User talk:Remsense: Difference between revisions
→Regarding the source of E=mc^2: new section |
|||
Line 399: | Line 399: | ||
Dear Remsense, |
Dear Remsense, |
||
It currently says in the |
It currently says in the [[Samuel Tolver Preston]] article that Dr. Preston discovered the relationship between energy and matter before Albert Einstein was even born. It currently says this in the wiki article. |
||
I challenge you to use [[Wikipedia:RS|reliable sources]] to post in the |
I challenge you to use [[Wikipedia:RS|reliable sources]] to post in the [[Samuel Tolver Preston]] article that would accredit Einstein to this discovery. |
||
Otherwise just jump on the bandwagon of idiots that do not contemplate real scientific inquiry, discovery and critique. |
Otherwise just jump on the bandwagon of idiots that do not contemplate real scientific inquiry, discovery and critique. |
Revision as of 22:10, 30 May 2024
![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Welcome ...
![]() | |
story · music · places |
---|
... to WP:QAI or the cabal of the outcast ;) - what a nice surprise when waking up! Good luck with your first GA! ---- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm having a really good time of it so far! And my good mood just got a lot better, thank you Gerda. You're a real inspiration—and one that attracts other wonderful people for me to learn with, at that. Remsense诉 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Great to hear you are having a good time. - I'd like to talk about a topic where I often don't have a good time: infoboxes. In your first reply to the recommended MoS change, you mentioned "summed up", while I don't think an infobox should sum up or not, but rather collect those relevant items that can be listed in a parameter-value scheme. Of course not a creative mind's working. But his works. No? Let's look at Mozart, perhaps, and the last long discussion leading there (of I don't remember how many, - I summed them up at some point years ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think there are certain specific ways where it's totally reasonable for an infobox to be reference versus simple summary. To be brief, I think all the use cases here are totally fine—I'm mostly referring to phenomena such as people adding minor generals to articles about battles. To me. the underlying logic is, if one has to ask "well, what relation does this datum have to the topic exactly", it requires attestation in the article, and if it's clear from the structure of the data, it doesn't. For Chinese-language articles,
{{Infobox Chinese}}
often includes synonyms of terms that aren't explicated in the article itself, simply because it would unduly clutter the article body. I think that's totally fine. - Thank you for asking for elaboration, I was quite terse and reductive while making some of my points, hoping not to give people too many paragraphs of mine to scroll through, but elaboration is worthwhile here. Cheers! Remsense诉 13:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Did you know that I am the No. 1 suspect of war crime in infoboxes? Back in 2013, we had an arb case, and I invented the idea of two comments max in a discussion, and it was turned against me as a restriction, and I came to think of it as a liberating blessing. (See my 2013 talk archive in case of interest in history.) I was on vacation during the ongoing MoS discussion, and took the liberty not only not to respond but even not to read it, - that's what vacation is for. I read some now, and try to understand, and confess I didn't get far in the process, but you have to start somewhere. So, let's break it up and be specific. Does the Mozart infobox work for you, yes or no? And if no why? Is the RfC discussion of last year of any help understanding viewpoints? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the infobox presently on Mozart is very nice. I think my specific angle is different from those that would disagree with this sort of presentation. Remsense诉 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, - in the discussion there are several who still resent any infobox for classical composers. Little history lesson: in 2010, two things happened, a specific infobox was created for these people ({{infobox classical composer}}), and an RfC found any infoboxes for them not suitable and resulted in removing many of these, replacing them by hidden messages that you can still find today, see Debussy oder Stockhausen - "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page." (in other words, before even editing seek permission, - contrary to the bold editing concept). - I was already on Wikipedia at the time, but didn't notice one or the other. I wrote cantata articles, and right now I'm determined to improve one of them to GA quality, Du Hirte Israel, höre, BWV 104 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Though I was not here for these developments and as such don't have much to add—suffice it to say that I agree with your points of emphasis as regards content and conduct. I do think it's non-trivial for people (read: for me) to achieve ideal conduct that is both pragmatic in conserving time and effort (broadly construed) versus treating the large, anonymous class of potential editors with the courtesy they absolutely deserve.
