User talk:Remsense/Archive 3

"Qing" era people in infobox
Hello hello, sorry to bother yet again. I was wondering of just how to refer to people born or died in the Qing dynasty to be referred to in the infoboxes. I personally prefer "Qing China" as the term, and have used such in some articles. However seeing the discussion you had on Chiang Kai-Shek made me realise it probably wasn't best. However, I do feel "Qing Dynasty", though appropriate, could be improved upon. So I am asking an experienced and skilled editor like yourself what you think of titling such locations in infoboxes as just Qing. Like how it isn't "United States" but U.S. in infoboxes. Again, sorry for bothering. This is the third time isn't it. Zinderboff(talk) 17:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't like how U.S. is used in infoboxes, but that's a fait accompli. I do think "Qing dynasty" is ultimately the best option we have that's maximally consistent with non-Chinese biographies, but in many cases when an individual lived their entire life during one dynasty, I do think it's permissible to omit it. It's very silly when biographies of Han emperors feel the need to list that they were born and then died within the Han state. Shocker, that. Remsense  诉  17:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that mentioning the dynasty might seem obvious in some cases. However, considering that most readers only skim articles, it can still be helpful to include the dynasty/empire/state for clarity.
 * That being said the birth places in Chinese biographies are frankly all over the place, not helped in the slightest by the PRC-ROC division. Even China FAs have no consistency when it comes to birth places ('China' for Li Rui, 'Qing Dynasty' for Luo Yixiu, 'Song Empire' for Shen Kuo, or just nothing at all for Shunzhi Emperor). As a reader it is honestly quite annoying.
 * What do you think can be done to improve the mess what is the birthplaces for Chinese biographies? Zinderboff(talk) 18:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no consistency, which I don't think is the primary problem. Each article should serve its own needs first and foremost. Sometimes there's a compelling reason, but I don't think there are many possible cases for exception from best common practice here.
 * The thing to do in my view is try to improve biographies in general, and treat them with care. Infoboxes are theoretically meant to summarize the contents of an article. They're important to readers, but have to be treated as a derivative by editors. Ultimately, the issue that infoboxes are inconsistent just reflects how much work there is to do on Chinese biographies et al. on the whole. I think it's difficult to motivate the body of active editors working on China-related articles to worry about finer points of detail when outstanding problems with vital articles are much larger; I understand your frustration but I also understand why others choose to focus on other things. Remsense  诉  18:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I am planning to make three more articles of Chinese biographies later, I know I'm not the best at writing long works and thus often focus a bit too much on small details such as this. Thanks for the advice! Hope your day is going fantastic. Zinderboff(talk) 18:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You as well! I'm flattered by the thought to ask—I have pretty particular opinions but I think it's important to have particular opinions even if they change a lot!  Remsense  诉  19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unicase
Template:Unicase has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Here be dragons
I noticed you combined the angle-bracket and char markup. You probably weren't aware that the need for char was challenged, what does it do that angbr doesn't or shouldn't do already. (The successful defence was that, when you want to isolate a glyph for inspection, the markup must not confuse the issue.) See Template talk:Char/Archives/1. IMO, you need to choose one or the other according to context: using both is unwise. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you so much, I wasn't aware at all. Can I say I don't quite understand the specific argument, after reading the deletion discussion? Is it that no-op is ideal for glyphs, or that angle brackets should be used for both glyphs and graphemes—I cannot see this—or something else? Remsense  诉  18:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear: this isn't an innovation, I only thought this notation was worth adding because I have seen it used in graphemics publications. That doesn't mean we should use it, but I want to assure you at least that it's not up to me. It seems possible we should only have or, but it also seems possible we use the former in general contexts and the latter in more involved graphemics discussions.  Remsense  诉  18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am probably unduly sensitive because it was the context for my only ever block, a completely thoughtless NPA violation.
 * Anyway... The no-op is an irrelevant side-show: as part of their backlash against it, the main antagonist to the very existence of char changed its effect first to angle-brackets and then to "no effect", all rather disruptive; it was never a credible end-state. Another proposal was that code is an existing alternative, but rejected because it does everything in mono (compare © v. ©, @ v. @, and of course you can wrap char in a serif if need be, such as for apostrophes).
 * To cut a long story short, the char template avoided the TfD challenge on the understanding that it would only be used for tiny glyphs like ` and exceptions like <. Since then, of course, people have found it useful for other things so the compromise restriction seems to have fallen by the wayside. But I'd rather not risk opening that bag of rattlesnakes again. So if you do decide to use both, best be prepared to defend the decision. Probably no-one but me will ever notice . --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The context is very much appreciated in any case! I think in situations like the vertical lines would be absolutely undue clutter and  is far more appropriate, for one thing.  Remsense  诉  19:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Whose
Did you mean to remove my edit? all material verifiability is, doesn't seem to make sense without adding 'whose'. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't at all, my fault for not checking thoroughly. Remsense  诉  07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, just wanted to make sure I hadn't muffed something up. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Explain why it is hyperlinking
