wikipedia articles and simply removing all the words containing "mainland China"? 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It should only be used when a distinction is required, like the guideline happily says. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I repeat, there is distinction in the articles of languages here, where the geographic distributions in DIFFERENT regions are presented. Otherwise, we would say English is widely used in the United States and Guam, while the correct expression should be English is widely used in the continental United States and Guam, in order to make a distinction. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be true if Taiwan were a part of China. Remsense ‥ 诉 14:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to potential ambiguity, it should only be used when a distinction with Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan is required, Please read this line from WP:NC-CN.38.150.67.44 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes; on every page you've changed, a distinction is not required. A distinction would be required if saying someone moved from mainland China to Hong Kong, for example. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a rigid interpretation based on the exact word of the guideline. Again, in the language articles here, we are talking about two regions of mainland China and Taiwan. You cannot just equate mainland China and Taiwan. Period. 38.150.67.47 (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about China and Taiwan; there is no reason to specify further, and to do so is palpably tendentious, per only be used when a distinction [...] is required. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

How do you believe that there is no distinctions when talking about two regions of mainland China and Taiwan using the same language/dialect? It's not one language that is exclusive to either the mainland or Taiwan. Again, you cannot just equate mainland China with China. The official name of Taiwan is Republic of China, in case you forget. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't care about official names or viewpoints on Wikipedia, we care about balancing reliable sources. Please see WP:NC itself, as well as WP:NPOV—as they've much more important than WP:NCZH for successful editing in this area. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned the official title just for your knowledge, and again we are having a dispute over article content, which is governed by WP:ZH 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The ones I mentioned are far more important; I should know, I helped write WP:NCZH. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, we are dealing with specific article content. And participating in the guideline writing doesn't give you privileges in the discussion here. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just saying I know what site policies are; WP:NCZH essentially supports the generalities of WP:NC; the latter would totally override the former if there were a contradiction. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I figure we are not talking about article titles as regulated by WP:TITLE, right? We are talking about your controversial removal of the word "mainland" from the politically neutral expression "mainland China and Taiwan" per WP:NPOV. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a reason WP:NC has that shortcut: article titles and general naming conventions essentially follow the same rules, as they both concern what entities should be referred to as. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think removing the word "mainland" inside the infobox is about article titles and general naming convention. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's quite obviously a convention for how something is named. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Replacing mainland China with China clearly violates WP:NC-CN. There is simply a difference between the two. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the difference is not that China includes Taiwan. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion of the Shang dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sudden revert

Hi Remsense,
You reverted my edit to "Flags of Austria-Hungary", due to a lack of reliable sources, however the sources you wanted are already present on the page, and support the files which I tried to add. I also don't see how merely changing image files to superior versions requires a source.
In addition, I noticed that the message you left on my talk page was also very bot-like; very non-specific. Makes me wonder if you actually looked at my changes before reverting. OddHerring (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, thanks for asking! We often use standardized messages for different classes of discussion. That article gets a lot of the same edits from new users, so I suppose I was particularly quick, but I could've been a bit clearer upfront, I apologize. So, the version you're adding seems to derive directly from lithograph, which includes those borders in diagrams of the flags meant to make the details maximally distinctive for the reader. The actual flags didn't have those—think about how much extra pain that would be to manufacture—which you can see from actual photographs of either original or reproduction flags (I can't say here) like at File:Austro-Hungarian North Pole Expedition, HGM, 2017-03-08-6.jpg Remsense ‥ 诉 07:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Afsharids

The Afsharids had 2 Imperial Standarts. One was made by adding yellow silk to the original and both were in use. Also those are not really "flags" they are imperial standarts. SnowyMercury455 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

little robot message at talk:Mathematics

Hopefully I didn't give offense by deleting it. I agree with you that "THIS ARTICLE HAS GOTTEN SO MUCH WORSE" was an excessive and unhelpful heading, and that the content of the comment was also not really up to standards for Wikipedia discussion. But in my opinion we should answer even impolite messages with forthright but polite responses instead of with snarky impersonal notes. If someone has a problem with the IP editor's tone/content they should just say so directly, perhaps along the lines of "Please assume good faith instead of imputing ulterior motives to Wikipedians and please comment respectfully instead of flinging insults." I think your replacing the title was fine, but leaving aside the tone the note at the top was also somewhat confusing to me, appearing at a glance like part of the initial comment, the little robot icon notwithstanding. All the best. –jacobolus (t) 16:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Alongside the actual purpose of the retitle, it was a little joke that didn't land; you retained the former and did away with the latter. I appreciate the consideration, but seriously no offense taken there in the slightest! Remsense ‥ 论 17:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Shaanxi

added a link pointing to Chinese civilization

Yu the Great

added a link pointing to Ding

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Templates are supposed to be used

