User talk:Remsense/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

No problem, please, and please, we are correcting the origon of Shiekh Ishaaq. Its origin is Shiekh Ishaaq bin Ahmed bin Muhammad Hanfitre Maha Dir, and it is the second son of Dir (Abokor). Please ask me for justification before you change. I am not removing any information, only correcting the information. Go to this website called Abtirisi.com and see the information, or search Google. Please, we need to correct the information soon.

No problem, please, and please, we are correcting the origon of Shiekh Ishaaq. Its origin is Shiekh Ishaaq bin Ahmed bin Muhammad Hanfitre Maha Dir, and it is the second son of Dir (Abokor). Please ask me for justification before you change. I am not removing any information, only correcting the information. Go to this website called Abtirisi.com link (http://www.abtirsi.com/view.php?person=158) and see the information, or search Google. Please, we need to correct the information soon. 197.231.201.171 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Small note

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)

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)

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)

Thank you for alerting me to those, I'll go through and remove them also. Remsense诉 05:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

can you explain why? I mean, why we expand it? Docd13 (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

then we should at least link them on this page Docd13 (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

Which linked pages are you referring to?

There were a few changes made [1]. CurryCity (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Cheers—thank you for letting me know that my threshold for helpfulness was too low. Remsense诉 06:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Promotion of List of World Chess Championships

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)

Reason of article attack

Hi, I would like let you know about this: [2] OrionNimrod (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

I recommend passing this onto an admin, if you haven't already? Remsense诉 20:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

(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)

Lakotah flag

The information provided in the infobox is sourced in the article itself. Plus, the national flag can be found on Wikimedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Republic_of_Lakotah_Flag_Map.png DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the image: Source: Own work

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hum. I'll have to think of how to put it. Remsense诉 22:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Project

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)

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)

Edit conflict/revert on writing system

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)

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)

No worries! Thanks :) —Of the universe (say hello) 12:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

List of Johnson solids

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.

Regards. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

GA/FA nominations

Hi @Remsense I am not sure how to nominate articles for GA/FA, such as Chenghua Emperor, Wanli Emperor, and Xuande Emperor. I think these articles are edited quite well. I hope to receive your help. Thank you. --Why Am I Me and Not Someone Else? (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your information. Best regards. --Why Am I Me and Not Someone Else? (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you very much for your thoughtfulness in any case, the care speaks for itself. :) Remsense诉 20:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Country of birth in infoboxes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 look forward to your replies.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   09:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

What is your subject of interest in general?    — The Transhumanist   09:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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:

1. Help:Searching – covers many advanced search techniques.
2. Tip of the day – read the entire set of tips to get up to speed fast.
3. Optimal tool set – the final frontier: power.

I hope you find these interesting, if not extremely useful.

Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   10:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Chinaknowledge.de on Sima Guang article

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)

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)

That makes sense, I’ll avoid using it in the future. Thanks! Lyn1644 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest 2024

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)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Plan B?

At the risk of seeming to be a cultural imperialist, why not merge into Sans-serif? We don't have an American gothic. 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)

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)

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 typeface should [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. The term probably derived from the architectural definition, which is neither Greek nor Roman, and from the extended adjective term of "Germany", which was the place where sans-serif typefaces became popular in the 19th to 20th centuries. Early adopters for the term includes Miller & Richard (1863), J. & R. M. Wood (1865), Lothian, Conner, Bruce McKellar. Although the usage is now 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.

— Sans-serif#Other names

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.

Notes

References

Disappointed as to guidance given at teahouse

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)

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)

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)

It is a clunky sentence. Apologies if I was oversnide in my revert. Remsense诉 18:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Your GA nomination of Chinese characters

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)

AWB fixes

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)

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)

I see, sounds good. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Infobox discussion

Regarding this comment: I'm not sure "pork-barrelling" is the phrase you're looking for. The term is typically used for handing out specific benefits targeted for specific groups to secure their support, with the connotation that it's the only reason for doing so. In this case, I feel the proposal is genuinely attempting to outline a consensus viewpoint of past discussions. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I did misuse that term, that stretch in general was not my finest work. Remsense诉 15:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Roman calendar

Just in case it seems that my post at talk:Roman calendar#Lead too long was questioning your judgement re the {{lead too long}} tag in the article, let me affirm that it was entirely coincidental. I don't type that fast.