- Thank goodness there is always more Bach, thank you for making today the day I hear this piece for the first time Your work is always instructive for me. As an aside: I really want to improve Wikipedia's music theory articles, but it seems a difficult topic to dial in for a modern global audience compared to the relatively low volume of musicological scholarship compared to other areas of art history, especially in the gap between vernacular literature and scholarly analysis. But things could certainly be a lot better right now. Some music and musicology articles I have on my endless to-do list are:
- Remsense诉 16:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you and good plans! Now that we looked at Mozart, what do you think of Vivaldi, - check out talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also think Vivaldi is fine! I apologize if my conduct in the RfC came off as overly dogmatic or easily conflated with certain concerns by others. Remsense诉 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see that Vivaldi is missing something I think is essential. I said "check out talk" for a reason ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for being terse: things like lists of works are completely reasonable inclusions in infoboxes to me. Like I've said, my concerns are with totally unquantified inclusions, this is the opposite. Remsense诉 22:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, reasonable to you and me, but not to those who reverted them. I think Vivaldi would be finer with them, whatever way, saying so many operas or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for being terse: things like lists of works are completely reasonable inclusions in infoboxes to me. Like I've said, my concerns are with totally unquantified inclusions, this is the opposite. Remsense诉 22:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see that Vivaldi is missing something I think is essential. I said "check out talk" for a reason ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also think Vivaldi is fine! I apologize if my conduct in the RfC came off as overly dogmatic or easily conflated with certain concerns by others. Remsense诉 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you and good plans! Now that we looked at Mozart, what do you think of Vivaldi, - check out talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, - in the discussion there are several who still resent any infobox for classical composers. Little history lesson: in 2010, two things happened, a specific infobox was created for these people ({{infobox classical composer}}), and an RfC found any infoboxes for them not suitable and resulted in removing many of these, replacing them by hidden messages that you can still find today, see Debussy oder Stockhausen - "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page." (in other words, before even editing seek permission, - contrary to the bold editing concept). - I was already on Wikipedia at the time, but didn't notice one or the other. I wrote cantata articles, and right now I'm determined to improve one of them to GA quality, Du Hirte Israel, höre, BWV 104 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the infobox presently on Mozart is very nice. I think my specific angle is different from those that would disagree with this sort of presentation. Remsense诉 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Did you know that I am the No. 1 suspect of war crime in infoboxes? Back in 2013, we had an arb case, and I invented the idea of two comments max in a discussion, and it was turned against me as a restriction, and I came to think of it as a liberating blessing. (See my 2013 talk archive in case of interest in history.) I was on vacation during the ongoing MoS discussion, and took the liberty not only not to respond but even not to read it, - that's what vacation is for. I read some now, and try to understand, and confess I didn't get far in the process, but you have to start somewhere. So, let's break it up and be specific. Does the Mozart infobox work for you, yes or no? And if no why? Is the RfC discussion of last year of any help understanding viewpoints? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think there are certain specific ways where it's totally reasonable for an infobox to be reference versus simple summary. To be brief, I think all the use cases here are totally fine—I'm mostly referring to phenomena such as people adding minor generals to articles about battles. To me. the underlying logic is, if one has to ask "well, what relation does this datum have to the topic exactly", it requires attestation in the article, and if it's clear from the structure of the data, it doesn't. For Chinese-language articles,
- Great to hear you are having a good time. - I'd like to talk about a topic where I often don't have a good time: infoboxes. In your first reply to the recommended MoS change, you mentioned "summed up", while I don't think an infobox should sum up or not, but rather collect those relevant items that can be listed in a parameter-value scheme. Of course not a creative mind's working. But his works. No? Let's look at Mozart, perhaps, and the last long discussion leading there (of I don't remember how many, - I summed them up at some point years ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to know more about your "oppose" to the Wugapodes suggestion. You refer there to your own previous comment and to Ssilvers. Your own is too long for now, but what I read from Ssilvers is short: "This would blatantly violate the ArbCom compromise. It also appears that canvassing may be going on here." What in that do you mean, or do you mean something else, - then please clarify in the discussion. (I seriously don't know of any ArbCom compromise. To my possibly limited knowledge, ArbCom just quoted the MoS item that we are discussing, requested a community-wide RfC which we seem to have, finally, and so left things to battle again and again from article to article which hasn't made editor relations sweeter. For me, Mozart and Copland are compromise, and could be models.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- My initial !vote was not worded very well—I have an awful habit of zigging in an attempt at brevity when I should zag in an attempt at clarity, and vice versa. Outside of the context of threaded discussion, I will try to elaborate my entire position as concerns infoboxes from the ground up. I will strike my remarks that may imply I think there is canvassing, ArbCom violation, any other behavioral issues going on, since I do not believe that to be the case.
- Infoboxes are an article layout convention that presents key facts about an article's subject in a highly visible and discrete manner, such that readers may access this information at a glance.
- Infoboxes do this largely through presenting a summary distillation of an article's contents as key:value pairs, in the context of a broad classification of the article as a given type—e.g. 'person', 'creative work', 'event'.
- A relative hierarchy of importance is also communicated through the particular layout of an infobox's data.
- Infoboxes are extremely successful: readers effectively intuit their contents as being the most important information about an article's subject, which they also associate with those of other articles with similar infoboxes. Readers may not know that it's called an infobox, but they understand associations being made when they see {{Infobox chess match}}, {{Infobox academic}}, or {{Infobox criminal organization}} at the top of an article.