When you create a template like {{Tlitn}}, please ensure that it gets used somewhere. Unused templates are usually nominated for deletion. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I usually try to—this time I was negligent in doing so. Thank you! Remsense ‥ 论 01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

undone edit

Hello there,

I have noticed that one of my edits has been undone specifically an edit on Writing system.

thanks,

Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 02:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed that map from Writing system earlier when I started working on it—it's unsourced and I think several choices it makes are problematic. Among those problems, I fundamentally don't think a global map is the best way to present this information to begin with. Other than being colorful to look at, it would seem to do a worse job than a table or a paragraph of prose—area is rarely proportional to interest on a demographic world map, and this is one of the cases where that's most a problem, in my view. Remsense ‥ 论 02:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok I am sorry

Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks for asking! Remsense ‥ 论 02:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

An lushan rebillion

Hello can i understand why you deleted my edit about abbasid caliphate in the page i gaved all the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.209.168 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to continue the discussion on Talk:An Lushan rebellion: in short, the sources given did not adequately verify the claims added to the article. Remsense ‥ 论 12:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

question about infoboxes

Ive come to appreciate your work on infoboxes but i cant seem to understand why you are against the "supported by" sections?? Nohorizonss (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you refer to a specific example? I'm not sure whether I'm against them in principle, but most of them denote comparatively minor involvement that's often best excluded. Remsense ‥ 论 22:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

in my personal experience, when i was young and started exploring geopolitics, the supported by sections in the chinese civil war or russian civil war were very useful to be know at a glance, while later the infoboxes did get bloated by minor players like eg: a breakaway state which existed for a small period( for eg alash autonomy) supported a major side in russian civil war BUT now even the major players in the chinese civil war like nazi germany, usa on the side of kmt and soviet union and comintern for the ccp are excluded which doesnt really bloat the infopage in any significant way and these players are usually the major drivers of the war and their efficiency of support one of the lead factors in the outcome Nohorizonss (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say that it really needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Specifically for Chinese Civil War, I actually really do feel the exclusion of "Supported by" listings is the right choice: it properly reflects how little the Soviet Union, United States, Germany et al. actually participated in that particular conflict. To include them would skew the due focus away from the parties who did almost everything in deciding the outcome. (There's an argument about how the international shenanigans at the end of WWII were the point where outside meddling mattered, but this strays into "too nuanced and specific for the infobox", possibly.) For other conflicts like Korean War, excluding the USSR would be very inappropriate in my mind, even though they committed almost no material support to speak of—their consultation and diplomacy were crucial to the way the conflict unfolded. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

the aid given by the Soviet union and the military weapon left by them after Japan's withdrawal from the north and their massive arms deliveries for free played a huge role , us didn't leave any stone unturned either , as far as I can recall there is an account of Chiang Kai shek in his memoirs that roc could easily have won the war of not for their misappropriation of funds and their rot within , another account said that roc claimed to construct some massive airfields with us aid but when the US representatives reached there there was only air

it's hard to imagine that a civil war of that scale could happen without huge financial and military aid on both sides Nohorizonss (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

These are conversations I welcome having; I don't claim to know what exactly to include all the time. Thanks for engaging in good faith in any case—I really want to get around to improving a lot of Late Qing and Republican China-period articles themselves much more, and not as much their infoboxes, and that often helps of course. Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Or for example in the Turkish war of independence or war against minorities, Soviet union gave tons of gold and weaponry to kemalists for free as they wanted saw him as a bulwark against western "puppet states" and to retain most of transcaucasia, it can be said that Lenin singlehanded won Kemal that war as no other nation would have supplied weaponry even for money and Lenin also proclaimed " we sacrifice Armenia for the sake of world revolution" ( he saw similarities between Bolshevik ideology and kemalist statism) Nohorizonss (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Glossary of the Chinese language and writing system

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Glossary of the Chinese language and writing system, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants

Hello, Remsense. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Outline of the Chinese language

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) 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) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Zhuangzi (book)