PS when do you ever sleep? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please question my judgment even more than you feel you need to.

As per your concern: oh dear, I guess I have been on here a lot lately, huh? Suffice it to say things on my end are a bit odd and fluxious right now, but in a way where it'll all pan out in the end—but for the time being Wikipedia has proven a shockingly good distraction in the times I've really needed one. As happy as I've been with my recent onsite contributions, March 2024 is otherwise headed straight for the dustbin of history as far as I'm concerned; I shall not be consulting my recent activity graphs on XTools to determine exactly how bad I've been... Remsense诉 22:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

“ There are decades in which nothing happens, and there are weeks in which 8,000 edits happen. ”

Remsense诉 23:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For wrangling the template Unichar because I have some idea of what goes on behind the scenes to make it ever work. You can go get some sleep now! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, you're a joy to work with. (I've since caught up on sleep, don't worry!) Remsense诉 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Djong Talk Page

Hello, me again, i was wondering if you can act as the third person to dispute on Djong talk page. As i foresaw, the editor who reverted the edits can't provide a single evidence on the talk page and refuse to reach a consensus, but anyhow any help would be kindly appreciated. Thank You Merzostin (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The Core Contest has now begun!

The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Lest I forget

Thank you for your indispensable contribution to Cross Temple, Fangshan–you contributed a fifth of the content! Do rejoice with me in its passing as an FA. Wikipedia is such a miraculous place.

I plan to take a substantial break from Wikipedia after I finish the GAN at hand, so I am writing this note of appreciation before that. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No, thank you very much for doing the real work in bringing the subject to Wikipedia in the first place. Folks like you allow me to learn and contribute in a way where I can make my own particular skills and habits useful while slowly getting better at the core work of research and dedication. The article is emblematic of areas I really want to help feature better on Wikipedia, and I really look forward to future collaboration with you, it's been a pleasure. Cheers! Remsense诉 16:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Research User

Hey, since you participated in the Zorastrianism discussion. I wanted to know, since I am usually not involved often in Admin-noticboards issues, but am I required to open a new issue witht he user for being repeatedly offensive or can this all fall into one notification on the admin board? How are the rules in this regard? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

They already have a discussion at ANI going—you seem to have found it actually!—if I'm not mistaken. If you have related concerns not explicitly addressed yet, they will be best served just by mentioning them in a reply there. Remsense诉 01:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Resolving an issue

I need to bring this up to avoid an edit war, but it’s reffering too the page for the Mexican-American war, where i removed parts of Nebraska from the list of terrotories ceded by Mexico. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I was wrong on that one, yeah. Remsense诉 14:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Hi Remsense, I saw this edit of yours and thought it was funny, so here's a barnstar for you! Keep up the great work (and the good humor)! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me take the opportunity to say it's been great to see your contributions to China-related Wikipedia lately! I'm glad my pith—which nine times out of ten I would rather not have made—has some appreciable net positive somewhere at least! Still trying for that "irenicist" ideal at the end of the day, though, but I'll never be perfect. Remsense诉 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate your efforts, and keep up the great work! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I could use a Shanghainese consultant for some work I'm planning on doing, do you know about any reliable sources on Wu/Shanghainese you'd recommend, either in Chinese or English? Remsense诉 02:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have much knowledge in linguistics, but I saw this website the other day, which might be a good source. Thank you for asking! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

How to watch over the outlines

I just added this section to the WikiProject:Outlines page, and thought you might find it useful...

The outlines need watchdogs, to keep an eye on them and make sure they are secure and well maintained.

Here are some tips for effective monitoring of this valuable resource:

Tip 1: Place article alerts on your talk page

Place this project's articles alerts template on your talk page in such a way that it floats at the bottom, so that you see it every time you read a message there. To do so, copy and paste this code near the top of your talk page:

<ref>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Article alerts}}</ref>

This will allow you to easily keep track of outline deletion discussions at AfD, requested moves, featured list nominations, and other formally tagged outline-related nominations.

Note: Article alerts doesn't catch everything, like page edits and untagged discussions. For those, we have watchlists...

