User talk:Remsense

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Removing an edit

Hello Remsense,

It seems that you are very active and know much better about Wikipedia rules than me. Some time ago I just added a chessbase.com article to the external links of a Wikipedia page namely: "McDonnell–La Bourdonnais, match 4, game 16" which I personally read and liked and thought that would be useful to others. It seems that it was reverted by you. I would like to know the reason for it.

"De facto"

I see that the word "de facto" is currently italicized in the infobox of the Yuan dynasty article. I thought you had approved this edit by User:Malik-Al-Hind earlier. I wonder why you think it should be italicized in the Yuan dynasty article but not in the Qing dynasty article? I do not think this should have anything to do with the differences between the two dynasties though. Thanks! --Wengier (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be italicized anywhere—this is somewhere I'm trying to balance my opinion (which I do believe to be correct and most consistent with site guidelines, but understand no one else really wants to fight over at all) with that aforementioned reality. If it's italicized elsewhere, it's either because I didn't notice or didn't "test the issue" there.

I really do wish the MOS explicitly said it shouldn't be—barring that, I think there are genuine style benefits to having that be the case on an article-by-article basis, as long as it doesn't make anyone mad—it's just visually weird to read an article where "de facto" is italicized but "per se" or "e.g." are not.

(Anyone else reading this is free to jump in and tell me I'm being too particular about this still, though like I said I'm trying not to be pathological or disruptive about my preference here.) Remsense ‥ 论 04:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've probably mentioned this elsewhere, but I low-key hate the term de facto (which I do italicise, with {{lang}}, but do so here as a use–mention distinction). It seems to get sprinkled all over the place in a somewhat lazy fashion where regular English qualifiers – after a smol rewording – would work as well or better, like "in practice", "essentially", "acted as", "unratified", "in reality", "recognised as", "for all purposes", etc. ("Pretty much" is another parasynonym, disqualified on TONE.)

Moreover, it's often the case that the most educational way to explain a de facto thing is to leave the thing unqualified, and explain why it was not officially recognised as the thing it was de facto.

By definition the reason we have to use this term in the first place basically amounts to some missing paperwork, and I'm not sure why we choose to qualify historical realities with the caveat that no one bothered to tack on an evidently unnecessary seal of approval. Folly Mox (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, at Qing dynasty § Reigns of the Yongzheng and Qianlong emperors, why did Yongzheng's Grand Council (Qing dynasty) eventually [grow] into the emperor's de facto cabinet for the rest of the dynasty? Did later emperors have an official cabinet in juxtaposition? (This is a genuine question: I'm fairly unfamiliar with Qing bureaucracy.) Couldn't this group be construed as the emperor's personal advisory committee?

At § Claiming the Mandate of Heaven, it should be obvious to any reader that if a compromise installed Hong Taiji's five-year-old son, Fulin, as the Shunzhi Emperor, with Dorgon as regent, then Dorgon exercised the imperial authority, and the explanatory coda and de facto leader of the Manchu nation is not necessary at all.

The de factorum at Yuan dynasty could be replaced with "in practice" with no change in meaning. Folly Mox (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably declined that incorrectly since it's now been over a quarter century since my most recent Latin class (and my Latin dictionary is all the way over there), but as a final off-topic reply to myself:

I'll note in passing that I perceive concerns over the consistency of individual terms being formatted in oblique or upright as one of Wikipedia's most trivial trivialities.

I'll confirm that my preference for native English terms is entirely inconsistent: although as stated I do hate de facto, I also regularly use prima facie, ceteris paribus, and other terms I find more convenient not to render in English.

I'll confess that I have never before used or encountered the term "parasynonym" before my first comment above, and found it by looking up 近義詞 at Wiktionary and clicking through some links. Folly Mox (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I lied about the finality. Because I couldn't help myself: I think it should be de factis. Sorry for the four notifications, Remsense. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your diligence, patience, and hard work to limit the problems caused by the copyediting edit-a-thon. It is tough when groups of good-faith but not quite competent users do their best to improve Wikipedia and can't understand what the problems are. bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated! This is another incident where I feel I have a lot I can do better in the future, in any case. Maybe I should put myself on both "2RR" and "don't claim big lists before triple-checking them" New Years' Resolutions. Remsense ‥ 论 20:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your precious work.