- Having established that, my core points are:
- The reification communicated by the presence—or absence!—of an infobox should be treated with care in marginal cases. Some article subjects are quite unlike others of their "class" in terms of representation in sources. Most commonly, a given subject may be somehow obscure: we may not know when a person was born, analyses may differ as to what key a piece of music is in, it may be unclear what actually transpired during a historical event—possibly to such a degree that there is no single quantification of what type of event it is. In many cases it is sufficient simply to leave problematic parameters unpopulated. We can also change or deprecate infobox templates as to better suit their applicability. However, the space of possible edge cases is very large to the extent that I feel uncomfortable establishing that broad classes of articles should have infoboxes—the applicability of a given class of infobox should be justified first. A sparely populated infobox communicates something different than the absence of an infobox to the reader, with either possibly being more appropriate for a given article.
- Infoboxes are not useful, and in fact can be organizationally harmful, on articles that only consist of a lead and references or otherwise don't require distillation or summary in their present state.
- Many abstract subjects, including most sub-articles, do not require infoboxes—e.g. Feudalism and Immortal Beloved. This boundary is fuzzy, and guidelines should not favor pulling one way or the other due to these boundary cases being those of most concern in my mind.
- Many of these points were acknowledged in the proposed language and by those supporting it, but I do not feel said language was adequately flexible or didactic for the purposes of a content guideline. Remsense诉 12:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain, and I think you would do that discussion and its closer a favour if you placed your last line in your oppose, in your words something like "good idea but not worded carefully enough". Instead of sending the poor closer to two other locations within a very long discussion. - At some point there you said "recommended" is a weasel word, - please explain. For me, it expresses exactly the consideration that an infobox is not required and should not be required. How would you say that? - If I was the closer I would try to give little weight to all comments that seem to understand the proposal as saying "required" and not "recommended". In my "support" I wrote no reasoning because my reasons to not exclude infoboxes from classical composers are in the list given just above, where they have worked well and have not caused trouble, Clara Schumann for example, not by me, stable for more than a decade. Did you read my story today? There's one every day ;) - "places" change less frequently, but there are new pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- ps: I think it's quite generally a good idea to not refer to any other editor's comments when saying oppose or support. I have seen A saying "per B", and later in the discussion B changed their mind. However, I did that for Mozart, as you may have read, but not without irony, playing with someone else's comment. He had opposed "per the cogent arguments by Ssilvers", and I had supported "per the cogent arguments by Voceditenore". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (look up places) - I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I do very much! It certainly doesn't hurt that the photos used for both are stunning. Remsense诉 19:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! - Listen to my story today ;) (a DYK hook written in 2012, before I even knew of "infobox wars") - Some day I hope to do justice to your detailed points above, - no time today. Could you do me a favour and just strike the reference to Ssilvers in your oppose, please? (Because that name will be associated with the arguments in the Mozart discussion, - please read there if you haven't, and decide if cogent or not for you. I looked up "reification" - a new word for me, and I'm not sure I quite understand it, - language being one of my barriers in arguments). - The Copland compromise was seen by 10k, without concerns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry for missing that before, I'll do so. Remsense诉 08:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Reification" is a word I lean on a lot trying to explain design and such things, probably unduly. The sense in which I'm using it can basically be replaced with "thing-ification"—the process whereby a concept accumulates and becomes clearly defined and entrenched in someone's head. The process of reification is distinct from that of "pattern identification" per se, but there's overlap—we usually consider things that are "overly reified" as trivial, stale, or impersonal. Music's a fantastic explanatory vehicle for it, actually. Sonata form as traditionally understood is basically wholly an exercise in the double-edged sword of reification: how does one communicate abstract motives in a way that creates concrete feelings in the audience, but doesn't draw attention to its own process of being a developing motive in a way that manifests as unmerited boredom or confusion in the audience, without pulling them out of the non-conceptual experience of music? I hope that gives you more of an idea and didn't just add a few more unclear sentences to the pile. To rephrase the original sentence: readers have their own working understanding of what an infobox is and where it should be, even if they don't put it into words. Remsense诉 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, - some day I'll try to understand, - patience please. I had a good day out, added a few pics (the last ones for March), and have three recent-death-articles in my workshop - always time-critical or no longer recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- One of the three was posted, Notker Wolf, quite a character! - Another died though, and I once began his article, so again three waiting. - Just the daily update: Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939), and below (on my talk) three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. For our infobox topic: there's a cute short Q&A on the Anderson talk, from 2020. Sounds like it could be so easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- For a bit, I thought e-guitar meant he was rocking one of those fancy MIDI controllers with the keys arranged as a fretboard! Also, every philosophical work in German sounds so profound in translation.