Explain why it is overlinking in simple terms. I would like to compare your reasoning to the many links within the article to make sure they follow the same rule. If not, I suggest you implement the same rule for the rest of the linked words in the article and revise it completely. Otherwise, you can't just pick and choose what definition you wish to use on a case by case basis. Docholliday11 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have. Remsense  诉  14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , [ comment] The rule is explained at WP:OVERLINK. If the article has other violations, the correct response is to clean them out. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Universe
Hello sir or ma’am, I want to ask what exactly was it about my phrasing that you disagree with. The description seemed fair enough regarding the subject matter, and it didn’t seem repetitive either. Firekong1 (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As I explained in the edit summary: Some physicists have suggested there may be other universes beyond our own, known as the multiverse hypotheses does not scan, as the implication is that the suggested universes are themselves what are referred to as multiverse hypotheses. Also, ultimately to my eye your version communicates the same information with an additional clause—adding redundant material, which is generally the opposite of what we want to do. Remsense  诉  02:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, can find a way to better phrase it in stating the multiverse theory in a better way? Firekong1 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the passage is pretty clear and elegant the way it is, but if I may assume: I can understand why it might be a particularly unclear one for a non-native speaker. I spent some time trying to rewrite it so that it begins with Is Some physicists have hypothesized a multiverse because I think that may be more clear, but I haven't been able to write it to my satisfaction.  Remsense  诉  00:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I’m a native English speaker, it’s my first language. I just feel the wording could be redone better. Firekong1 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, completely vacant assumption on my part, sorry. In that case, I think you should discuss it on the talk page, as I really do think the sentence is fine. Remsense  诉  07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, I shall bring it up on there. Thank you kindly for sorting out this misunderstanding. Firekong1 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just checking
Re: this. The university name was not needed but was "|p=Jiǔ Jiāng" clutter? Piotrus at Hanyang&#124; reply here 04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky balance, but I find it to be the best compromise among several slightly unclear options. I find it hard to justify repeating the diacritical pinyin after the undiacritical pinyin characters are already provided in most cases. Doing so would seem to add information most readers will not use—though I think characters are still required in any case—and those that would use the additional information it can likely derive it from the characters either from reading or from checking in a dictionary.
 * I do have opinions about these things that are particular to me, so I'm happy to have them questioned so that others can decide whether they agree. I know you are supervising many student editors, so I apologize if I've ever come off as WP:BITEy, I appreciate their work and yours. Remsense  诉  04:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with this removal, at least from the standpoint of common practice. Usually the tone marks in the transliterated name of an article subject are confined to the pronunciation guide in Infobox Chinese, and they are present in that location at the Jiujiang article.I'm less convinced by the rationale that tone pronunciation can be left to : Jiujiang is pretty unambiguous, but there are many cases where a graph will have multiple possible pronunciations, and we should provide the correct one. doesn't personally particularly sway me either. For any given fact / claim in an article, statistically it's probably not something readers will necessarily use or be looking for, but if it adds to encyclopaedic understanding I feel we should include it (subject to the obvious exceptions).As a tangential ramble, it's always somewhat mystified me that we're expected to copypaste the non-keyboard characters for toponyms like İncirlik, Kahramanmaraş, Čierna Lehota, Rožňava District, et cetera, but including tone marks in pinyin transcription – which can change the meaning of the spoken pronunciation entirely – are to be removed except in infoboxen. I suppose it might come from an academic legacy where tone marks are included only in glossaries and language learning materials, but it's always felt a bit parsimonious. Folly Mox (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also apologies in advance both for the second notification this will generate and also if I came off as disagreeable or unkind. I'm petsitting an extremely energetic and needy enormous puppy this weekend and I'm experiencing more stress and exhaustion than I'd prefer. Folly Mox (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you've said, and don't feel like I have a one-size-fits-all solution for it! Remsense  诉  23:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Problem editor?
Special:Contributions/Westernethinicity33 Or am I wrong? Doug Weller talk 18:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've yet to be reassured by their edit history, I'll put it that way. Remsense  诉  18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No time to check them all, but for instance where they say “ Evidence of absence. The article doesn't say that the evidence shows that alternative medicine is ineffective .” The  source says “ Although scientists have studied the use of some alternative medical therapies in Ménière’s disease treatment, there is still no evidence to show the effectiveness of such therapies as acupuncture or acupressure, tai chi, or herbal supplements such as gingko biloba, niacin, or ginger root.”  Doug Weller  talk 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And this is weird.. Doug Weller  talk 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit summary "Removal of contradiction. Choking is older than the internet, and the internet was not invented by tiktok as the media from stolen territories insinuate. Moreover, the source is unreliable." The source is The Indian Express which RSNP says is reliable.. Doug Weller  talk 19:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Took that to RSN. On iPad watching tv with wife, bed soon. Doug Weller  talk 19:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

