This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
if in unicode there's U+002D-HYPHEN-MINUSandU+2212−MINUS SIGN, shouldn't there clearly also be U+XXXX HYPHEN SIGN? let it happen
the true nature of asbestos, broadly construed
They should not be given alerts for those areas, or really any alerts for contentious topics, as they have scrutinized the full list. (They spend a lot of time on here.)
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Cultural Revolution
Your recent edits at Cultural Revolution are very good.
You templated the background section as needing further context. I'm willing to help here if I can. What do you suggest lay readers need more context for? I generally see the section as too long (consistent with your templating of the article overall). It strikes me, for example, that the amount of Great Leap Forward material could be shortened. This is only one view of course, and we might develop some context and trim others. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think a really brutally sharp, quick history of social revolution would really help. maybe i could cram it into a paragraph. i feel like the CR can be viewed as springing out of nowhere, and starting with the GLF is not quite enough. so like, touching on the idea of this all-encompassing social and cultural revolution developing out of the political revolutions archetypal in europe, say french → russian → xinhai → 1949 would really help guide the reader, in my mind. i *do* realize i tagged the article as being too long, but maybe it should be too long. :). thank you for the interest! Remsense聊 15:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea and encourage it!
I tend to agree that the article is too long overall. But I do not view these ideas as inconsistent. Part of the reason I believe the article is too long is that there is too much focus on personalities or visceral incidents and not enough on broader trends and forces. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of factors to this, but the way China and its history is talked about and understood in the Anglophone sphere is so alienating so often, and I think a lot of it has to do with the way the languages are different, e.g. The Big Scary Calques that crop up everywhere, that are not strange or overly reifying in Chinese but come off often as stilted, robotic, or alien in English (if I can indulge some lazy adjectives), especially when they pass on to people who aren't familiar with Chinese—it certainly takes two to tango here, as it were. I think there's a lot of work I can do on here that's just taking either work done by knowledgeable people for whom English does not happen to be their first language, and giving it a copyedit or two, or intent fully working to remedy the patterns people often get into when talking about China. :) and integrating it like it deserves into the grand history of revolution and entering modernity really helps with that i think Remsense聊 17:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent perspective. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is still on my to-do list, but I've been daunted by the task. I don't want to leave the tag there forever, so I'm going to double down and try to draft it tonight. Remsense留 02:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still like your idea and encourage it, but what do you think about removing the template for now to make the page a bit less cluttered? JArthur1984 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JArthur1984, oh, please do. I apologize for leaving it there for so long. — Remsense诉 15:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's no reason to apologize. Indeed, the page needs work and your idea is a good one. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse
The most recent question seems a bit like importing conflict, do we have a specific procedure for that? Geardona (talk to me?) 23:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure: my best try is to not get directly involved, while remaining helpful. If they do not listen, I think it becomes more plausible to start removing posts per talk page guidelines. Remsense留 23:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, is there a way to see a page after it is deleted, I would like to see if it was any good/well sourced.
(also when you said edits were saved into the record I was about to talk about suppression but...)
Thank you, that was getting to be a lot Geardona (talk to me?) 00:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I trust that if I ever overstep with a move like that, other hosts will be happy to let me know. Remsense留 00:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you want to join the discussion on ZX graphics, let's just continue it here, to avoid TLDR.
