User talk:Remsense

What's the rationale behind removing a climate change section under environmental impacts of technology?

Pollution is a distinct consequence, and climate change confers its own subsequent consequences, e.g. mass extinction, extreme weather, and sea-level rise. Plus, its not really technology itself causing climate change, but rather, arguably, (and this can be framed as a npov discussion) the misapplication of technology to the environment. Climate change and global warming are also distinct concepts, and the transformative effects of technology to our global environment that surrounds us are surely worth mentioning on a wikipedia page about technology, given it is cited properly, I see little reason why you blanket revert this? It affects our societies and should be given due weight. AlaskanGrass (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be confrontational by the way, I just want to understand what your position is on this so we can work to get LVL-1 Vital Article Technology to GA status. AlaskanGrass (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Help with an RSP question

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

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

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I could still use some help. At the suggestion of another editor, I posted the discussion here [4]. I'd be grateful for your opinion if you're able to weigh in. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

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

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

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

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

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

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Need your help again with very small letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncited content

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Topic on WP:ECR

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

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

Reason for revert

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

Reverted edit on Sedition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Sharbel2

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

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

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

I cited a reputable source in fact the Vatican itself

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

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

TFL notification

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

your refrigerator cannot be the product of a purely physical mechanism

@Remsense,

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

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

your refrigerator cannot be the product of a purely physical mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jehovah on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

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

Chuckles987

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

Special:WantedTemplates

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

 // <nowiki>

to the top of your script page and

 // </nowiki>

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

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

Yes, thank you! Plastikspork <sub>―Œ</sub><sup>(talk)</sup> 00:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit in City

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

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

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

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

Let me quote from one of the sources.

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

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

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

You added a non-sequitur passage of historical genetics information to sections otherwise about historical ethnicity. Genetics and ethnicity are not the same subject. Remsense ‥ 论 21:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Seems to ip editor who seems to did sock/meat stuff at Peace and Just war theory articles and the talk pages there is back. In general it is one strange story. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Christianization

Hi, why do you think this edit is unconstractive [5]? I didn't make changes to the content. Shahray (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Then what was the point of it? Remsense ‥ 论 21:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

First, I shortened the name of Primary Chronicle (commonly shortened), second I put Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian in alphabetical order, third changed Russo-Byzantine to Rus'-Byzantine (typo fixes). Shahray (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, so everything is fine? Shahray (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You're still not responding to me, why is there "no reason to do this"? Explain what you mean first, instead of making biased comments in the noticeboard. Shahray (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

vatican.va

The domain vatican.va on the Catholic Church article does not work because there is no DNS record for it. --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 05:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is not obvious what this has to do with Wikipedia in general or Remsense in particular, but there appears to have been a transient issue with the .va domain. It is back online now. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem was that 'vatican.va' was used in the infobox, but this domain does not exist. 'www.vatican.va' is the correct domain. My edit was restored. --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course. Do'oh! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Peter Agassian

Is this WP:LTA/ARARAT? Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 13:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for 3rd opinion

I would like to bring your attention to Islam in Australia

I would like to request your third opinion. Summary of engagement:

1. User:Bro The Man & User:Binksternet
2. Islam in Australia Dispute regarding achieved consensus achieved in article talk page.
3. Caution issued. Repeated reverting
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_in_Australia#Bloated_lead_section
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Consensus_achieved%3A_Islam_in_Australia.

Bro The Man (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Not necessary but...

I was going to send you a thanks for your edit at Talk:Grapheme, but then I thought it might look like I was thanking you for asking yourself if you were an idiot, which was the opposite of my intent. So I acknowledge your post there. And you're not an idiot :) -- Ponyo<sup>bons mots</sup> 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why in Names?

if the empire wasn't called Hindustan and you reverted my edits

Then why do you guys have it in #Names

If it wasn't called Hindustan then why haven't you removed it from there tho? JingJongPascal (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said, you should peruse the discussions on the talk page and in the archives. Remsense ‥ 论 19:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that but then why is it in #Names section ? JingJongPascal (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Talas

Why do you remove my edits? I am writing the truth about the page why do you guys change the whole history of the battle? The chinese Wikipedia talked about what I wrote with sources R3YBOl (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We are not editorially dependent on Chinese Wikipedia, nor they on us. Please don't indiscriminately import what another language wiki says: we have our own content policies, please respect them. Remsense ‥ 论 08:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Man I am telling you that Their sources were useful,You can go and check it yourself their sources are so strong and useful R3YBOl (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you had actually cited those sources, there would have to be some discussion concerning the significant discrepancies with the sources we're already citing. Remsense ‥ 论 08:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Immortal King Rao 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 08:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
• MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
• Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Min968_unban_request. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wu way