How reliable the Joshua Project is?
I'm curious about your edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mnong_people&diff=prev&oldid=1212008091. Your summary is "Not an RS" but I can not understand why an organization that lasts for 29 years and has its own article in wikipedia since 2009 is considered as not an RS. Leemyongpak (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see how either of the two criteria you mentioned correspond to a source's reliability. See WP:JOSHUAPROJECT. Remsense  诉  04:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I understand now. Leemyongpak (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Face-smile.svg Remsense  诉  06:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Russian Civil War) for a period of 3 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, please see the bottom of for a detailed explanation. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chinese characters
The article Chinese characters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chinese characters for comments about the article, and Talk:Chinese characters/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you do nominate for FA at some point in the future, one issue that I have not addressed at all (and that might come up) is the connection/overlap between this article and Written Chinese. —Kusma (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, you deserve an award:


 * I've said it more than enough, but one more time: I literally could not have asked for a better GAN reviewer, and I learned way more in the process than I even expected with your help. The article is really something I can be proud of in part thanks to you. Since I've looked at it far too much since October, I figure a FAC can start happening after I can look at it with fresh eyes. Remsense  诉  10:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Congratulations!!! Thank you for your hard work. Go take a break. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a great achievement btw, congratulations and thank you! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you! That really means a lot. There's a bit more I want to buff out, but it means a lot to hear others have been enriched by it. Remsense  诉  03:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