What exactly do you want to know? What arguments do you want from me? Just repeat them here, and then we will do the excerpt on ZX Graphics later. 80.80.52.64 (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, I can just reply to this message of yours:
Moreover, I still want to potentially contest the WP:CALC issue. Do all of the figures used in your work so far (i.e. the work that was removed from this page) come from RS—manuals, whitepapers, etc.? I do understand all of the calculations are not rocket science, but I would appreciate if you could demonstrate a direct chain where no OR accidentally leaks in from your personal expertise without a citation. Would that be a reasonable request? 80.80.52.64 (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'd like to continue having this on the talk page, so that others interested may easily see and contribute. Remsense留 12:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belugajdm
Hi there, I'm just letting you know that you were deceived by a disruptive, POV-pushing LTA on talk:Human rights in Vietnam (Belugajdm) to do their edits for them, in an attempt to make them stick. This has been going on for quite sometime now on multiple articles relating to Vietnamese politics. I've restored the status quo per WP:BE. No hard feelings on your own edits, but per WP:DENY, acknowledging them is only going to embolden them to continue this modus operandi. John Yunshire (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings, quite the contrary—thank you very much for letting me know, I'll be much more vigilant in that topic space next time. I really appreciate it. Remsense留 19:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse quibble about RSes
Hi, Remsense. Thanks for all your responses at the Tea house, that's generous of you. I do have a quibble, though, with this comment at § Citations and Sources:
RS have to be V: Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, in that the content in Wikipedia has to be a summary of content found at a reliable source. However, it's not clear what it even means, for an RS to be V; do you mean, that in order to be a reliable source, the content there has to be a summary of material verifiably found in some other source? Because that is not true, and I would say that a reliable source does not have to be verifiable.
plausibly contribute towards NPOV: I'm not sure what you mean by this. RSes clearly do not have to be either neutral, or unbiased, and it's fine to include content citing a source that expounds the most extreme, false, or biased rubbish if the source is reliable, as long as it is in compliance with all policies and guidelines (especially WP:DUE). No doubt WP:INTEXT and WP:RSOPINION will come into play in those cases, but saying a source has to plausibly contribute towards NPOV seems fuzzy to me, in that it implies that the source itself has to be neutral, when that is very clearly not the case.
I think these probably amount to wording quibbles, and I probably missed your actual intent, and for that I apologize. I think your comments at TEA are uniformly good ones, and I thank you for them. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was self-conscious about how I was basically stringing the policies together in a circle there. On the latter point, I was unclear: I meant to say that while sources can be biased (I think I wrote this but then removed it trying be concise) the aim is to be able to provide WP:NPOV by balancing RSes, but my phrasing here is backwards.
Thank you very much for the critique! I appreciate it very much: it's nice to know the conceptions others have here line up with my own. Remsense留 23:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just flashed on another possible interpretation of RS have to be V: did you by any chance mean that the RS have to be published? Because that, of course, is true. And I get it with concise; tbh, I always struggle with trying to keep my messages short, I feel I have to go into detail, especially if the point is a bit subtle. Maybe I should just use a smaller font, and then it wouldn't take up so much space what do you think? Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: I think that's what I meant. Re: concision, bearing typographical miracles, I think I have to get more comfortable with repeating myself, because very often, redundancy is useful for beginners. Teahouse mode ≠ article-writing mode. Remsense留 23:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
留
Hello! I am your worst nightmare, a sort-of native Chinese speaker. Your signature intrigues me, as “leave behind” doesn’t necessarily mean “留言” at a glance. Is there something specific that made you change it from “聊”? If it’s concerns over formality, I would suggest “诉” or “訴”, which means “tell” by itself and can have either a neutral or a negative connotation (even “sue”!) depending on what expression you use it with, which I suppose could be made tongue-in-cheek.
P.S.: I like the colors. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the reason was I saw its usage on zhwiki. I like 诉, I think I will use that. thank you very much, my worst nightmare realized! :) Remsense留 22:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may ultimately change it back to 聊—I like having a character whose simplified and traditional forms are identical. We'll see. Remsense诉 22:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on ANI, apologies accepted. (I slept through it.) As you know, I have a DYK on the Main page, but my story would be different, about Figaro, - this Figaro. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year's to you as well Gerda, I hope it's a good one so far! Thank you very much.Remsense诉 04:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, it's a downright gorgeous article—I learned a lot I didn't know, and I seek to emulate it also. — Remsense诉 09:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Impressed by your thoughtful response to 'It is what it is, but is it?' on TeahouseBlueWren0123 (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find that, much like with other subjects, trying to help others regarding site policy helps streamline my own ways of thinking! Thank you very much. Remsense诉 04:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
whoops
about my edit you reverted on the main page, it was me jokingly trying to see if rater worked on the main page, forgetting it only edits the talk page, sorry. :P Begocci (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Table
I have done created the table of assessment of WP:3TOPE. But it seems that the table did not gives the number of articles, instead, it's blank. Here is the table, by the way, Wikipedia:WikiProject Polyhedra/table. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if you want me to start the "splitting" process for "Chinese calendar". I have been working on the article, but it would be better if it were less unwieldy -- due to all of the important details which would seem best to be moved into new articles (while retaining the gist of it in the main "Chinese calendar" article). I am willing to create new articles and move most of the details to them, while retaining the general material in "Chinese calendar". I think that the extended details of the dynastic history of variations on the lunisolar calendar would well deserve space in a new article. This could create space for your endeavors and you could replace the articles with your edits? We did seem to agree with the "split" proposal. What are your thoughts?