Tip 2: Use this WikiProject's watchlist

There's a comprehensive outline-related watchlist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Watchlist using Related changes.

Follow the instructions at the top of that page.

Also feel free to keep that page up to date by adding new outline-related pages to it.

Tip 3: Related changes can also be used on outline lists

In the desktop view of Wikipedia, one tool available to monitor activity on outlines is related changes. To use it on outlines, go to Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines and click on "Related changes" in the tools menu.

In order for this to work on all outlines, Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines must be kept up to date.

Beware: "Related changes" looks a lot like "Recent changes", and it is easy to accidentally use the latter by mistake.

Tip 4: Use the outline categories for monitoring...

Related changes works on the various Category:Wikipedia outlines pages, too.

That's all for now

I hope the above tips help.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   19:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism Revert I Made

Hello, Remsense!

I'm somewhat confused about your revert of my revert of this edit. The vandalism I mentioned in my revert description specifically looks like this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SKc6Bvid1TalkHi-353K3fTFU9X3HKc4/view?usp=sharing. However, in the revert you made the text in the linked image has disappeared from the page, which makes me confused.

The vandalism in the image didn't appear in the markdown of WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- -'s edit - only the preview of the edit, which makes me wonder if I saw a glitch and reverted something that didn't exist.

Looking at the other things WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - included in their edit, it seems like the rest of that revision of the page was constructive, so I understand why you made your revert.

I'm a newer editor to Wikipedia, so a general explanation of what happened and what I did wrong would be appreciated.

ObsessiveScribe (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also confused! Looking in the page revision history, I don't see the introduction of that image anywhere, so I do not have a better explanation—I very much appreciate your concern and communication regardless, so thank you! Remsense诉 19:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The Chronology of the Bible

Your edit is entirely erroneous. You say theres no reliable source for the Masoretic text not containing the book of Maccabees? Is the Masoretic text itself not a reliable source? How about any website on the internet other than this one wiki page? Or any every other wiki page that pertains to the Masoretic text. What source do you have listed for the opposite being true? You don’t have any listed at all. The Septuagint is the text that contains the books of Maccabees.

This is page has verifiably false information all the way through it. It says the Masoretic text is most commonly used. Thats not correct. The catholics use the Septuagint and there are 300,000,000 more Catholics than there are Protestants. The Greek Orthodox use the Septuagint, that adds another 260,000,000 to the number. So 560,000,000 more Christians use the septuagint than those who use the Masoretic text. Thats not even counting all of the denominations that use King James Version that also uses the Septuagint, which is a fair number of the protestants in the world, and close to half of the Christians in the US.

All of the information on this page is easily shown to be false. Not to say it mentions a lot of stuff that is fringe. Lukeferg96 (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the Masoretic text itself not a reliable source?

See WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources are generally considered more reliable for supporting most claims on Wikipedia. All I've done is remove claims from the article that aren't supported by the reliable (i.e. secondary) sources it cites. I recommend engaging with the sources cited in the article before raising any additional concerns, as you can't know if something is fringe if you haven't actually engaged with the body of research on a subject. If you do, be sure to cite specific sources on the talk page so as to effectively reach a consensus with your fellow editors.

Cheers! Remsense诉 10:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, I suppose I didn't think to make this particular point clear, but at no point does the article claim the Masoretic Text at any point contained any of the books of Maccabees. Make sure to read these things carefully, as God helps those who help themselves! Happy editing! Remsense诉 10:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Even without explicitly saying that “The masoretic text contains maccabees” it is still making a claim that is inaccurate. It explicitly claims that the Masoretic text ends with the re-dedication of the temple in 164bce. That is incorrect. I am not against the theory in this page, it doesn’t bother me. I just am against publishing inaccurate information. If the page is going to say its about the chronology of the Bible and specifically about the masoretic text, then it is publishing verifiably false information.

It also does specifically say “ The 374 years between the Edict of Cyrus and the re-dedication of the Second Temple by the Maccabees complete the 4,000 year cycle.”

Once again there are ways to keep this page the same without it being incorrect. It could say it is about the Catholic Old Testament or the Ortho Old Testament and it would be accurate.