JacktheBrown (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jack! Remsense ‥ 论 06:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article editing

Hello, I would like to talk on a final revision on the articles in discussion if you like. please let me know on your thoughts for a final revision Lobus (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December music

Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. - Could you perhaps help with sources for Huang Zhun (composer)? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today, listen to Sequenza XIV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. We sang in choirs today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antonio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

œ back to æ revert

Hey, just wanted to ask why you reverted my edit on the formant page? Based on the chart and original versions of the page it should be œ and not æ. (Keep in mind I have not read the book that's in the reference, but I didn't want to buy a book and look at one reference on a subject that is actually not THAT important to me).

I based the edit on the chart later in the same page, as it lines up better. æ should be between ɛ and a from what I've seen on other charts, such as Dr. Geoff Lindsey's vowel space chart. Jaa Kimmo (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source provides the data for the chart, and it wouldn't make sense to seamlessly synthesize data from other sources. Remsense ‥ 论 23:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you have the book (the cited source), but what I meant to do was to undo the change from "ɶ" (œ) to æ. From 2013 it has been œ until a (possible) vandal changed it to æ.

Sorry for the mishap, and sorry for not having the cited source on hand. Anyway, I don't think it'd be a good source if it says æ when every other modern source says that it's œ. I'm not saying it's wrong (as again, I haven't read it, and can't confirm what the book says), I'm just saying we need consensus here. Someone needs to actually get the book, or we just get a different source.

Sorry for wasting your time, but this is important to me. Jaa Kimmo (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question re warning templates

Do you know if there's a page that has every available warning template, or at least most of them? I'm looking for a more definitive list than WP:WARN, one that includes specific warnings like the "islamhon" one you used at User talk:205.164.159.46, but the search function on here is not cooperating as usual. Thank you either way. City of Silver 17:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two I saved to my home page earlier:

Feel free to raid anything at user:JMF#Antivandalism and other warnings that you may find useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC) (talk page watcher)[reply]

Tedious linguistics

Remsense, based on this edit summary of yours at Translation, I believe we have a common interest in language and linguistics articles. In your case, perhaps with tedious wording, in my case, with rampant OR and vast expanses of citation-free content. Everybody feels they are an expert in their own language (and per Chomsky, they are correct, and I agree) however that doesn't exempt them from WP:V and WP:OR. Although the topic is close to my heart, imho, our modern languages articles fail V and OR more than any other major topic I follow (linguistics and dead languages less so) and makes me want to slash and burn 45kb articles down to two paragraphs, or this article down to one sentence (namely: "Hungarian has verbs.^[1]"). It almost feels like a lost cause, but so far, my approach has been to proceed with kid gloves. Maybe we could get a few people together and try to come up with a plan for this. WT:LING or WT:LANGUAGES could be a good venue. Austronesier and Kwamikagami might have some thoughts about this. Or maybe we should just give up, I dunno. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-50

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Weekly highlight

Technical documentation contributors can find updated resources, and new ways to connect with each other and the Wikimedia Technical Documentation Team, at the Documentation hub on MediaWiki.org. This page links to: resources for writing and improving documentation, a new #wikimedia-techdocs IRC channel on libera.chat, a listing of past and upcoming documentation events, and ways to request a documentation consultation or review. If you have any feedback or ideas for improvements to the documentation ecosystem, please contact the Technical Documentation Team.

Updates for editors

Later this week, Edit Check will be relocated to a sidebar on desktop. Edit check is the feature for new editors to help them follow policies and guidelines. This layout change creates space to present people with new Checks that appear while they are typing. The initial results show newcomers encountering Edit Check are 2.2 times more likely to publish a new content edit that includes a reference and is not reverted.
The Chart extension, which enables editors to create data visualizations, was successfully made available on MediaWiki.org and three pilot wikis (Italian, Swedish, and Hebrew Wikipedias). You can see a working examples on Testwiki and read the November project update for more details.
Translators in wikis where the mobile experience of Content Translation is available, can now discover articles in Wikiproject campaigns of their interest from the "All collection" category in the articles suggestion feature. Wikiproject Campaign organizers can use this feature, to help translators to discover articles of interest, by adding the <page-collection> </page-collection> tag to their campaign article list page on Meta-wiki. This will make those articles discoverable in the Content Translation tool. For more detailed information on how to use the tool and tag, please refer to the step-by-step guide. [1]
The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, now has a multiselect filter for namespace selection. This enables users to select multiple specific namespaces, instead of only one or all, when fetching pages for deletion.
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions. Thanks to Chlod and the Moderator Tools team for both of these improvements. [2]
The Editing Team is working on making it easier to populate citations from archive.org using the Citoid tool, the auto-filled citation generator. They are asking communities to add two parameters preemptively, archiveUrl and archiveDate, within the TemplateData for each citation template using Citoid. You can see an example of a change in a template, and a list of all relevant templates. [3]
One new wiki has been created: a Wikivoyage in Indonesian (voy:id:) [4]
Last week, all wikis had problems serving pages to logged-in users and some logged-out users for 30–45 minutes. This was caused by a database problem, and investigation is ongoing. [5]
View all 19 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, a bug in the Add Link feature has been fixed. Previously, the list of sections which are excluded from Add Link was partially ignored in certain cases. [6][7]