Remsense诉 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- thank you ;) - plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- What a talent. It's quite humbling to remember before electronic amplification that the organ was quite commonly the closest thing many got to hearing and feeling "the presence of God" in terms of sonic totality. Remsense诉 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I like your thought about "feeling" the organ sound. My story last year mentioned God's presence, on this day ;) - Relief: the last of six RD articles in one week is now on the Main page - yesterday I heard a great recital with many anti-war songs by Jewish composers whose music was banned by the Nazis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Der Kontrabass is so fun! It reminds me of the piece "Failing" for double bass, though the latter is a bit more tongue-in-cheek, arguably to its detriment. Remsense诉 20:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- What a talent. It's quite humbling to remember before electronic amplification that the organ was quite commonly the closest thing many got to hearing and feeling "the presence of God" in terms of sonic totality. Remsense诉 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- thank you ;) - plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- For a bit, I thought e-guitar meant he was rocking one of those fancy MIDI controllers with the keys arranged as a fretboard! Also, every philosophical work in German sounds so profound in translation.
- Thank you! - Listen to my story today ;) (a DYK hook written in 2012, before I even knew of "infobox wars") - Some day I hope to do justice to your detailed points above, - no time today. Could you do me a favour and just strike the reference to Ssilvers in your oppose, please? (Because that name will be associated with the arguments in the Mozart discussion, - please read there if you haven't, and decide if cogent or not for you. I looked up "reification" - a new word for me, and I'm not sure I quite understand it, - language being one of my barriers in arguments). - The Copland compromise was seen by 10k, without concerns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I do very much! It certainly doesn't hurt that the photos used for both are stunning. Remsense诉 19:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Outline draft tracker
Hey,
Here's a page I created for tracking outline drafts, that shows the date of the latest edit for each.
Such as for these outline drafts you created:
Drafts that haven't been edited in 6 months get deleted from draft space. This list lets us see if any drafts are getting close to the 6-month danger date. Once an edit is made to an outline draft, the date for it in this list automatically updates.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Draft tracker.
I hope you find it useful.
Cheers, — The Transhumanist 08:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nifty! Do you think finishing the GAN of Chinese characters before finally finishing the outline is backwards?
Remsense诉 00:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. You can do it in whatever order you like, including simultaneously. Some Wikipedians work on hundreds of different pages each day. ;) Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Like me! I was mostly being coy though, but I do think it's a great outline subject and I secretly want it to be the second outline to earn FL... Remsense诉 06:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not a secret anymore! You better hurry up then, before somebody beats you to it. — The Transhumanist 07:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Like me! I was mostly being coy though, but I do think it's a great outline subject and I secretly want it to be the second outline to earn FL... Remsense诉 06:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. You can do it in whatever order you like, including simultaneously. Some Wikipedians work on hundreds of different pages each day. ;) Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
China government type
Sorry to chase you over here, on the status quo for this parameter, surely 'socialist state' is outdated? I get that it's referring to the state apparatus and the extreme level of intervention/control over modes of production, but surely there's a better term with more accurate economic inferences? State capitalism is more accurate imo although I dk whether there's enough consensus from recent academic sources. Do you think this deserves another RfC? Could be a slightly less braindead one than the last one lol Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- What follows is almost entirely conjecture and OR on my part:
- Iiiiiit's complex, to the best of my understanding. The Chinese government still proudly characterizes itself as Marxist–Leninist—the most recent, most prominent ideological current seems to be that summed up in Xi's 两个结合 'two integrations'—there's not even a common English calque of this one yet—it's quite textually just "we are fusing Confucius's ideas with Marx". Don't ask me how that works, but it seems they have something cooking over there, so what do I know as a rudderless baizuo. Really, I couldn't tell you.
- In some ways, it's really nothing new, just socialism with Chinese characteristics with a new catchphrase, but also I think these articulations do matter and affect material policy! The state continues to operate in many ways without concern for a direct profit incentive like you might expect if the state were functioning as a traditional capitalist. Propaganda isn't all smoke, and it doesn't only "work" on specific groups at this scale. I myself have a petulant, reflexive dislike for the term "state capitalism"—simply because it doesn't actually mean anything, all capitalism is state capitalism—i.e. it can't exist without the state, and the state acts as a mediating body for capital even in the most laissez faire configurations. Again, this is largely just my opinion again, but you might see how it's a bit of a stumbling block for establishing a firm consensus reflecting sources that means much of anything.
- And that doesn't even get into the history of Leninist states outside of China and how that impacts how people might think about China! Oh dear. Suffice it to say I am not convinced that the Chinese government is actually working in the direction of a classless society, to say the very least. But too far down this rabbit hole lies madness. I figure it's as meaningful as anything else just to relay what they say about themselves. Remsense诉 20:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah you're probably right, but I think the state in state capitalism refers to the state controlling the means of production rather than it being in private ownership. Maybe Marxist-Leninist state apparatus instead of state-socialism? In reality it doesn't fit the binary socialism or capitalism, and this just refers to the system of government rather than the economy. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Advice for article improvement
Hi Remsense, apologies for bothering. I have been working the page for the Chinese Botanist and scholar Hu Xiansu for quite a while now ever since I learnt about him. However, I don't believe the page is where it could be, and would really appreciate a skilled eye to determine (and maybe fix) key issues with the article. Thanks! Zinderboff(talk) 10:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm flattered you'd ask for my opinion. I'll take a look ASAP!