June music
Thank you for the Chinese characters! - Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All wonderful! Thank you Gerda. :) Remsense  诉  17:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Today's story is about an extraordinary biography, Peter Demetz. - I uploaded a few more pics but leave the link, because there's a new one of Graham and his mother who liked it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Today's story is about a tune used by Bach and Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Today I wanted to write a happy song story, on a friend's birthday, but instead we have the word of thunder on top of it, which would have been better on 2 June, this year's first Sunday after Trinity. The new lilypond - thanks to DanCherek - is quite impressive. As my 2 Jun story said: Bach was fired up. - Today's Main page is rich in music, also Franz Liszt and a conductor. Compare Liszt and Schumann: which difference do you see in the infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your DYK about Chinese characters is brilliant! I hope I'll get to the PR. Would you have time for Schumann? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for improving article quality in June! - Today we have a centenarian story (documentation about it by Percy Adlon) and an article that had two sentences yesterday and was up for deletion, and needs a few more citations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chinese characters
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Confusing edit
Why did you do this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:List_of_writing_systems&diff=next&oldid=1223794231 ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't really be able to guess why simply Hieroglyph (which seems to imply its own general category, but redirects to Egyptian hieroglyphs) would be one of three articles listed for an "Overview of writing systems" section. Remsense  诉  06:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi I am MD. Mahian Khandakar. I wrote something about The Double (Tv series) but you delete it without any thoughts. I hope you will learn your mistakes.
You delete my edit without any thoughts. MD . Mahian Khandakar (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for your original research, including your interpretations of media. Use sources, and say what the sources say. Remsense  诉  16:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you should do it. huh MD . Mahian Khandakar (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

A goat for you!
I've been seeing you all over Wikipedia lately so I thought that I'd visit and leave a goat here for you to enjoy! Thanks for all your work here (and congrats on the GA/DYK). PS: I love your signature :D!

GoldRomean (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) 


 * Thank you so much! My breadth sometimes leads to work that isn't my best, but I'm glad other people are seeing it as largely constructive. Face-smile.svg Remsense  诉  03:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Philosophy page
Let me preface my message by saying I admire your commitment to helping other Wikipedia editors and maintaining pages. I noticed | you reverted a recent edit of mine, citing no improvement as the reason. In my edit I reworded a sentence and changed "like" to "such as" and I was surprised you couldn't see my reason for doing so because I thought it would be relatively apparent to skilled writers. I disagree with your claim that my edit made no improvement. "Like" is colloquial and is thus ill-suited for a page talking about such a serious topic as philosophy, while "such as", especially when used with the category noun in the middle, is several notches higher in register. I teach college writing, and this kind of stuff is taught to undergraduate students as they learn to write formally and academically. There are numerous academic and nonacademic sources online that talk about things like this. For example see Cambridge. Pomodecon (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This use of "like" is not colloquial; it is perfectly ordinary English. If you need external confirmation of that, the OED doesn't list it as such. Remsense  诉  10:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Cite the OED page please. Make sure to include the relevant text, because I (and other people) may not have access to it. 2. That flies in the face of not only established writing and editing convention but also countless sources. 3. Any reason at all you think the OED, which is behind a paywall, is more reliable than other freely accessible online sources, including Cambridge? Pomodecon (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I'm a Boat Race partisan, clearly. I'm not going to argue with you at length about it. There's a reason this very common usage isn't explicitly proscribed as colloquial in the Manual of Style. Remsense  诉  06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Arguing"? That's some highly charged language. Well you are the one making a far-fetched claim that contradicts almost all usage sites, and when prompted, failed to produce a reliable source to back up your claim. I on the other hand gave you a reliable source right off the bat. Pomodecon (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (I'll argue a little bit, but this is all you'll get.)
 * You know this doesn't matter per WP:PAYWALL.
 * OED:
 * like1: A. having some or all of the qualities of another, each other, or an original. B. resembling in some way, such as
 * And here's Collins as a bonus also not marked as colloquial:
 * like1: [...] such as: a modern material, like carbon fibre
 * Remsense 诉  06:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia page you cited is immaterial in this case, as it is about verifiability. I am not sure if you are unable to discern different statements, or you are, subconsciously or otherwise, lumping them together. If anything I'm the one who suggested you do what that Wikipedia policy page says by telling you to cite a paywalled source clearly so that other people can see and verify it.
 * Just because there's no "colloquial" tag in the two sources you saw doesn't mean it is in the same register as "such as" or has the same level of formality. The OED editors never purported to have included everything in their dictionary.
 * Cambridge, in case you didn't bother to check: "Such as is similar to like for introducing examples, but it is more formal, and is used more in writing than like"
 * Cambridge, in case you didn't bother to check: "Such as is similar to like for introducing examples, but it is more formal, and is used more in writing than like"