Dcattell, I appreciate your work a lot, I apologize that I have been so absent. I feel that I have stretched my attentions a bit too thin onwiki. I would advise you to do what you think is best, do not think you require my approval. Sorry for lacking any insight there—I don't believe I have any beyond the broadest scheme that I have in the initial split proposal. — Remsense诉 05:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your broad proposal idea is good and helpful. I'm kind of in and out in terms of my Wikipedia volunteering. However, I'll try to do a bit more with Chinese calendar article. Sometimes patience is a virtue, and may Wikipedia never be completed! And, no need for apologies! Dcattell (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unicode edit
Not sure what happened with the edit on Unico page, completely intentional seems to be a glitch. Thank you. Foristslow (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Html tags at Help desk
Remsense, thanks again for your answers at WP:Help desk. Any chance I could get you to stop using Html tags <ul>, <li> <embed> and others? They are error-prone and tend to get left unclosed or improperly closed (as happened in this edit, with the end sequence </ul></li>). There are all sorts of alternatives or workarounds, depending what you want to do. There's no reason I can think of to use <ul>, <ol>, or <li> given that regular wiki markup of asterisk or hash will do what you need; alternatives are ((blist)) and ((olist)), and there are others. As far as embedding Html code, try <pre> or ((Syntaxhighlight)); the bottom of the template page has plenty of alternatives. A q&d method is using Html entities; see the wikicode of this message. Mathglot (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, it's an artifact of Factotum which I also noticed and wasn't thrilled by. I suppose I'll stop using it for now. Apologies, thank you for bringing this instance to my attention. — Remsense诉 04:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Hm, never heard of Factotum before. If you otherwise like the script, why not just keep using it, and double-check afterward if you think Html entities or bullets are involved? Meanwhile, that user is still active, and might respond to a request to update the script to fix the observed problems. Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting would drive me crazy—but I assumed a bit that it was a "me thing" that would annoy people more if I spent additional edits trying to fix it if I caught it afterwards.
I've used Factotum a lot, I will ask the author about it, though it seems like an intentional design decision (one I don't myself understand). Regardless, I will be more careful now I know it's an issue for others as well, thank you again. Remsense诉 05:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2024 February newsletter
The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.
Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you already removed the tag on Zhengma method, but in case you aren't aware you can't PROD pages that have been previously listed at AFD, so that one will need to be WP:RENOMed in order to be deleted. Given how much time has passed I doubt anyone will complain if you do. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:2823:7B55:6444:ACCB (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the original deletion discussion, and it's borderline enough that I won't be hasty with it. Remsense诉 22:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wars involving Germany
there are a number of articles that also happened before 1871 which are in the Category, but instead of expanding the site and continuing with German history such as the HRE and Prussia, the category articel is dead because of people like you. 🤷🏼♂️ Docd13 (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for alerting me to those, I'll go through and remove them also. Remsense诉 05:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you explain why? I mean, why we expand it? Docd13 (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, there are other categories that more helpfully fit events of other eras. "Wars involving Germany" implies there was a belligerent state roughly equivalent to the "Germany" post-unification, which is not the case. Remsense诉 06:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then we should at least link them on this page Docd13 (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was removing them from a category. Regarding the article List of wars involving Germany, I don't know what's going on there, but I would probably think about discussing it for this reason if I had the inclination. All I know is the category is the way it is for a good reason. Take it up with WikiProject Military history, I suppose. Remsense诉 06:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are WRONG about "Release" as a contronym
1: Nothing on the page says that you have to go to the talk page before editing it. Even if something on the page DID say that, except in a few administrative cases, Wikipedia does not have random different rules for specific pages. Some random person with a control freak nature deciding he's the special sentinel of a given page is not one of those situations.