Remsense诉 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! There's absolutely no hurry. Take as long as you need. Zinderboff(talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Your reversion at Byzantine music
What is going on here? Platonykiss (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- The first reversion was a little harsh, but I think I adequately mentioned the reason in the edit summary, though I'm happy to elaborate: large passages of text in non-English languages are not useful to the vast majority of readers on an English-language encyclopedia, even on articles relevant to deeply academic topics like Old Slavonic philology, or what have you. It simply doesn't do much but takes up space if one can't read it, and therefore is a net negative for the reader. I think it's fine to have access to the original text given the translation, so that's why I think putting it in the footnote was a better idea on my part. Remsense诉 11:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is not harsh, but invasive and I also did not remark it first. Thus, I recommend to be more thoughtful with such interactions.
- It is already there, not just with link to a translation, but also to a critical edition of the text, but I am confident that many readers (with a Slavic background at least) might wish to check with a simplified orthography of the original text (something that the quoted edition does not offer). The transcription at Petersburg does offer it now (not when I made this paragraph) and they can also check with a facsimile of the manuscript which has the real orthography. If you just had waited some minutes, I was about to insert a link!
- You just ruined the work of half an hour.
- By the way, who are you and what makes you think that you are authorised to behave here in this way?
- I have never experienced here anything like it! Honestly I would rather appreciate, if you removed outdated bibliographical references which somebody parked in the sources list. It would be more helpful! Since I am not the rude type I just moved it to a better place. I hope you can learn from it. Platonykiss (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think putting it in the footnote was a better idea on my part
- I have seen it now. That is ok! Platonykiss (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers! It's really nice to see improvement in this area, where I haven 't any expertise but really think deserves more coverage on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
An additional note
Frankly I have concerns about a pattern of behavior with ProKMT making a whole slew of edits to infoboxes and tags with some clear and frustrating systematic biases that I could best describe as treating any movement for Chinese autonomy from the west as intrinsically reactionary. I assumed it was just anti CPC stuff at first but I think it's more than that. And they've not been great about engaging at talk or on their own userpage to discuss slowing down, paying more attention to reliable sources, avoiding OR, or collaborating to improve the grammar of their more extensive edits. The Boxer Rebellion edit was one more egregious example out of a consistent and worrying pattern. Simonm223 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to ping @ProKMT for full transparency so they may see and respond to comments on their behavior if they so choose. That said, I certainly feel your concerns are warranted. I suppose I have demurred to date because...well, I don't want to seem anti-KMT, now do I? Remsense诉 00:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please do. I've tried to reach out to them and, assuming they are a new editor, I would prefer that they listen and develop as an editor. Perhaps other people reaching out to them will help. But if they continue this spree of POV editing I think it's going to end in drama. Simonm223 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't heard anything more from ProKMT regarding my concerns - but they've continued pushing the POV that, for instance, the DPP is not anti-Communist, that even the KMT is against unification, and a general tendency to treat pro-western factions as left and pro-unity factions as right. This is starting to look a lot like WP:RADAR - have they spoken at all to you? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- They may not get pings. I think it's worthwhile having this conversation on their talk page. Remsense诉 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't heard anything more from ProKMT regarding my concerns - but they've continued pushing the POV that, for instance, the DPP is not anti-Communist, that even the KMT is against unification, and a general tendency to treat pro-western factions as left and pro-unity factions as right. This is starting to look a lot like WP:RADAR - have they spoken at all to you? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please do. I've tried to reach out to them and, assuming they are a new editor, I would prefer that they listen and develop as an editor. Perhaps other people reaching out to them will help. But if they continue this spree of POV editing I think it's going to end in drama. Simonm223 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Clarification about the note in Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis
Sorry, I didn't understand the note you left in Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis, particularly the part where you said that when both monogenesis and polygenesis exist. The opinion on most professionals in the field is that either monogenesis (the most accepted) or polygenesis exist. [1], and the options aren't overlapping (the Nicaraguan Sign Language isn't a real language; according to Judy Shepard-Kegl, “[i]t had all the right characteristics to fool the human brain into thinking, ‘That’s a language.’ So, they learned it. It wasn’t a language, but their brains filled in the holes of what was missing. That’s the kind of formula for this.” [2]. So could you, please, clarify a little more? Thank you, Pcg111 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC).
- I meant that both articles exist, as you know from linking to them, so it's unclear what an article that talks about one and then the other is doing other than a content fork. In general, unless there is a massive contention in a field that needs its own article, the dialogue is best placed on one of the aforementioned more specific articles. Remsense诉 08:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
P. D.: I had the idea of merging Monogenesis (linguistics) and Polygenesis (linguistics) into this article (I translated it from the Spanish Wikipedia). Pcg111 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you have that idea, you should propose a merge request on one of the article talk pages, or perhaps on WikiProject Linguistics. Remsense诉 08:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Freedman, David A.; Wang, William S-Y. (July 28, 1996). "Language Polygenesis: A Probabilistic Model". Anthropology Science. 104 (2): 131–138. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
- ^ Zall, Carol (September 29, 2020). "The origin of Nicaraguan Sign Language tells us a lot about language creation". The World. Retrieved May 4, 2024.