Hi,In reference to my edit. It was a historical edit by another that was removed recently by another editor with no edit summary. There is need to bring some balance back to the page. I agree that it not very well written and was about to reference that edit. But that being said that there seems to be many that would like to keep the concept of wu way as a completely mental pursuit. and to understand the Tao it needs yin and yang, mind and body. So where do we start. Look forward to talking. Foristslow (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions of periods in medieval English history

Hi Remsense, why the reversions at History of Anglo-Saxon England, England in the High Middle Ages and England in the Late Middle Ages? I could understand leaving all the short descriptions intentionally blank − but would disagree with it, because I think dates help the general reader who may not know when to place these periods. But you also reverted the change to the existing (i.e., not blank) short description of England in the High Middle Ages. Ham II (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies about that! I suppose I have perennial questions about how what rules of thumb we can expect when it comes to short descriptions for articles with phrasal titles. Remsense ‥ 论 07:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! WP:SDNONE says that "some article titles are sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful", but to my mind that isn't true of these three because without the dates I think many readers would struggle to place these periods in history. And now I see that the section above that one is WP:SDDATES, which supports dates in short descriptions for historical periods. Would you object to me changing them back? Ham II (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you revert my Delhi Sultanate edit?

any reason?

I was wondering why was Empire of Hindustan their primary name was hidden under a footnote while "Sultanate of Delhi" a different spelling is shown primarily.

See Ottoman Empire , and how it refers primary name on the front too. JingJongPascal (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

seems very uneccesary to mention "Sultanate of Delhi" and hiding "Empire of Hindustan" JingJongPascal (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

United States

No idea why you would overrule logical and necessary corrections from several editors that follow WP style and format—most especially the last editor's cleanup up typos and correct Wikipedia apostrophe format. As for the rest, I address them in my edit note. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Expressing Thanks on Mathematics Page Edit

Just wanted to express thanks for the reversion of my edit on the Mathematics page. I had read about the controversy on the Talk Page, and decided changing it was better to avoid controversy, but I was wrong, obviously. I didn’t mean to make a bigger mess with the edit. Just to avoid controversy. So, thanks for changing it back AstroAnarchist (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Question concerning my edit of Encyclopædia Britannica

Hi Remsense, earlier, you undid my edit of the article Encyclopædia Britannica. I had removed two unnecessary spaces (revision 1255020821). Could you please tell me the reason for undoing my edit? I would like to understand it. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The New Mutants (graphic 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 22:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hedonism 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 11:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Another Sockpuppet on Brezhnev page

Looks like we have another sockpuppet causing mischief over on Leonid Brezhnev. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Indiction revert

Hi. I appreciate the effort to keep things close to the reference in this entry, though I still think the inclusion of a formula that has immediately to be corrected is less than ideal. That said, I've kept it in, but made some language changes to clarify the problem with it. I've also broken up the edits. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What we can't include is your own personal method. Remsense ‥ 论 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing original by me was ever in there. I had just cut out the (incorrect) original formula. Nothing new showed up in the end. As I said though, the original is back in, addressing your comment. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

.

why did you delete my map for no reason? i was just trying to add educational information about the countries that have the most natural resources. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove the updated images of the sizes of the Terrestrial planet.

Hello. Why did you remove the updated images of the sizes of the Terrestrial planets (plus the Moon and Ceres)? I spent my precious break time at work creating those images and you just removed it without proper explanation?

Also, the planetary original size comparisons are outdated (the blurry Hubble image of Ceres), and also wrong (Mercury is almost totally grey, and not brown as used in some children's space encyclopedia) so there is a reason why I updated that image. IapetusCallistus (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, why did you change them? No reason was given for why the new version was an improvement until now, and no reason was given for why they were added to additional pages. We also use true color photos when possible, though not for Venus in either comparison seemingly. We appreciate work by editors, but we aren't entitled to have our work published just because we spent a long time on it, especially if no consensus was established beforehand. Remsense ‥ 论 20:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

So you need me to explain it in the edit explanation first before I clicked "edit"? Did I understand you correctly? Then say it so. Don't just leave an "unexplained" undo and at least have a "Talk" first.

If that's not what you meant, can you explain your position properly?