Also, the way the page is written it really isn’t even about the chronology of the Bible, it is about the theory that is proposed. I have formal training in history and if you say chronology, it means the timeline of when things happen, not theories about numerology. Lukeferg96 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not saying that either. It's saying that the text was compiled with a larger cycle of time in mind, even if the end point isn't explicitly contained in the text. Remsense诉 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It explicitly says the chronology of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible does not include the Maccabean revolt or the re-dedication of the Temple. It also explicitly says the Masoretic text throughout the article. Lukeferg96 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's really not my job to rephrase what the sources are saying to you. Discuss it on the talk page, perhaps. Remsense诉 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I have looked at the sources and they do not support the claim that Maccabees is in the Bible. The sources cited are books that are about chronologically and the theories in them are not mainstream. None of them say the books of maccabees are in the Bible. The sources I looked through had little to no reviews on academic sources, and the reviews i have read on Jstor had criticism for the theory. Have your looked through the information in the sources?

“Masoretic Hebrew Bible(the text of the Bible most commonly in use today) measures the passage of events from the creation to around 164 BCE (the year of the re-dedication of the Second Temple)” What book was the Temple re-dedicated in? It was in Maccabees.

“While difficulties with biblical texts make it impossible to reach sure conclusions, perhaps the most widely held hypothesis is that it embodies an overall scheme of 4,000 years (a "great year") taking the re-dedication of the Temple by the Maccabees in 164 BCE as its end-point.” How can Biblical chronology go to the year 164 bce if the Bible doesn’t include any texts in it that are describing that period. If the page was about Hebrew literature, and not just the Canonical books, it wouldn’t be inaccurate to have this information. It also could be about thr chronology of the Septuagint. However that is not was this page says it’s about it says that it is about the chronology of the Bible, I.E. the Tanakh,(The Torah, the Nevi’im, and the Ketuvim.). Not to mention the claim that the Masoretic text is the one that is used the most for the Old Testament.

Fringe according to Wikipedia is theory as:”In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.” That is exactly what this page does. Lukeferg96 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome ...

story · music · places

... to WP:QAI or the cabal of the outcast ;) - what a nice surprise when waking up! Good luck with your first GA! ---- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a really good time of it so far! And my good mood just got a lot better, thank you Gerda. You're a real inspiration—and one that attracts other wonderful people for me to learn with, at that. Remsense诉 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Great to hear you are having a good time. - I'd like to talk about a topic where I often don't have a good time: infoboxes. In your first reply to the recommended MoS change, you mentioned "summed up", while I don't think an infobox should sum up or not, but rather collect those relevant items that can be listed in a parameter-value scheme. Of course not a creative mind's working. But his works. No? Let's look at Mozart, perhaps, and the last long discussion leading there (of I don't remember how many, - I summed them up at some point years ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are certain specific ways where it's totally reasonable for an infobox to be reference versus simple summary. To be brief, I think all the use cases here are totally fine—I'm mostly referring to phenomena such as people adding minor generals to articles about battles. To me. the underlying logic is, if one has to ask "well, what relation does this datum have to the topic exactly", it requires attestation in the article, and if it's clear from the structure of the data, it doesn't. For Chinese-language articles, {{Infobox Chinese}} often includes synonyms of terms that aren't explicated in the article itself, simply because it would unduly clutter the article body. I think that's totally fine.

Thank you for asking for elaboration, I was quite terse and reductive while making some of my points, hoping not to give people too many paragraphs of mine to scroll through, but elaboration is worthwhile here. Cheers! Remsense诉 13:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you know that I am the No. 1 suspect of war crime in infoboxes? Back in 2013, we had an arb case, and I invented the idea of two comments max in a discussion, and it was turned against me as a restriction, and I came to think of it as a liberating blessing. (See my 2013 talk archive in case of interest in history.) I was on vacation during the ongoing MoS discussion, and took the liberty not only not to respond but even not to read it, - that's what vacation is for. I read some now, and try to understand, and confess I didn't get far in the process, but you have to start somewhere. So, let's break it up and be specific. Does the Mozart infobox work for you, yes or no? And if no why? Is the RfC discussion of last year of any help understanding viewpoints? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think the infobox presently on Mozart is very nice. I think my specific angle is different from those that would disagree with this sort of presentation. Remsense诉 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, - in the discussion there are several who still resent any infobox for classical composers. Little history lesson: in 2010, two things happened, a specific infobox was created for these people ({{infobox classical composer}}), and an RfC found any infoboxes for them not suitable and resulted in removing many of these, replacing them by hidden messages that you can still find today, see Debussy 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)

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:

• Harmony
• Art music
• The People United Will Never Be Defeated!