If you think something needs a citation, place a [citation needed] tag after it, do not remove the contribution. People like you are the people that make Wikipedia a toxic place to be.
2: Nothing in the definition of a contronym requires the etymologies be the same, nor defined how they must get to that state. It simply means that the words are the same and mean their own opposite. These are not "two different words", they are one word with multiple definitions.
I am only saying my peace here, as I know you will be unmoved and will insist that you are and must be right. People like you always do that. But it's irrelevant. Wikipedia is apparently yours, not mine. 2601:1C2:5000:8CC7:E8E0:2BA4:C7AA:A638 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I attempted to show before, release ("to lease again"; lease from Old French laisier) is a different word with a distinct etymology from release ("to loosen"; from Old French relaschier A contronym is a single word with two opposing meanings, not two words with opposing meanings that happen to be homographs. They're even pronounced differently, which is commonly seen between words borrowed at different times from French into English. Moreover, it is not a WP:list article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article does not require evermore examples to illustrate its topic to the reader. These are the reasons the text of the page asks not to add more examples. Clearly dubious [citation needed] claims generally shouldn't be tagged like you say; instead, they should be removed. This is a well-established norm that is necessary to improve the encyclopedia.
As always, discussion on how to improve the article is always welcome. Cheers! Remsense诉 04:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as I just said, you are wrong. They are not pronounced differently, and despite how they got to be the same word, they are. I literally just said this. This is not "clearly dubious", this is you being wrong and insisting that Wikipedia needs to be wrong exactly the same way you are.
Please do not say "cheers" to me. I do not like dishonesty about how the footing we are on, which is one of contention and dislike, not friendliness. 2601:1C2:5000:8CC7:E912:FF73:7191:DE66 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my lack of elaboration: in the word meaning 'to lease again', the emphasis is on the first syllable, while in the word meaning 'to loosen', the emphasis is on the second syllable. As I've said, this is a common distinction in pronunciation between words borrowed into English from French at different points.
Hope this helps! Remsense诉 04:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xiao'erjing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dongxiang.
There were a few changes made [1]. CurryCity (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the article Han Taiwanese, which was still linked to through a pipe in your revision, apologies for lack of clarity. Remsense诉 23:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SDNONE
Thanks for working to improve Short Descriptions but pease slow down, and reread WP:Short description.. The only articles which need no SD are those with very detailed titles which make their content completely obvious. See WP:SDNONE. History of Tupi doesn't tell me much:SD is needed. Yes, "Aspect of history" is a poor SD but please add a better one in the majority of cases where it isn't obvious. See History of Leeds as an example. Thanks PamD 06:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers—thank you for letting me know that my threshold for helpfulness was too low. Remsense诉 06:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is "Does this tell me what the article is about, even if I've never heard of the subject?" You might like to go back over your edits and rethink some: "History of city in country X" may often be useful. If it's "History of Z", the SD for the article on Z might be a guide: at least tell us whether Z is a place, a language, etc. Thanks. PamD 06:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say as much—I will be doing just that, thank you again. :) Remsense诉 06:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some more structured thoughts buzzing in my head about this—I don't want to talk your ear off about things unsolicited, but if your interest in this runs deeper than "making sure I don't demolish the whole wiki in my hubris", would you want me to run some thoughts by you? I'm probably going to ask what other people think on WT:SHORTDESC regardless. Remsense诉 08:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by all means run things past me here or on my talk page, or, as you say, at WT:SHORTDESC. I think something I didn't say above is that the SD complements the title, so needn't repeat what's obvious in the title - thus: article= "History of Leeds", SD="History of city in Yorkshire, England". Article="History of Tupi", SD="History of an extinct language of Brazil". I'd never heard of Tupi before looking at your contributions list (the Leeds one is on my watchlist), and guessed it to be a Pacific island! PamD 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Remsense!