Italics
Hi there. If anything, MOS:WAW seems to support my edit. It says Use italics when writing about words as words, and even specifically A technical or other jargon term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized. Wolfdog (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say this could be the case for genealogical relationship, but not genetic relationship in the paragraph in question. It looks very odd to italicize the former but not the latter, though. Remsense  诉  13:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I did both. Would you only budge on my italicizing geneaological then? Wolfdog (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a word for years of the supposed "Uyghur genocide."
What's even the point? You care so much about the Chinese culture, but don't care about the shit that actually matter. I get that you care about the integrity of Wikipedia, but you do realize it still has a heavily western slant, right? Great on you for being a cog in the machine. You'll totally go far in life with that NPC mindset. Let's check back in twenty years. Oh wait. You're still a random editor in Wikipedia. If you are Asian, it will be even more hilarious. NPCs never make it far. HahaNormal (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Etruscan civ
Hello The old section mostly dealt with Historiography (and revisionism) rather than Archaeology (i.e. Pelasgians vs Autochthonous etc.) an issue well taken care of in both sections 'Origins' and especially (new) 'Genetics'. I decided to re-organize said section with an Archaeological focus i.e. new burial structures and new influences (Orientalization) vs prev. Villanova etc. if you wish to maintain the older section then a fusion would be best, but i think there is very little in the old with an Arhcaeological focus. Agilulf2007 (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit reversal
Why did you reverse my edit on mind, what was the issue?

Edart6 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Generally, it was not an improvement to the prose. Specifically, encyclopedic writing should normally avoid the first person. Remsense  诉  16:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also unacceptable to tag edits as minor which may be controversial—as yours obviously was, since I had just reverted it. Remsense  诉  16:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject China Dragon Star Award

 * Thank you! I've very much been spinning my wheels lately and this helped give me a shot of energy to resume working on big projects in this space. You are very much a valued collaborator. :) Remsense  诉  12:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh under Featured Article Review
I have nominated Gwoyeu Romatzyh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate tone in the Mnong people
I think the information in the Mnong people article "People used to consider the Mnong in the south and the Sedang in the north were the two most combative races in the Central Highlands." - that you reverted - is a praise not a blame, somehow similar to "they were the two most elite warrior races of the Central Highlands". It is about their old periods - their history, when they fought regularly, killed invaders, even captured people from other races to sold as slaves. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I suppose this does not necessarily come across to a general audience that lacks adequate context—thank you for the elaboration. Remsense  诉  12:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What's going on here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Agilulf2007 and see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller#c-Tursclan-20240626123600-Personal_attack_and_edit_war

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tursclan&diff=prev&oldid=1231091170

I haven't looked at it yet and it would save me time to actually write User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle which I need to finish by chemo July 4th if you have any insights. My first thought was attribution and sources. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look! Remsense  诉  12:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Seek consensus with me
You said yet another undiscussed map which is strange considering that map I used is in the 3rd Tang dynasty emperor wiki's page, for many years.