Remsense诉 16:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and good plans! Now that we looked at Mozart, what do you think of Vivaldi, - check out talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I also think Vivaldi is fine! I apologize if my conduct in the RfC came off as overly dogmatic or easily conflated with certain concerns by others. Remsense诉 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that Vivaldi is missing something I think is essential. I said "check out talk" for a reason ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for being terse: things like lists of works are completely reasonable inclusions in infoboxes to me. Like I've said, my concerns are with totally unquantified inclusions, this is the opposite. Remsense诉 22:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, reasonable to you and me, but not to those who reverted them. I think Vivaldi would be finer with them, whatever way, saying so many operas or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about your "oppose" to the Wugapodes suggestion. You refer there to your own previous comment and to Ssilvers. Your own is too long for now, but what I read from Ssilvers is short: "This would blatantly violate the ArbCom compromise. It also appears that canvassing may be going on here." What in that do you mean, or do you mean something else, - then please clarify in the discussion. (I seriously don't know of any ArbCom compromise. To my possibly limited knowledge, ArbCom just quoted the MoS item that we are discussing, requested a community-wide RfC which we seem to have, finally, and so left things to battle again and again from article to article which hasn't made editor relations sweeter. For me, Mozart and Copland are compromise, and could be models.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My initial !vote was not worded very well—I have an awful habit of zigging in an attempt at brevity when I should zag in an attempt at clarity, and vice versa. Outside of the context of threaded discussion, I will try to elaborate my entire position as concerns infoboxes from the ground up. I will strike my remarks that may imply I think there is canvassing, ArbCom violation, any other behavioral issues going on, since I do not believe that to be the case.

• Infoboxes are an article layout convention that presents key facts about an article's subject in a highly visible and discrete manner, such that readers may access this information at a glance.
• Infoboxes do this largely through presenting a summary distillation of an article's contents as key:value pairs, in the context of a broad classification of the article as a given type—e.g. 'person', 'creative work', 'event'.
• A relative hierarchy of importance is also communicated through the particular layout of an infobox's data.
• Infoboxes are extremely successful: readers effectively intuit their contents as being the most important information about an article's subject, which they also associate with those of other articles with similar infoboxes. Readers may not know that it's called an infobox, but they understand associations being made when they see {{Infobox chess match}}, {{Infobox academic}}, or {{Infobox criminal organization}} at the top of an article.

Having established that, my core points are:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Many abstract subjects, including most sub-articles, do not require infoboxes—e.g. Feudalism and Immortal Beloved. This boundary is fuzzy, and guidelines should not favor pulling one way or the other due to these boundary cases being those of most concern in my mind.

Many of these points were acknowledged in the proposed language and by those supporting it, but I do not feel said language was adequately flexible or didactic for the purposes of a content guideline. Remsense诉 12:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain, and I think you would do that discussion and its closer a favour if you placed your last line in your oppose, in your words something like "good idea but not worded carefully enough". Instead of sending the poor closer to two other locations within a very long discussion. - At some point there you said "recommended" is a weasel word, - please explain. For me, it expresses exactly the consideration that an infobox is not required and should not be required. How would you say that? - If I was the closer I would try to give little weight to all comments that seem to understand the proposal as saying "required" and not "recommended". In my "support" I wrote no reasoning because my reasons to not exclude infoboxes from classical composers are in the list given just above, where they have worked well and have not caused trouble, Clara Schumann for example, not by me, stable for more than a decade. Did you read my story today? There's one every day ;) - "places" change less frequently, but there are new pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