Of course, Venus' surface cannot be true color because its a Magellan radio image, not a visible light image. The Mars {Emirati's Hope) and Mercury (MESSENGER) are true color images, so what's wrong with what I did? Do I need to explain it in the text? IapetusCallistus (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to be explaining it more fully now since you asked. A true color image of Venus is used as the lead image of the Venus article itself. There's no real need to use a false color image of the surface here, especially as it is incongruous with the other photos. Remsense ‥ 论 20:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edit to The Blue Marble

While I understand your concerns regarding the use of color-corrected images on Wikipedia, your immediate revert of my revert without discussing it on the Talk page, borders on edit warring.

Please discuss your concerns before further edits. Aaron1a12 (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on the editor who wishes to include content to establish consensus for it. That you posted a link that you thought persuasive does not override the fact you are the one who unilaterally readded the content under dispute here. No one likes being reverted, but it's a bit rich to brood about edit warring because your hand got slapped away after you stuck it into the cookie jar. Remsense ‥ 论 01:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, I am having a problem with editors on a page called Bodhidharma and other related pages, there seems to be a POV on many of these pages that are linking many inherently Chinese cultural ideas back to India. If you could give me some guidance that would be appreciated.🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Suiyang - Lunar Month vs Solar Month

I apologise for the nonconstructive edit; this is an expansion on a suggested change. I also posted the same on the talk page. The sourced dates (Zizhitongjian) for the siege are transliterated into solar alternatives, but it is the lunar month. For example, 9th 10th lunar month is November 24th, while 25th 1st lunar month is February 18th for 757. If you feel this change into solar month is justified, please change it as needed. Joannevinig (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: References to Holst’s The Planets

Should the references to The Planets be removed from Mars, Uranus, and Neptune? By your logic, numerous poets are also cited in Venus, should we also remove them? Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No but your reference to astrology is definitely a shoehorn job. The source you cited says explicitly "Recent writers on Holst have tried to make much of his self-avowed interest in astrology, but I think that Holst’s actual interest in astrology as it relates to The Planets extended very little beyond a springboard it provided for his composition." So the reversion was entirely appropriate. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

How would an editor who's more acquainted with procedure go about incorporating a link to The Planets in each planet's article, without shoehorning it in? Is it impossible? Genuinely curious. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Chinese characters PR?

Hi -- I was considering contributing to the peer review on Chinese characters that you opened, but I see it's been there for nearly six months now. I'd be happy to give it a pre-FAC review (though I know very little about the topic) but wanted to check with you that you are still interested in taking it to FAC before I start. Let me know -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my petulant outburst (October 2024)

Hello,

I write to apologise unreservedly for the rude, patronising, wholly unconstructive tirade I directed at you recently — I believe it was approximately three weeks ago — on this talk page.

My outburst was promptly removed by the alert Chaheel Riens; mercifully I am spared the mortification of seeing it recorded here in perpetuity. I hope that you were spared the experience of reading it even once.

If you did read it before it was removed, you will know that nothing of value was lost. If you didn’t read it before it was removed, know that nothing of value was lost.

There are no extenuating circumstances for me to offer in mitigation here. On the contrary: the offending remarks were especially egregious for their needless crudity. You were entirely blameless in the matter, and I was wholly at fault.

Again, I apologise unreservedly. My sole misgiving is that I did not do so earlier.

Regards. Foxmilder (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

I see that the review for my article has been halted for a few days. Is there a problem? Strongman13072007 (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Tittha Sutta et al.

Hi Remsense,

You reverted some of the edits done by the IP user 50.236.206.18 (which, for full transparency: many of which are mine, as it is public WiFi network I sometimes connect to in Portland, Oregon). Some of these are more contentious (this is debatable, while I still feel that old-fashioned terms don't qualify as biblical errata -- though I don't care enough to argue about it.) Other ones were less contentious, so I'm wondering why you reverted these:

• The Tittha Sutta is not channeled literature by any stretch of imagination. By all accounts is one of many ancient oral sources eventually recorded in the Nikayas. Channeled texts aren't mentioned in the body, or in the sources, and certainly not in the text itself.
• This is not vandalism (even if, admittedly, the edit summary is rude.) It is random unverified personal gnosis without a source or any mention of such a concept on the linked pages -- hence "no one asked" i.e. no one asked for some random syncretic personal theology.

Do you assume removal of content, regardless of the content being removed or the rudeness of the edit, qualifies as vandalism? wound theology◈ 08:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Great Reclamation 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 23:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)