Updates for technical contributors

Codex, the design system for Wikimedia, now has an early-stage implementation in PHP. It is available for general use in MediaWiki extensions and Toolforge apps through Composer, with use in MediaWiki core coming soon. More information is available in the documentation. Thanks to Doğu for the inspiration and many contributions to the library. [8]
Wikimedia REST API users, such as bot operators and tool maintainers, may be affected by ongoing upgrades. On December 4, the MediaWiki Interfaces team began rerouting page/revision metadata and rendered HTML content endpoints on testwiki from RESTbase to comparable MediaWiki REST API endpoints. The team encourages active users of these endpoints to verify their tool's behavior on testwiki and raise any concerns on the related Phabricator ticket before the end of the year, as they intend to roll out the same change across all Wikimedia projects in early January. These changes are part of the work to replace the outdated RESTBase system.
The 2024 Developer Satisfaction Survey is seeking the opinions of the Wikimedia developer community. Please take the survey if you have any role in developing software for the Wikimedia ecosystem. The survey is open until 3 January 2025, and has an associated privacy statement.
There is no new MediaWiki version this week. [9]

Meetings and events

The next meeting in the series of Wikimedia Foundation discussions with the Wikimedia Commons community will take place on December 12 at 8:00 UTC and at 16:00 UTC. The topic of this call is new media and new contributors. Contributors from all wikis are welcome to attend.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 22:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Terror vs Reign of Terror

I see that you reverted several edits I made related to the French Revolution, where I changed the phrase "Reign of Terror" to "the Terror". You stated that this was a "misguided change of terminology".

Just to be clear, I do NOT support terror, I am NOT a propagandist. I am just trying to make Wikipedia more accurate. The actual French term is the Terror. I pointed this out when editing Robespierre's article the 8th December saying that "Reign of Terror" is an exclusively English term and the French name is « la Terreur ». You reverted and stated that Last time I checked, this is an English-language encyclopedia. Apologies if I was not clear in the edit summary. "The Terror" is a very well-established term in English-language scholarship, as in French. Indeed there are many examples for the use of this term here on English Wikipedia. As just one example, Danton's article mentions "the Terror" eleven times while "Reign of Terror" is only mentioned three times.

Searching on Google for these terms alongside French Revolution, the Terror returns 632,000 results while Reign of Terror gives 616,000 results; they seem to be about equally used and if anything "Reign of Terror" is used less.

There have been many scholarly works published in English that use the phrase "the Terror" only. Here are a few:

The Incidence of the Terror During the French Revolution: A Statistical Interpretation, 1935. Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of the Terror in the French Revolution, 1941. "Maximilien Robespierre, Master of the Terror", 1947; the original link is down but this article is cited in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Paris in the Terror 1964. Ending the Terror: The French Revolution After Robespierre, 1989. The Terror in the French Revolution., 1998. The Terror: The Shadow of the Guillotine: France, 1792-1794, 2004. Envoy to the Terror: Gouverneur Morris and the French Revolution, 2005. Reimagining Politics After the Terror: The Republican Origins of French Liberalism, 2008. The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution, 2015. "From Terror to the Terror: Terror and the French Revolution", 2019, a chapter in States of Terror: History, Theory, Literature.

Articles in the New York Times from 1910 and 1936, and the Washington Post from 1989 use the term "the Terror" in the title.

Clearly, this term is well-accepted in the English-speaking world and changing this term would not make Wikipedia less accurate.

However the main reason I edited is that the term "Reign of Terror" is a misleading, propagandistic anachronism. "Reign of Terror" was not used in France at the time (or now) and was invented after Robespierre's fall by his English-speaking critics. The name was chosen to evoke images of anarchy and blood, as if only terror could reign in the place of a king.