ps: I think it's quite generally a good idea to not refer to any other editor's comments when saying oppose or support. I have seen A saying "per B", and later in the discussion B changed their mind. However, I did that for Mozart, as you may have read, but not without irony, playing with someone else's comment. He had opposed "per the cogent arguments by Ssilvers", and I had supported "per the cogent arguments by Voceditenore". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (look up places) - I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I do very much! It certainly doesn't hurt that the photos used for both are stunning. Remsense诉 19:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! - Listen to my story today ;) (a DYK hook written in 2012, before I even knew of "infobox wars") - Some day I hope to do justice to your detailed points above, - no time today. Could you do me a favour and just strike the reference to Ssilvers in your oppose, please? (Because that name will be associated with the arguments in the Mozart discussion, - please read there if you haven't, and decide if cogent or not for you. I looked up "reification" - a new word for me, and I'm not sure I quite understand it, - language being one of my barriers in arguments). - The Copland compromise was seen by 10k, without concerns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for missing that before, I'll do so. Remsense诉 08:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"Reification" is a word I lean on a lot trying to explain design and such things, probably unduly. The sense in which I'm using it can basically be replaced with "thing-ification"—the process whereby a concept accumulates and becomes clearly defined and entrenched in someone's head. The process of reification is distinct from that of "pattern identification" per se, but there's overlap—we usually consider things that are "overly reified" as trivial, stale, or impersonal. Music's a fantastic explanatory vehicle for it, actually. Sonata form as traditionally understood is basically wholly an exercise in the double-edged sword of reification: how does one communicate abstract motives in a way that creates concrete feelings in the audience, but doesn't draw attention to its own process of being a developing motive in a way that manifests as unmerited boredom or confusion in the audience, without pulling them out of the non-conceptual experience of music? I hope that gives you more of an idea and didn't just add a few more unclear sentences to the pile. To rephrase the original sentence: readers have their own working understanding of what an infobox is and where it should be, even if they don't put it into words. Remsense诉 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, - some day I'll try to understand, - patience please. I had a good day out, added a few pics (the last ones for March), and have three recent-death-articles in my workshop - always time-critical or no longer recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the three was posted, Notker Wolf, quite a character! - Another died though, and I once began his article, so again three waiting. - Just the daily update: Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939), and below (on my talk) three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. For our infobox topic: there's a cute short Q&A on the Anderson talk, from 2020. Sounds like it could be so easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

For a bit, I thought e-guitar meant he was rocking one of those fancy MIDI controllers with the keys arranged as a fretboard! Also, every philosophical work in German sounds so profound in translation. Remsense诉 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you ;) - plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What a talent. It's quite humbling to remember before electronic amplification that the organ was quite commonly the closest thing many got to hearing and feeling "the presence of God" in terms of sonic totality. Remsense诉 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and I like your thought about "feeling" the organ sound. My story last year mentioned God's presence, on this day ;) - Relief: the last of six RD articles in one week is now on the Main page - yesterday I heard a great recital with many anti-war songs by Jewish composers whose music was banned by the Nazis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Der Kontrabass is so fun! It reminds me of the piece "Failing" for double bass, though the latter is a bit more tongue-in-cheek, arguably to its detriment. Remsense诉 20:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

China government type

Sorry to chase you over here, on the status quo for this parameter, surely 'socialist state' is outdated? I get that it's referring to the state apparatus and the extreme level of intervention/control over modes of production, but surely there's a better term with more accurate economic inferences? State capitalism is more accurate imo although I dk whether there's enough consensus from recent academic sources. Do you think this deserves another RfC? Could be a slightly less braindead one than the last one lol Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What follows is almost entirely conjecture and OR on my part:

Iiiiiit's complex, to the best of my understanding. The Chinese government still proudly characterizes itself as Marxist–Leninist—the most recent, most prominent ideological current seems to be that summed up in Xi's 两个结合 'two integrations'—there's not even a common English calque of this one yet—it's quite textually just "we are fusing Confucius's ideas with Marx". Don't ask me how that works, but it seems they have something cooking over there, so what do I know as a rudderless baizuo. Really, I couldn't tell you.