The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
Hi Remsense. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2024 March newsletter
The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.
The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:
Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.
Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Unistat article
Hello Remsense -- I saw you speedy-deleted an article I wrote about this statistical software package under WP:G11. Although there's some historical advertising material in one of the links this dates back to the 1980s, it relates to historical archives at the Spectrum Archive so I wouldn't have considered this to be promotional material. Could you help me pad this out and get the tone right, also possibly restore the page or a copy of it so I don't need to start from scratch? From what I can tell the article has existed since 2006 but I can't find the history anywhere or the context of why it disappeared, which is why I ended up rewriting. There are a lot of broken links right now to the Unistat article from other statistics articles which is somewhat awkward. Cheers! Isik5 (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hongwu Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annam.
Congratulations, Remsense! The list you nominated, List of World Chess Championships, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reason of article attack
Hi, I would like let you know about this: [2]OrionNimrod (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it seems this started here [2] in a Romanian website. It is strange that how people have so deep wikipedia knowledge to find a such old ANI report, probably that info was spread by the user who did that report to incite Romanian people against Hungarian editors. The outside article pretend the reporter user is "admin" because that report is on the admin board, however he was not an admin, and that report failed, even Romanian editors said that was a baseless report. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend passing this onto an admin, if you haven't already? Remsense诉 20:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(here out of curiosity, from the ANI thread closed ~17h ago) @OrionNimrod: Actually, the origin IS that reddit post, well, it's the reddit post that thread is linking to - the Romanian website says at the top (the "Nota") that it was posted on reddit and that they are sharing it to "popularize the author's investigation"(from Google Translate) – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:B594:C013:3E0E:888D (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not acceptable sourcing for claims on Wikipedia, especially about such sensitive political situations. There is no source you have presented that verifies that this flag is being used in this way. It's irresponsible. Remsense诉 01:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI close
Thanks! I had loads of edit conflicts expanding on my original close after it was reopened, so if you don't mind I added it after your own close. Hope that's OK! The more the merrier eh :) ——Serial 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have four-edit salvos that should be one edit too often, but things tend to work out in the end! Cheers. Remsense诉 15:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fa Buddhism
Although I think your correction is more suitable, fa is a concept in both chinese classical philosophy and Buddhism, where the term is used as Law. However, I am not familiar with fa law in Buddhism.FourLights (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. I'll have to think of how to put it. Remsense诉 22:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.
I see that you've been on a streak of removing Joshua Project citations. I undertook this a couple years ago, but of course the stuff comes back. Thank you for doing this. Pathawi (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could definitely be smarter about it, could definitely fix some myself and in so doing prevent it from just being added again, but it's better than nothing :). Cheers! Remsense诉 06:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm wondering whether you disagreed with my copy edits on Writing System and intended to undo them? Or was it just an edit conflict? Thanks :) —Of the universe (say hello) 02:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry! I totally goofed and overwrote some of your copyedits while making my own. I've undone mine, I can reimplement them when you're done. Remsense诉 02:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see that you have a FL List of World Chess Championships. As for beginner, I have some difficulties while nominating the article List of Johnson solids to PR before heading to WP:FLC. Can you help me in this case? I would like to apologize if this message makes you feel annoyed or some other disappointed reactions.