I understand the concern that if we change "Reign of Terror" to "the Terror", people may not recognize this term. However, the term is usually mentioned in context of the French Revolution, in which the period of terror is well-known, and hovering over the link will of course display the page Reign of Terror (The first sentence of that page could also be changed to "The Reign of Terror, also known as the Terror, was a period of the French Revolution when..."). If this is not enough context, we could also use "Reign of Terror" the first time in the lead section and/or in the section headers of articles, and then use "the Terror" afterwards. Or we could keep "Reign of Terror" in quotation marks to show that this was not the actual phrase, but a name given by others.

I would welcome any civil comments you and others might have about this issue. The French Revolution has sometimes been inaccurately represented in the English-speaking world, and as Wikipedia editors we should try to present facts in an unbiased way. Curuwen (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not your place to unilaterally decide the English-language term in common use is misleading or inappropriate. If you want to dispute whether it is the common term in English, start a thread on Talk:Reign of Terror about it. Remsense ‥ 论 05:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	I suppose it's not your actions that were surreal, but I had spent a few minutes yesterday asking myself if I was a bit crazy for thinking there had been an uptick in disruption on religion-related articles. Your start of that SPI caught an absurd number of socks. Great work! Pbritti (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for what it's worth, I get a kick out of the socks having names that clearly suggest valid socking, yet are very much not following those standards. Good catch! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also! Thank @Izno and @Samwalton9 for showing me the tool that allowed me to query the database for registered usernames by suffix. Remsense ‥ 论 17:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno and Samwalton9: Per the above, thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially sceptical there was a link - well done Remsense! Sam Walton (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're dedicated to causing a mischief on Wikipedia, apparently the gravest error you could possibly commit is to repeat some action I found slightly weird or irritating two or three times in a row. Remsense ‥ 论 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roman Empire Flag Edit

Hi @Remsense,

I noticed you've been reverting my edit about the Roman Empire flag (Flag_of_the_Roman_Empire.svg) in the article, and I just wanted to clear things up.

The edit I made doesn’t introduce any unsourced material. It’s just an adjustment to how the flag is presented visually, based on how it's recognised in historical and scholarly sources. The flag in question is widely used in academic materials.

You mentioned that the flag is a "military standard" and not a "national flag", but I think that’s mixing modern state symbolism with how the Romans operated. The Roman Empire didn’t use flags the way we think of them today, so any flag we use is really an interpretation based on modern understanding. The one I added is a well-known, historically grounded symbol of Roman authority, which fits the context of the article.

Thanks, Roben Robenceic (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UNDUE, part of our core content policy on neutral point of view: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. It's not so much that your placement was itself making specific claims about the vexillum being akin to a national flag—it's just that we have rather well-developed guidelines in wide application about how to avoid representing symbols in this way. See MOS:COA, a more specific guideline that forms part of our Manual of Style. Remsense ‥ 论 10:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi nationality

Hello,

Regarding my edit on Rumi:

I’ve learned that I can’t interfere with his nationality in the opening paragraph.

No problem, and thank you for notifying me about that.

However, can I edit the nationality section in the infobox based on sources?

Thanks! Taha Danesh (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is considered part of the lead. Given how important the article Rumi is, it is likely that certain things are the way they are for good reasons decided by deliberate consensus of editors. While you can continue to WP:BEBOLD, I recommend keeping in mind that on very mature articles, things are often the way they are intentionally, and asking on the talk page first is often a quicker way to understand the situation. Remsense ‥ 论 18:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Taha Danesh (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

Regarding the importance of the article on Rumi, I believe it is a mistake that his nationality is represented as the Khwarezmian Empire and the Sultanate of Rum. A specific government or kingdom is not a nationality, and we have no one identified as "Khwarezmian" (from the Khwarezmian Empire) or "Sultanate of Rumian." His infobox needs to be accurate and based on reliable sources and references, as well as logic. The current phrase does not meet these criteria. I have added more than 7 reliable sources from university-published books and professors from U.S. universities in fields such as Islamology, Iranology, and Orientalism. Additionally, basic knowledge and logic support that the Khwarezmian Empire and Sultanate of Rum are not nationalities. If his nationality should not be labeled in the opening paragraph or infobox, then the nationality section should be removed entirely, rather than presenting inaccurate information.