New page reviewer granted
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Wikipedia_New_page_reviewer.svg/80px-Wikipedia_New_page_reviewer.svg.png)
Hi Remsense, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
- Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
- If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
- If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies
You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Page mover granted
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Wikipedia_page_mover.svg/80px-Wikipedia_page_mover.svg.png)
Hello, Remsense. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Useful links:
- Wikipedia:Requested moves
- Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
May music
![]() | |
story · music · places |
---|
Congratulations! - On the bicentenary of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, I remember our recent uplifting choral concert in pictures, on my user page and in my concerts (leading to the two at the church's article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- You'll have to forgive me for the pure tangent inspired by perusing your music pages: it's never occurred to me before to ask what the history is, if any, surrounding the embracing of Bach's music by Catholic Europe. Of course he was born after the wars of religion had ended and it would be a while before his work was universally acclaimed, but surely there's some very interesting ecumenical history given the very distinct Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist musical contexts. Remsense诉 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know much about history, but believe that Bach - having been called the fifth Evangelists - is far more "catholic" in the word's original meaning than any group/denomination, and music a more universal and more emotional language than words. I am Protestant and sing in that Catholic church choir since their St Matthew Passion, and if you follow the concert history there was a first ecumenical project in 2000 - with Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Today is the Feast of the Ascension for which Bach composed his oratorio, - perhaps watch a bit how the closing movement was performed in Bach's church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Magdalena Hinterdobler is on the Main page today, together with an opera that reviewers deemed not interesting and too obscure for our general readers. The soprano thought differently, - listen and see. - Also on the Main page: a TFA by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- did you listen and see? - today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Were there particularly lovely insights in Hinterdobler and Holender's conversation? Youtube's auto-translating subtitles didn't help me much in this case.
- I love Hedi Skoop's Ruhe sculpture.
- I still feel I haven't quite lived my original introduction down. You're too kind to feel that way, but suffice it to say I've actively attempted to learn from my missteps. :)
- Remsense诉 15:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The insights were less important to me than being able to meet the personalities a bit. You may have seen that the Holender DYK nom was - after already in prep to appear - rejected and discussed, and I wasn't too kind but stubbornly refused several offers of alternatives. The Hinterdobler nom went fine, and there was even interest for the opera while on the Main page, but now she is up for deletion. I should be thankful because that really raised interest ;) - My English isn't up to a phrase such as "live an intention down" - could you say that differently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking me to rephrase, I have a bad habit of writing unclearly when I don't need to. What I mean to say is: I'm still embarrassed about my previous behavior a bit, but in a way I'm glad I was so foolish, because it resulted in me getting to know you better. Thank you for your grace in that. :) Remsense诉 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- that sounds lovely! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I heard lovely chamber music today, and the DYK mentions "profoundly human" singing (that you can watch), connected to a place where we'll sing in September --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for improving articles in May! - Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Congratulations to another GA! - Do you think Ethel Smyth has GA potential? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, and certainly! I feel like I learn things everyone should know every time I read about suffragettes. Remsense诉 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll look into it, - so far my contribution to the article - written by many, mostly Sfjohna - was adding the infobox ;) - without any trouble, - for some reason I don't know the opposition seems to focus on men of FA caliber, - compare Clara Schumann and Imogen Holst. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- As if to demonstrate, today we look at Gustav Holst. Can we agree that the 2016 discussion (still on the talk!) was perhaps not the best use of everybody's time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- 29 May 1913: The Rite of Spring - today's story, actually something I saw at that place in a revival. - 100 years after the almost-riot we had the infobox discussion, often mentioned in the arbcase? - Today a user who returned after several years said that nothing changed. Would you agree? I wouldn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, and certainly! I feel like I learn things everyone should know every time I read about suffragettes. Remsense诉 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking me to rephrase, I have a bad habit of writing unclearly when I don't need to. What I mean to say is: I'm still embarrassed about my previous behavior a bit, but in a way I'm glad I was so foolish, because it resulted in me getting to know you better. Thank you for your grace in that. :) Remsense诉 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The insights were less important to me than being able to meet the personalities a bit. You may have seen that the Holender DYK nom was - after already in prep to appear - rejected and discussed, and I wasn't too kind but stubbornly refused several offers of alternatives. The Hinterdobler nom went fine, and there was even interest for the opera while on the Main page, but now she is up for deletion. I should be thankful because that really raised interest ;) - My English isn't up to a phrase such as "live an intention down" - could you say that differently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The Core Contest is halfway through!
Hello Core Contest participants, we've officially hit the halfway mark! With just over three weeks remaining until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!