Oh wow! No, quite the opposite, I'm flattered that you think I could help, and this list seems right up my alley. I'll add it to the plates I presently have in the air, I'd love to collaborate with you on it! Remsense诉 15:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... Many thanks. Also, do you feel something is missing in the article? If yes, you can provide more comments in peer review, which the reviewer has gone AWOL. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your interest in improving and showcasing these articles! Generally, the reason we don't go for drive-bys is because the nominator will have to work with the reviewer during the process, and so the nominator will need to be familiar with all of its details. I haven't been a major contributor to any of these three articles yet, and I agree that they are particularly good among the Chinese monarch articles. I would need to read each one more deeply to identify whether I think they're ready for GA nomination, but nothing sticks out at me presently.
Actually, the same user wrote the bulk of all three of these articles, but they are unfortunately blocked from the site: I'm not privy to that situation, but it seems like a shame, since a lot of their work is good. Remsense诉 16:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have quite prematurely rolled back a user removing all of WMIMANSE?'s work on the Ming dynasty, thinking a wholesale deletion of such detailed and sourced content must be some kind of mistake, and only after did I realize the "banned sock" moniker was legitimate. I am willing to let their work stay based on a perhaps-undeserved abundance of WP:AGF, and I hope I did not step on any toes by doing so. Regards. _dk (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the worst kind of situation, and I wish I was sure of the very best way to handle it, as I think it's important both to preserve very wortwhile, quality content regardless of authorship, but also WP:BMB, and content creation is not an means by which community blocks may be ignored. Frankly, I wish the obvious solution of "Ylogm getting a clue" seemed likely. Remsense诉 08:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have opted to apply the advice slightly below WP:BMB - WP:BANREVERT - which states that edits by banned users need not necessarily be reverted wholesale. While I obviously cannot condone their behaviour that led them to be banned or them trying to sneak back in by using sockpuppets, I would much prefer their good-faith efforts be allowed to remain provided they do not push some nefarious POV. Though, I must admit, the affair leaves a poor taste in my mouth and I can only hope that it is not so tempting for well-meaning but somehow-banned users to use sockpuppets rather than to negotiate an unblock through the proper channels. _dk (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, their issue is not POV inasmuch as an inability to communicate and work with others, as far as I know. I would much prefer them being allowed to do their work, but unfortunately they got INDEF'd and their SP behavior since has made rapprochement improbable. It's unfortunate. My thoughts were to revert and then put a note on the talk page saying "hey, this valuable text is in the edit history for you to work with"—but that seems like a disruptive legal fiction. Oh well. Remsense诉 10:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops
Just wanted to say that you definitely got the CSD criteria right for Talk:Oracle bone script/Archive 1). I'm the one who messed up and pressed the wrong button and deleted under the wrong criteria. I don't usually make mistakes like that but I wanted to say this because I didn't want you to doubt yourself (maybe I'm projecting a bit here because it's what I might feel in a similar situation). Anyways, nice to meet you. :) Clovermoss🍀(talk) 20:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your thoughtfulness in any case, the care speaks for itself. :) Remsense诉 20:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Modern Chinese characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copula.
Hi Remsense, sorry to bother. I was just curious because I noticed you removing the birth-country of Hu Shih, is there any specific consensus or rule of when to include the country of birth and when to not? I am genuinely very curious. I noticed the same thing on the page Pu Yi (no countries, just the specific place in Beijing, is there a reason behind this? Thanks in advance! Zinderboff(talk) 15:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Maybe this is me being particularly myopic in the moment, esp given this time period, but it seems particularly redundant to me? Like, on many Chinese emperor pages, they're listed as being born/died in "Settlement, X dynasty", which just seems silly to me. But I do understand how not everyone might intuit that the same way I have, esp with early Republican figures where the concept of polity is both more modern and more dynamic over time. Please put it back if you think it's better, I appreciate you asking. Remsense诉 16:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful response, personally I prefer having the country, for the casual reader it would still be informative to know where the settlement is/was in (e.g. not everyone knows where Nanchang is, but if its "Nanchang, China" they may have a slightly better sense). But again that's just my opinion. Thank you again for the response. Hope you're having a good day! Zinderboff(talk) 16:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You as well! I may add it back later, it should probably be there. I'm trying to improve 20 articles at once presently, probably no good for cohesion! Remsense诉 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the outlines wikiproject
Hey.