In some ways, it's really nothing new, just socialism with Chinese characteristics with a new catchphrase, but also I think these articulations do matter and affect material policy! The state continues to operate in many ways without concern for a direct profit incentive like you might expect if the state were functioning as a traditional capitalist. Propaganda isn't all smoke, and it doesn't only "work" on specific groups at this scale. I myself have a petulant, reflexive dislike for the term "state capitalism"—simply because it doesn't actually mean anything, all capitalism is state capitalism—i.e. it can't exist without the state, and the state acts as a mediating body for capital even in the most laissez faire configurations. Again, this is largely just my opinion again, but you might see how it's a bit of a stumbling block for establishing a firm consensus reflecting sources that means much of anything.

And that doesn't even get into the history of Leninist states outside of China and how that impacts how people might think about China! Oh dear. Suffice it to say I am not convinced that the Chinese government is actually working in the direction of a classless society, to say the very least. But too far down this rabbit hole lies madness. I figure it's as meaningful as anything else just to relay what they say about themselves. Remsense诉 20:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you're probably right, but I think the state in state capitalism refers to the state controlling the means of production rather than it being in private ownership. Maybe Marxist-Leninist state apparatus instead of state-socialism? In reality it doesn't fit the binary socialism or capitalism, and this just refers to the system of government rather than the economy. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Advice for article improvement

Hi Remsense, apologies for bothering. I have been working the page for the Chinese Botanist and scholar Hu Xiansu for quite a while now ever since I learnt about him. However, I don't believe the page is where it could be, and would really appreciate a skilled eye to determine (and maybe fix) key issues with the article. Thanks! Zinderboff(talk) 10:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'm flattered you'd ask for my opinion. I'll take a look ASAP! Remsense诉 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! There's absolutely no hurry. Take as long as you need. Zinderboff(talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your reversion at Byzantine music

What is going on here? Platonykiss (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The first reversion was a little harsh, but I think I adequately mentioned the reason in the edit summary, though I'm happy to elaborate: large passages of text in non-English languages are not useful to the vast majority of readers on an English-language encyclopedia, even on articles relevant to deeply academic topics like Old Slavonic philology, or what have you. It simply doesn't do much but takes up space if one can't read it, and therefore is a net negative for the reader. I think it's fine to have access to the original text given the translation, so that's why I think putting it in the footnote was a better idea on my part. Remsense诉 11:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not harsh, but invasive and I also did not remark it first. Thus, I recommend to be more thoughtful with such interactions.

It is already there, not just with link to a translation, but also to a critical edition of the text, but I am confident that many readers (with a Slavic background at least) might wish to check with a simplified orthography of the original text (something that the quoted edition does not offer). The transcription at Petersburg does offer it now (not when I made this paragraph) and they can also check with a facsimile of the manuscript which has the real orthography. If you just had waited some minutes, I was about to insert a link!

You just ruined the work of half an hour.

By the way, who are you and what makes you think that you are authorised to behave here in this way?

I have never experienced here anything like it! Honestly I would rather appreciate, if you removed outdated bibliographical references which somebody parked in the sources list. It would be more helpful! Since I am not the rude type I just moved it to a better place. I hope you can learn from it. Platonykiss (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think putting it in the footnote was a better idea on my part

I have seen it now. That is ok! Platonykiss (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! It's really nice to see improvement in this area, where I haven 't any expertise but really think deserves more coverage on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Outline draft tracker

Hey,

Here's a page I created for tracking outline drafts, that shows the date of the latest edit for each.

Such as for these outline drafts you created:

• Draft:Outline of Chinese characters.
• Draft:Outline of the Chinese language.

Drafts that haven't been edited in 6 months get deleted from draft space. This list lets us see if any drafts are getting close to the 6-month danger date. Once an edit is made to an outline draft, the date for it in this list automatically updates.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Draft tracker.

I hope you find it useful.

Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   08:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Nifty! Do you think finishing the GAN of Chinese characters before finally finishing the outline is backwards? Remsense诉 00:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope. You can do it in whatever order you like, including simultaneously. Some Wikipedians work on hundreds of different pages each day. ;) Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   06:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Like me! I was mostly being coy though, but I do think it's a great outline subject and I secretly want it to be the second outline to earn FL... Remsense诉 06:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a secret anymore! You better hurry up then, before somebody beats you to it.    — The Transhumanist   07:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)