Thanks for your revert of my edit to Zhuangzi (book) - I was unaware that the subject of the sentence was the person, not the book. However, since the author has not been referred to by that name up to that point, it's definitely confusing for anyone new to the topic. I've made another edit which I hope makes things less confusing, but having two entirely different entities with the same name (except for italicisation) in the same article still makes for a really confusing read. Would it be reasonable to refer to the author as Zhuang Zhou throughout this article to eliminate confusion? — The Anome (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now made the change throughout the article. I hope this helps rather than hinders the clarity of the article. — The Anome (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's the diff of all my edits. I have proof-read the diff, and hopefully I haven't inadvertently messed up any usages of "Zhuangzi" in direct quotes, book or article titles. (edited) — The Anome (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent dispute over the Republic of China (1912-1949)

I have created a new discussion on the article’s talk page regarding the recent controversy surrounding the lead article. Welcome to participate if you interested in taking part. Sheherherhers (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

link to Chinese disambiguation page on Qin Shi Huang

Hello @Remsense, I see that you have recently been doing some work on Qin Shi Huang and your profile says that you have some understanding of Chinese. There is an interlanguage link in that article for Song Zhong, but the destination page in zh.wiki is a disambiguation page. I don't know what the proper destination link is, and do not read Chinese to try to figure out, but I figured I'd ask you, since you adjusted that section of the text most recently. Thanks! Cleancutkid (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll sort that out, thanks for letting me know! Remsense ‥ 论 05:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It might be zh:宋忠 (三國), who was an historian, classicist, and annotator. He's the best choice if we can assume the 宋忠 quoted in the 史記三家注 has a zh.wp article. His biography is at https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1163/ej.9789004156050.i-1311.7 p. 756.

This (by which I mean the actual quotation, not the incorrect gbooks direct page link given in the article, which is off by two entire chapters) is one of the fun verification challenges of the premodern Chinese exegetical tradition, where people will just give an author name or abbreviated book title, without any further information to locate the original text, and assume you know what they're talking about and where to look for it. Folly Mox (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It has to be him: he annotated the 《世本》, which the Shiji annotators often cite right around where they quote him. I was incorrect in characterising him as an historian though, because for a moment I misremembered what I had just read and thought he wrote 《世本》. Special:Diff/1243413419 Folly Mox (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! Cleancutkid (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Klerykal fiction on a "Language and literature" 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shaanxi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese civilization.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Grigor Parlichev on a "Language and literature" 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Christianity in China

Do you have a reason for undoing my revision? Because if you do you should have mentioned it in the edit summary when you made to edit. Denninithan (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Zhong Jingwen on a "Language and literature" 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

DCWC September update

The Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for two months, and we've seen tremendous improvement in the encyclopedic coverage of several underrepresented areas from a wide range of editors! The coordinators would like to highlght some of the newer faces who have been making notable contributions in the contest, including but by no means limited to:

• Arconning (submissions) – 386 points, with several good articles primarily relating to the Olympics
• Vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) – 141 points, who created multiple articles about abortion rights and laws in African countries
• TheNuggeteer (submissions) – 126 points, who has contributed to several articles associated with the Phillippines
• Jaguarnik (submissions) – 125 points, with several good article reviews and an appearance in the In the news section of the Main Page
• Averageuntitleduser (submissions) – 119 points, and has written about several Haitian topics and historical figures.

Only one month remains until the end of the contest, so it's time to make your remaining nominations! Please consider answering some review requests, particularly the older entries, as a way of helping out your fellow participants and moving up the leaderboard. Good luck!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (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) 22:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Castlereagh–Canning duel 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fu Wuji 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets on a "Language and literature" 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia on a "Language and literature" 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Alfred the Great

I really would encourage you to reread it and revert to my edit. I’m a practicing Roman Catholic mostly concerned with church editing on here and I can promise you even to me it reads like a polemical attack on the prods. Such language has no place in an encyclopaedia. I’m going to raise it in the talk page on the article itself but wanted to raise it personally Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration; perhaps this is simply just two people having different impressions—if so, it should likely be made milder since that would ensure an encyclopedic tone for everyone. Remsense ‥ 论 03:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

User page copy and paste

Hey Remsense. I noticed that @DisneyGuy744 copied your user page onto theirs. I don't believe this is good for quite obvious reasons so I just wanted to tell you. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Chinese character strokes

Hello, Remsense,

I just wanted to let you know that this draft was due for a CSD G13 stale draft deletion. You aren't the page creator so you wouldn't receive notice but you obviously worked a lot on the page so I wanted to inform you about its coming deletion. You can get it restored by going to WP:REFUND. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)