User talk:Remsense

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Quick Response To Constantinople Edit

Hi Remsense! I see you saw the constantinople edit I made. Yes I know that the edit wasn't much but the edit summary that I submitted to wikipedia was something that was autofilled out for some reason and wasn't something I filled out myself.Thank you for letting me know though!

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Jarrod Baniqued: My "shoehorning" comment was in reference to the undue and inaccurate astrology element of your edit. A simple inclusion of Holst in the list would have been uncontroversial. Which I have just done, writing The composer Holst included it as the second movement of his The Planets suite.. No baggage. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I might get around to readdressing the idea eventually. We'll see Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Afeedback on bodhidharma talk.

Hi I am wanting some feedback on this page the conversation is under Chan, if that is ok Foristslow (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of editions in Vega, Galaxy, Ursa Minor, Electron and Island of stability

Hi,

Recently you reverted the editions in the articles Vega, Galaxy, Ursa Minor, Electron and Island of stability to reinstate the comma as digit number separator instead of spaces (gaps).

Please, take into account that these editions (i.e. the editions to format grouping of digits in large numbers with spaces instead of commas) were done in accordance with the Manual of Style of English Wikipedia subsection Grouping of digits where it's stated that: "In general, digits should be grouped and separated either by commas or by narrow gaps (never a period/full point)" and that "Grouping with narrow gaps is especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics".

Also, you should take into account that neither commas nor dots, buts spaces is the recommendation as "thousand separator" followed by the International System of Units (i.e. the standard used to communicate in science); and this is also the recommendation of USA standards agencies like NIST ([5] SP811) other international bodies like ISO (ISO Std 80000).

So, please, I encourage you to reconsider your reversions, and leave the articles as they were before them (i.e. revert the reversions yourself). I'm not reverting them myself, because I don't want to start an "edition war", but to convince you that your intervention was a mistake.

Thank you for your consideration. Regards. RGLago (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

I have started a discussion for all participants to talk out the dispute re Gabor and Ataturk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mustafa_Kemal_Ataturk,_Zsa_Zsa_Gabor PromQueenCarrie (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hsiang-Ju Lin

Overlinks were removed as per your suggestion, thank you for that. The other educational corrections that were made were requested by the family(neice) of Hsiang-Ju Lin as at the time Harvard University did not offer a PhD in research biochemistry but instead it offered a DSc in the field. The other educational institutions can be confirmed by reference #21. Studydoc (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by to say...

Your user page somehow feels very stereotypically 'Chinese' (No offense), which is a rare sight in en.wiki. I am surprised to learn you are a U.S. native, maybe Chinese are similar wherever they are born. Hym3242 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I'm not of Chinese ancestry if that is what you mean by maybe Chinese are similar wherever they are born. I appreciate the kind words though, I just find the area of history/culture/etc. particularly edifying to learn about and (sometimes) weave into my own life is all! Remsense ‥ 论 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's my turn to pass by just say... that you can safely trust your first instinct[6]. I have to admit that I haven't been 100% sure either, but the appearance of the second (loudly quacking) sock made at least confident to mention the other account as well. –Austronesier (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my change in reference

Hello, I’m new to editing and learning how to properly format references, sorry for my previous changes.

Could you give me some advice on citing sources from Wayback Machine? Some of these sources don’t have DOIs because they’re quite old. I’d appreciate your guidance.

Best! 98.243.41.204 (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for engaging, I appreciate it! If you post the specifics at Talk:Marco Polo Bridge incident, me and likely some others will help sort you out. Remsense ‥ 论 05:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and assistance! I’m referencing this source: https://archive.org/details/shenbao-1937.07-180/page/n1/mode/2up, an official newspaper from the victimized nations during that period. To better understand the realities of war, I believe it’s crucial to cite reports from the victimized countries, or at least from third-party nations—not solely from the media of the aggressor state. This approach provides a more comprehensive perspective on historical events. 98.243.41.204 (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per what I said before—discussions about content should generally occur on the corresponding article talk pages so everyone can participate, not here. Remsense ‥ 论 05:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:100.33.135.81