Now is a good time to set goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
Jaguar
![]() |
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence | |
For spending hours being patient with inquiries on MY talk page. You are a God-sent little irenicist. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
sfn v sfnp
It's a personal taste thing, but to my eye, {{sfnp}} produces a "nicer" result than {{sfn}}:
- Tsien & Needham (1985), pp. 201–217.
v
- Tsien & Needham 1985, pp. 201–217.
See also User talk:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates
Your call. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am relieved that I find both acceptable most of the time, given how anal I get about other aspects of citation (e.g. I think I'm an ISBN-13 3-1-3-5-1 partisan in the extreme) so I try to avoid changing things I'm not particuar with as to not potentially inconvenience anyone as per REFVAR, I agree it looks considerably nicer when citing a work by two authors, I'll use this as a pretense to switch over, just for fun. Remsense诉 02:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Following up
Re: this FYI I am the instructor supervising the student. I expect a lot of them are using AI tools, but - is there a smoking gun here I am missing?
I am revising my instructions for students at User:Hanyangprofessor2/sandbox (old) with newer ones currently listed on my userpage. The students were supposed to be leaving image reviews at Commons, not at Wikipedia's FAC, but some clicked a wrong link... Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 05:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:The End of Everything (novel) 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 10:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Linguistics wars.
Hello,
I have considered your latest review of this article Linguistics wars I edited as part of my assignment. I would love it if you could find the time to review the article again. I have adjusted the article to fit the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Also, I would like to let you know that I plan on extending the article even further in the near future.
Dashing50 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for being so receptive to my critique, I'm taking a look right now! Remsense诉 04:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pseudotranslation in The Lord of the Rings 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 11:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:List of prefecture-level cities in China
Hello, Remsense. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of prefecture-level cities in China, 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) 16:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Why remove this source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interracial_marriage&diff=prev&oldid=1223464445#Russia
Here are the statistic of intermarriage between Russian ethnic groups (scroll down)
https://iq.hse.ru/en/news/177665069.html this source is reliable is it not? HabichuelasBeans (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your addition was unencyclopedic and didn't provide any context to the audience other than specific bare statistics. Remsense诉 23:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding this. Isn't this source 100% accurate when they said this?
- " In his ground-breaking research, Eugeny Soroko, Senior Research Fellow at the HSE Institute of Demography"
- " According to Soroko's estimates based on data from the 2010 National Census, 12% of all married couples in Russia are between people of different ethnicities "
- " The researcher measured the different groups' tendency to form interethnic marriages by using both censuses' micro data to build a matrix (Table 4) containing 15,080,000 ethnically homogeneous (diagonal) and 2,060,000 ethnically mixed (off-diagonal) couples—the latter stand at 12% of all couples included in the matrix."
- "Table 4. Matrix of Ethnic Combinations in Married Couples, Russia, 2010, number of couples (fragment). " HabichuelasBeans (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The passage didn't explain to the reader what the figures meant, why they might be important, or in what context they came from. Therefore, the passage did not belong on a general-purpose encyclopedia. See here. Remsense诉 06:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Qi
Hi, I saw your rollback of my copy edit to Qi. I think it would have been better to replace just the word "unusual" if there is an issue with it, and preserve the rest of my edits, which I think are still an improvement. What about "uncommon"? Or " rare"? Or did you think the rest of the edit was not an improvement? (Honestly I'm not sure that sentence belongs in the article at all but that's a separate conversation). Anyway thanks, I'm interested to hear what you think. delldot ∇. 03:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rahlfs 1219 on a "Philosophy and religion" 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 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Translating The Lord of the Rings 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 06:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:October: The Story of the Russian Revolution
Hello, Remsense. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:October: The Story of the Russian Revolution, 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) 10:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Constantine XI Paliaologos’s religion
Hello, one of my edits on the page of Constantine XI Paliaologos have been reversed. This is a mistake because Constantine XI Paliaologos was a Greek Catholic and here's some evidence and sources.
Just as his predecessor (John VIII Palaiologos) Constantine XI Paliaologos converted to Catholicism. They converted to gain help from Western Europe, and the Papal States from the Ottoman Turks.
Another piece of evidence is his Sainthood. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, and other eastern Christian churches Constantine XI isn't considered a saint. Why? It's because he died as a Greek Catholic, this is why the only church where he's considered a saint is in the Greek Catholic Church.
He converted to Catholicism in 1437 at the Council of Florence and because of this the Pope did tried to save Constantinople from the Ottomans by sending in Venetian troops to defend it. That's also why emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos died a Catholic.