Wow, you've been really pumping out the edits. Nice.
So, you are interested in working on outlines. Cool.
If you don't mind me asking a question or two...
What are your favorite subjects? (Anything goes)
Are you open to any kinds of tasks, or did you have something specific in mind? Or both?
I've started Draft:Outline of Chinese characters, and really I'm interested in outlines on my subject of interest in general—I just took a look at Outline of classical music last night, and was amazed at how nice it was, and how good of a complement it was for other articles/someone trying to get their bearings in general. Remsense诉 13:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your subject of interest in general? — The Transhumanist 09:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here, have a cheeseburger
As you already seem to know I have strong opinions on the infobox thing, but it’s nice to meet someone who disagrees with good counter arguments in this debate. Dronebogus (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've gotten serious
I noticed you joined Wikipedia 10 years ago, but really picked up speed on your edits in September of last year. Congrats.
Ooh. You use AWB. Nice. That program has some truly powerful features.
It works wonders on outlines -- that is, on the whole set of outlines as a batch. Outline drafts are another good batch to work on.
If you ever feel like helping to maintain all outlines using AWB, let me know.
Just in case you want to become a power user on Wikipedia, here are some research vector suggestions:
Help:Searching – covers many advanced search techniques.
Tip of the day – read the entire set of tips to get up to speed fast.
Hello Remsense, I noticed that you reverted some of my additions to the Sima Guang article because Chinaknowledge.de was "not a reliable source". However, I have used the website in the past for other articles with no issues, and the editor of the website is very credible (Ulrich Theobald is a lecturer and has a PhD in Sinology). I am curious about your reasoning on this revert and will respect your decision, but I would personally prefer that the revert be undone since the website provided a lot of good information. Thanks! Lyn1644 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, while the personal webspace of area experts can be reliable, I've found Chinaknowledge.de contains significant amounts of Theobald's personal conjecture and many of his articles lack robust bibliographies themselves, to the degree I would much prefer seeing something peer-reviewed cited on Wikipedia. It's cited a lot on here, which makes sense for a freely-accessible source prior to the open access era—but I've been trying to replace it whereever I see it, as it's simply not ideal. Cheers! Remsense诉 06:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, I’ll avoid using it in the future. Thanks! Lyn1644 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
An interesting discussion
Hello!
I estimate that this discussion might be interesting to you. You are under no obligation to participate in that discussion. I just wanted to inform you based on our past interactions. Feel free to delete this section that I have created, as you please. Z80Spectrum (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese religion.
At the risk of seeming to be a cultural imperialist, why not merge into Sans-serif? We don't have an American gothic[a]. There are many "gothic" (aka Sans-serif) typefaces; many include the CJK character sets as well as the European ones. I wonder if you are proposing a solution for a disappearing problem?
It is certainly not an easy one! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure! I am ignorant enough in this particular niche to not feel immediately confident saying they are the same thing as such, but my gut impulse is the same as yours—I think it'd be worth a merge proposal to source additional input. Remsense诉 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, it might provoke a solution.
I was astonished that Gothic typeface didn't already exist – I was sure it did, until I realised that I was misremembering Gothic font (sic) which is a disambig because so many people think Goth (subculture), vampire movies etc. Gothic typefaceshould [IMO!] redirect to Sans-serif, because that's what it means (even in East Asia). Interestingly, Grotesque (typeface)does exist but there is a specific section for it, Sans-serif#Grotesque. The word "gothic" appears 24 times, almost as if it is too obvious to even mention; it is actually defined at Sans-serif#Other names as an alias for the whole superfamily.