Your template is malformed. I did add an NPA to their talk page prior to your edit. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sometimes it's clear a situation is under control and phone-tethered errors aren't worth fixing. Remsense ‥ 论 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Why not Jesus son of Mary the other name like Jesus of Nazareth is in Christianity and according to you in Muhammad the page of Jesus is about the figure found in various religion and for Christianity it is Jesus in Christianity. Therealbey (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss content issues on the corresponding talk page, not my user page. On our most important, most highly visible articles, it should not surprise you that many aspects of the most visible, most important sections are the result of deliberate consensus and are the way they are for good reasons. Remsense ‥ 论 21:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then whats the problem on adding Jesus son of Mary? Therealbey (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not horse trading content across different articles with you, and I'm not discussing content issues here. If you want to discuss the lead of Jesus, please do so at Talk:Jesus. Remsense ‥ 论 21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Leaders

Just wanted to explain that I was just trying to follow the present convention on the page when I switched it to the German Reich, since I saw no reason why we should be using the propaganda claim that they were a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire as their country name rather than the official country name. This is my answer to the no idea why we're being so effusive in the section headers edit summary that followed my edit.

All the best! Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello Remsense! I would like to ask you, as a native English speaker, about whether the following sentence sounds good and non-confusing. The article in question is Music. So, I quote: "During the 19th century, the focus on sheet music had restricted access to new music to middle and upper-class people who could read music and who owned pianos and other instruments."

The meaning of the sentence ought to be that middle and upper-class people were the only ones to enjoy full access to music at the time. But the way it is written now seems a bit confusing to me because I feel like "to" might be understood in a way that sheet music actually restricted access that middle and upper-class people had had. So I thought rewriting it something like "During the 19th century, access to new music was largely restricted to middle and upper-class people who could read sheet music..." Please tell me, do you see the same equivocal meaning in the sentence or it is fine as it is? Ur frnd (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ur frnd: This sort of question is best asked at talk:Music, where there are many more people who can advise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RussianFanboy2010 Moxy🍁 02:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

question about revert

Recently you reverted an edit on the talk page for Muhammad. I'm not quite sure why though as the comment the IP made seemed fairly reasonable.
The edit in question:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1258533983
as such I decided to revert it, and bring the comment back. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November thanks

Thank you for improving articles in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template question

Hi, I might be asking the wrong person for this question, but perhaps do you know why the template "Template:Lzh" seems to be using a Taiwanese font? For example, 有 is typically written as 月 which is also seen in historical texts such as in the Kangxi dictionary (inherited glyphs). But in the Taiwanese standard, they prefer to write it as ⺼ which is modern orthography (Traditional Chinese characters ≠ Literary Chinese characters). Another example would be 遣 where the radical ⻌ would be written as ⻍ according to the inherited glyphs, while the Taiwanese standard is ⻎. The template uses ⻎ instead of ⻍.

How would one change it so that the template would use fonts (such as I.Ming) that are based on the inherited glyphs rather than the Taiwanese Traditional characters fonts (which are based on handwriting and their own standard)? Lachy70 (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you watching my Contributions page?

UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 00:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do generally take a look at the contributions of users I see making certain types of errors, but I'm not "watching" it continuously, no. I have Hawaii on my watchlist, if you're wondering about the most recent engagement. Remsense ‥ 论 00:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just,you reverted some of my edits,that got me wondering UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 02:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page number template

The reason I changed that is because on the Wikipedia Android app, formatting the sfn that way breaks it entirely and causes it to display as blank. Are you certain that nesting the templates that way is a valid format? PN's documentation says to put it after the reference. But it may be you know more about it than I do, and the Android thing is a bug with the template or app and not an issue with how it's being used. Nicknimh (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Probably the best route here is to sub in {{harvp}} for {{sfnp}}, so there can be a pair of ref tags to put {{pn}} inside of. This gets it out of the body prose and into the references section where it's expected, and produces standard formatting (even on Minerva, nesting pn inside sfnp produces a silly looking trailing dot like "p. ^{[page needed]}."). Folly Mox (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About reverting some of my edits

Hey, Remsense. I've noticed you've undone almost every single edit I've made since my last post on the russian civil war's talk page. I will admit that the last two edits I made are unnecessary, when it comes to minor edits I'm unsure about I follow WP:BOLD and won't protest if they are undone (for example, Russian civil war's infobox). But I don't see the point or reason for the reversion of the cheta or modus vivendi when I genuinely can't see the any problem with them and you haven't listed any reason in your edit contributions. Thanks for reading! AssanEcho (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

I am not sure that you have understood the Talk page guidelines. Anyone can alter the heading of a Talk page section. It is only edits by another editor outside the heading that cannot be altered. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines . K8h3ds21 (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect in your interpretation: there is no reason to edit others' comments the vast majority of the time, so please refrain from doing so. Remsense ‥ 论 12:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]