ByzantineHistory435 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- We need a direct citation where a reliable source describes him as Eastern Catholic. What you've presented above is original research. Remsense诉 00:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Zhemao hoax
You said "generally do not state the name of non-notable people", but the name appeared in the title and in the next sentence "...as Zhemao used machine translation to understand...". Here "Zhemao" suddenly appeared in the running text without any explanation. It is obviously better to explain it as "...Zhemao, an editor of the Chinese Wikipedia...". --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 09:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) comment: In general, Remsense is correct but in this specific case, I think that Huhu9001 has a valid argument. The model we should follow is Hitler Diaries, a hoax of far larger significance. Trying to follow the general rule resulted in a sentence that was difficult to read and gave the impression of NPOV and objectivity failure. I have revised the lead sentence so that it reads
The Zhemao hoaxes were a series of over 200 interconnected Wikipedia articles about falsified aspects of medieval Russian history written from 2012 to 2022 by "Zhemao", a pseudonymous editor of the Chinese Wikipedia.
However I don't consider it appropriate the put her name in bold, even though Zhemao redirects there. Of course, others may disagree. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)- Thank you but I did not put Zhemao's name in bold. --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 03:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Template editor granted
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Wikipedia_Template_editor_icon_%281%29.svg/130px-Wikipedia_Template_editor_icon_%281%29.svg.png)
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
- Useful links
- All template-protected pages
- User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
- Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection
Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:A mythology for England 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 11:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
When you revert obvious promo
Hi, many thanks for reverting the IP's ridiculous promo at Talk:Rice. I'm warning them now, so that they know it's not OK. In future, when you see such stuff, please immediately give a warning, as people need to be made fully aware that Wikipedia won't tolerate this stuff even from total newbies. With any luck, they'll tell their mates that it's not worth trying (we live in hope). Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure! I tend to ramp up to lv2+ faster than most already. Remsense诉 06:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Why did you reverse my edit on the note a of the 'Philo of Alexandria' article?
I edited it because there seems to be an error on the note a — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianMW8 (talk • contribs)
- You removed the
{{tlit}}
template, which is important for indicating when text is in a non-English language. Remsense诉 10:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Block May 21
![Stop icon with clock](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)- @Daniel Case: could you point me to where Remsense violated 3RR? They've only made one recent edit to Philo... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: The article was Russian Civil War.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be a ongoing problem that they should have asked for help with. Live and learn. Moxy🍁 22:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Remsense诉 00:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- seems like the wrong person was banned. Artem.G (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I accept the 24: I was going about things in a disruptive way. Remsense诉 11:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chinese characters
The article Chinese characters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chinese characters for comments about the article, and Talk:Chinese characters/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you do nominate for FA at some point in the future, one issue that I have not addressed at all (and that might come up) is the connection/overlap between this article and Written Chinese. —Kusma (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, you deserve an award:
![]() |
The Half Million Award |
For your contributions to bring Chinese characters (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! —Kusma (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
- I've said it more than enough, but one more time: I literally could not have asked for a better GAN reviewer, and I learned way more in the process than I even expected with your help. The article is really something I can be proud of in part thanks to you. Since I've looked at it far too much since October, I figure a FAC can start happening after I can look at it with fresh eyes. Remsense诉 10:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Congratulations!!! Thank you for your hard work. Go take a break. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Article description deleted by you
I recently added a short description to the article Philosophy of Mathematics and it was reverted by you as you deemed it unimportant or just repeating the title. I am a fairly new editor and you're probably more experienced than me, but I believe there is no issue with it as similar articles like Philosophy of science and Philosophy of language both have descriptions, so I added it so that it will be in line with the rest. Also, I did not just repeat the title in my description, but I added a short description of it. In the end, you are probably more experienced and I'm not asking for it to be added back if it does in fact break the rules. Thank you
~~~~ JustaNormalLad (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Those articles shouldn't have short descriptions either. As a rule of thumb, when there's no way to describe the topic without merely repeating or rephrasing the title, there shouldn't be a short description. Remsense诉 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Basic Hanja for Educational Use
Hi, Remsense, I saw that you reverted my edit to Basic Hanja for Educational Use. To me it did not seem unreasonable that an article about the Basic Hanja for Educational Use would simply list them for reference, just as the Mandarin and Japanese versions of the article do; your thoughts, and do you feel it is likewise inappropriate for those versions to list the characters as well? Thanks, Arrandale Westmere (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello! It might be worth taking a look at WP:NOTMIRROR as well. Basically, save for specific cases we are writing encyclopedia articles, which simply are not designed to contain mirrors of primary sources. It's generally considered best to put the table on Wikisource oder Wikiversity. Then, you can link to it in a convenient little sidebar box using a template like
{{Wikisource}}
. If you need help doing any of this, please let me know! Cheers, happy editing Remsense诉 18:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the source of E=mc^2
Dear Remsense,
It currently says in the Samuel Tolver Preston article that Dr. Preston discovered the relationship between energy and matter before Albert Einstein was even born. It currently says this in the wiki article.
I challenge you to use reliable sources to post in the Samuel Tolver Preston article that would accredit Einstein to this discovery.
Otherwise just jump on the bandwagon of idiots that do not contemplate real scientific inquiry, discovery and critique.
Sincerely,
K00L-A1D