And that "other names" section reveaked another bear trap (highlighted in purple):
Gothic: Popular with American type founders. Perhaps the first use of the term was due to the Boston Type and Stereotype Foundry, which in 1837 published a set of sans-serif typefaces under that name. It is believed that those were the first sans-serif designs to be introduced in America.[1] The term probably derived from the architectural definition, which is neither Greek nor Roman,[2] and from the extended adjective term of "Germany", which was the place where sans-serif typefaces became popular in the 19th to 20th centuries.[3] Early adopters for the term includes Miller & Richard (1863), J. & R. M. Wood (1865), Lothian, Conner, Bruce McKellar. Although the usage is now[when?] rare in the English-speaking world, the term is commonly used in Japan and South Korea; in China they are known by the term heiti (Chinese: 黑體), literally meaning "black type", which is probably derived from the mistranslation of Gothic as blackletter typeface, even though actual blackletter typefaces have serifs.
so it could well be argued that Ming maps to Blackletter and it is only the later (Song-type) faces that map to San-serif. Which is perhaps one of the reasons that ((tq|On April 27, 2021, ATypI announced that they had de-adopted the [ Vox-ATypI classification ] and that they were establishing a working group building towards a new, larger system incorporating the different scripts of the world.[4]
You had recently given me guidance to resort to emailing the Wikimedia foundation for further steps, which I have done. I feel like this is very concerning as it lacks transparency and prevents others from joining the conversation. Out of respect for your decision I will not link the discussion in question. Subanark (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, we're not really able to help with large matters of policy at the Teahouse, which was most of my point. Remsense诉 00:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remark on Phrasing
Hello, @Remsense. While I’ve no intention of disturbing it again, Catherine of Aragon watching Henry jousting in her honour after giving birth to a son (to be found here) still impresses me as unsound prose. Certainly the intended meaning is clear and the construction technically sound, but those qualities don’t necessarily protect against carrying the reader’s mind in strange directions. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a clunky sentence. Apologies if I was oversnide in my revert. Remsense诉 18:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you're here, one of the best things I've discovered to help clarify my sentences is Phlsph7's readability userscript—the algorithms it uses are very basic, but if you treat it for what it is it's very helpful in pointing out painful stretches of one's prose. Remsense诉 18:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! And, thank you for the link. Syllabic overload is certainly something to keep in mind while composing, although I tend to be generous with it. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi how are you
☺️ Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello! I'm pretty good, I submitted my first Good article nomination a few days ago. Remsense诉 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s nice Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GAN backlog drive
Hi Remsense, did you do any reviews for the backlog drive? If so, could you add them to the drive page to be checked off for points? -- asilvering (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry! I did not. My only GAN review this month was Semantics, which I began in February. Apologies for the hassle. Remsense诉 00:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's no hassle! And good luck with your own recent GA nom. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I'm super excited about it, honestly. Selfishly, I hope whoever takes it up is as fixated on the subject as I am—Chinese characters has been my labor of love for a few months now. Remsense诉 00:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's ambitious! I had only noticed your mention of submitting a GA in the thread above this one, I didn't realize you'd taken on such a hard one for your first go! Hats off. -- asilvering (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I learned a lot! And will learn a lot more before I feel satisfied with my work in this area of the site. :) Remsense诉 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chinese characters you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 or 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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh, sorry for missing that before, I'll do so. Remsense诉 08:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello Remsense,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
As requested, I have replicated my proposed changes to the talk page. Could I get an ETA on a response to this? You seem to be a pretty active user. Is there any additional people that should chime in on this? Subanark (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine others would like to have a say too, including the original author of the essay—I directed you to the talk page for more than my own edification Remsense诉 16:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Remsense, I just came across an article with a plain text hatnote (no linked pages) and was trying to figure out what happened.
It seems in this AWB edit you changed ((For2)) → ((For-text)), rather than the template For2 actually redirects to, ((For-multi)). Are you able to recheck your other AWB edits to see if this happened on any other pages and change them? Iiii I I I (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I think this was a manual edit I made while otherwise using AWB, but I otherwise have no recollection as to how I made such a weird mistake. Thank you very much for your vigilance. Remsense诉 05:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Remsense. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:New History of Yuan, 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) 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your diligent efforts in reverting vandalism! Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think it's a bit serendipitous that I happened to get my first one for this, as it definitely feels like the "laziest" thing I do on here. :) Remsense诉 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]