Please inform me what I should do if I want to edit the nationality section and add references so the article can be improved. Thank you very much for your time and help, and I apologize if I misunderstood your previous statement. Taha Danesh (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend sharing your concerns on Talk:Rumi, where a larger number of editors can more directly address your concerns. Remsense ‥ 论 18:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hindustan"

I request that the use of the term "Hindustan" only for India be corrected again because the term "Hindustan" was originally used by the Persians to refer to the region around the Indus River, which includes parts of modern Pakistan and Afghanistan, not just India. 3ffe.1900.4545.3.200.f8ff.fe21.67cf (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no error to correct. We are noting that a name is sometimes used in certain contexts to indicate a particular meaning, and this is true. We're not saying the usage is formal or official. Remsense ‥ 论 00:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the alphabet

Letter names and order how are the signs similar to the Hebrew, Greek and Latin Alphabet in order but not Arabic? 2001:E68:7000:1:AC9E:F29B:4655:4771 (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wherein I happen to embark on a journey

tch tch. The correct Pilgrim's Progress syntax is "in which I embark". We'll have none of that Treasure Island sloppiness! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Remsense. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

hundenvonPG (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know, something like this, it's my gift to you

NGC 628 (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

I started working again on the article I created last year: Shang dynasty religious practitioners. Can you take a look at this a bit? Lately I just structured the article all over again to make it look more like a complete extension of the section in the Religion article. Btw tks in advance. Strongman13072007 (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think a better reason for your reverts at Chinese Character is needed

Maybe I am just inexperienced here, but I have to point out that the emotional impact of your actions, even on someone like me who has been here for some time, no offense implied, is the worst I have ever experienced on Wikipedia (And imagine how much you would bite a newcomer). It feels as if are treating people as if you are the owner of the article and no explanation is provided, with unbelievable speed and tendency to revert. It’s genuinely extremely likely that you did not mean it, but it really feels condescending and is, or at least will be hurting Wikipedia. I would tend to honestly suggest you to stop this behavior, and don’t forget what brought Chinese Wikipedia to its current state, and why so many Wikipedians like me chose to simply leave it. All I want is a better reason for your reverts, except, of course, your personal preference of its status quo. Remember, an experienced wikipedian does not automatically make a person truly know how to build and maintain a civilized organization of persons. Hym3242 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easy to articulate specific reasons why certain edits are incorrect in an edit summary. Some are easier (e.g. where one can just link to a policy or guideline page), but I feel with some that it is likely to be headed to talk regardless, which is why I ask for the dispute to be taken there from the beginning, where there is room to articulate the reason. I also think it is fair to view the situation symmetrically: your edit summary was "I made it better", and mine was "this was not better"—in my position, I feel this is not hostile, but engaging in the same modality as was introduced. In other words: if you would've liked a more specific reason for my reversion, I likewise would've liked to hear why you made the change to begin with. Those are essentially equally motivated actions. Remsense ‥ 论 09:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true. I always provide a short reason in my edit summaries, and I feel that yours are too short and boilerplate to be called reasons. It felt that you simply chose them from a drop-down menu. Edit summaries, as you should already know, have plenty of space for a well-written reasoning for an edit, and is more efficient than talk. I still have a faint feeling that you are simply oblivious to how you are making others feel, and that’s very bad for someone like you. Does it not make you feel something when you enrage others? Hym3242 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is non-trivial to guess why many changes are being made, so the best I can often do is "you thought this was an improvement, but it ultimately was not". Talk page dialogue actually reveals those reasons so they can be worked out without fighting. Remsense ‥ 论 10:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to be frank: when I ask you multiple times to discuss something on talk and you keep fighting with me via edit summary instead like I've explicitly stated I hate doing here, you do not have a leg to stand on when you say something like Does it not make you feel something when you enrage others? Remsense ‥ 论 10:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how this conversation, or the revert war over there, will lead to constructive results. I will just quit editing chinese-related articles and expect more to do the same. Thank you. Hym3242 (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, you got your way with the annotation, so it all worked out either way. Remsense ‥ 论 10:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT

Hi Remense. I was wondering if there was yet a Talk page template which said something along the lines of: "Please do not add ChatGPT material which regurgitates the existing contents of an article, as it will be quickly removed" etc....? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, a talk page banner, or an edit notice? I fear it might not help much. It's a bit dispiriting that the culture presently is such that there's no way to disabuse the public that this is not magic and they can't use it to generate surplus value. Remsense ‥ 论 12:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was probably thinking a graduated set of edit notices, like those for other forms of witless vandalism. Yes, it is quite dispiriting. Just shake a handful of LLM magic fairy dust and lo! your carriage awaits, Princess! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of my edits

hello Remsense, you recently reverted three edits I made, I understand the one on great royal wife but for the other two you did not give an explanation and I would like to know why you reverted them. PharaohCrab (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for asking. Scribe and List of ancient Egyptian scribes seem sufficiently illustrated already—frankly I would consider them already overillustrated—with the added image seemingly wholly redundant with what was already present. Remsense ‥ 论 17:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PharaohCrab, to put that response in context, see MOS:IMAGES (images are to illustrate, not to decorate). Most readers of Wikipedia do so on mobiles so they should not have to fight past screeds of images. We have Wikimedia Commons for that.

Of course what you could do is to check every image in the article already, to confirm that it really earns its keep. Is it illustrating or is decorating? Maybe that weeding process will make space for something you consider more worthy of inclusion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC) (talk page watcher)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Weekly highlight

Interested in improving event management on your home wiki? The CampaignEvents extension offers organizers features like event registration management, event/wikiproject promotion, finding potential participants, and more - all directly on-wiki. If you are an organizer or think your community would benefit from this extension, start a discussion to enable it on your wiki today. To learn more about how to enable this extension on your wiki, visit the deployment status page.

Updates for editors

Users of the iOS Wikipedia App in Italy and Mexico on the Italian, Spanish, and English Wikipedias, can see a personalized Year in Review with insights based on their reading and editing history.
Users of the Android Wikipedia App in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia can see the new Rabbit Holes feature. This feature shows a suggested search term in the Search bar based on the current article being viewed, and a suggested reading list generated from the user’s last two visited articles.
The global reminder bot is now active and running on nearly 800 wikis. This service reminds most users holding temporary rights when they are about to expire, so that they can renew should they want to. See the technical details page for more information.
The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 13 January 2025 because of the end of year holidays. Thank you to all of the translators, and people who submitted content or feedback, this year.
View all 27 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, a bug was fixed in the Android Wikipedia App which had caused translatable SVG images to show the wrong language when they were tapped.

Updates for technical contributors

There is no new MediaWiki version next week. The next deployments will start on 14 January. [10]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 22:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-referencing: Request for feedback

Hello I’m Johannes from the WMDE Technical Wishes team. Four months ago, we reached out to the community to discuss the new sub-referencing feature we are currently working on. Thank you to everyone who shared their thoughts and feedback on m:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing or in local village pump discussions!

We would like to ask for your perspective again, because we’ve made changes to the wikitext syntax of sub-referencing, based on the feedback we’ve received and because it’s the only viable way of dealing with some technical limitations. Please visit m:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing#Request for feedback to read more about our approach for inline sub-referencing and share your thoughts. Thanks for your effort!

PS: You are receiving this message, because you signed-up to our sub-referencing newsletter. If you don't want to receive further updates, just remove your name from the list.

Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Porfirio Díaz:Legacy revert

Hi. In your revert, you said totally fine, you not having immediate access to a given source doesn't make it unverifiable.

I did reviewed the source and decided to remove the paragraph. The only source cited was a book written by an author who has faced significant criticism for being a biased defender of the Díaz dictatorship.

I'm open to hearing your thoughts on the matter. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and it's just relaying something that Tolstoy said. There's no reason to remove the material unless he never said that. Remsense ‥ 论 22:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any other sources. Assuming this is the only source and it is biased, should the information be included or deleted? Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem the comments aren't due for inclusion in an article about Díaz, if they haven't been attested elsewhere. Feel free to remove them again if this seems likely. Remsense ‥ 论 01:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. 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) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the talk page for the lead image of Myth

Please discuss on Talk:Myth first. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ONUS is on you to generate consensus before you re-add, not on me before removing. Remsense ‥ 论 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we should add a lead image in this article like Folklore. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not merely for the sake of having one, we shouldn't. Remsense ‥ 论 05:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus reach on the talk page, can we use it then? AimanAbir18plus (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Christianity

Thank you so much for your edits. You said "it is quite frustrating to have spent a couple days fixing all this only to come back and have it all messed up again" and I don't have a clue what you mean. I don't know what could have happened - but I'm sorry! And I'm grateful! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinasrise SPI

I've been seeing some chatter that ProKMT has, at the very least, used an alternate account without appropriate disclosure first. They said it was because they forgot their main account password but there's some suspicion that they may have been editing from an IP too. Could they be the missing sock-master for that group? Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]