Here. I provided evidence and everything. I want to see if I now have approval to change that incorrect 661 that doesn't show even the territories of Eastern Turks(Gokturks) that submitted to Emperor Gaozong of Tang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tang_dynasty#I_request_a_change_for_the_incorrect_661_A.D_map_when_highest_extend_was_669_A.D HabichuelasBeans (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This map has been deliberated intensely for months and years by editors of the article and it is firmly sourced; I wouldn't get your hopes up for changing it because we have very good reasons for it being the way it is. Remsense  诉  20:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Reversion Normandy
Hello Remsense, I got a question: Can you explain me the reason why you are reversing my edit in the page about Normandy? I checked that policy, but I didn't see about battle result, can you tell me about that? I realized that in a disagreement it's better to negotiate to understand more than being stubborn, so please, explain me. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Right! Yes, there's a bit more on that page than I remembered. I created the WP:RESULT shortcut earlier to point more precisely to the passage in question—sorry about that—and now I get to use it. Basically, the result parameter shouldn't contain anything but "X victory", "Inconclusive", possibly in tandem with a "See § Aftermath" section link.
 * Also, equally minor, linking consecutive terms in a geographical locations is generally considered overlinking: Normandy, France, but not Normandy, France.
 * Cheers, thanks for reaching out to ask. Remsense  诉  00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have an idea; can I describe the result based on the reference that it's stated in French victory? As it was in previous reversions, like this one: Invasion of Normandy by Philip II of France Where it can be stated as the Angevins lose Normandy, Anjou, and Maine to France and are annexed into the crown lands of France but retain Aquitaine. So basically, my intention in putting about the loss of Normandy was based on a reference, so can you consider this= Mr. Information1409 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, FYI ...
Since you seem like the kind of editor who would care to know: MOS actually doesn't apply to MOS itself (or indeed anything else outside article space). That may seem like a minor point, but it turns out to lend a lot of useful flexibility. In articles we want to present a businesslike look and formal tone, but behind the scenes at MOS, in policies and guidelines, and in essays and so on, we let our hair down. One particular place this shows up is in the ecumenical mix of AmEng and BrEng seen in MOS, even on a single page; see A rolling stone gathers no MOS. EEng 20:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure! I was already aware of that in principle, but was tongue-in-cheekily using "MoS" as synedoche for "best common practices noted in the MoS", if that makes sense. Thanks for checking in any case! Face-smile.svg Remsense  诉  20:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't feel bad for a moment for that btw—after a certain point I knew perfectly well that I was Icarus waxing his wings. Face-tongue.svg Remsense  诉  06:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the DCWC!


Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, Remsense! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:


 * Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
 * Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
 * Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
 * New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
 * Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators:, , or. (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Proper nouns are "the"
It would be inappropriate for me to address you as "The Remsense"; proper nouns in general do not take "the." Rare exceptions do exist, but CDL is not one of those rare exceptions. It's already a problem that Wenlin named their product "Character Description Language" when that's a generic description of a category that also includes others; it looks like an attempt by them to stake a claim on the entire category, like a software company naming a product "Word Processor" to create deliberate confusion with other word processors. We don't need to contribute to that confusion by adding a "the" to make Wenlin's CDL sound like it has special status over other CDLs. However, if you really think it's necessary to refer to it with a "the," I think it would be reasonable to do that if the name were qualified (as in "the Wenlin Character Description Language") to make clear that it's specifically the Wenlin product being referred to and not one universal CDL above other CDLs. 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:B2A (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Proper names are often derived from phrasal descriptors. These are usually preceded with the definite article, but the definite article is not part of the name itself. I suppose it's common for technical standards with fairly generic descriptors as proper names often aren't. The MoS does not (and probably should not) mention this, so I'll demure. Remsense  诉  23:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Why revert my edits?
I seen you reverting two of my edits for being "not an improvement" on 2024-07-05 09:18:45 and 2024-07-05 09:22:32. The reasons you give for reverting my edits are of personal opinion, not community consensus. Why are you doing this? 6516' 09:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Were the reasons you had for making them something more profound than "you thought they would make the page better"? I disagreed and thought they made the pages worse, and gave concrete reasons why. These relatively minor back-and-forths over subtle details happen all the time, they're part of the consensus and editing processes. You're perfectly entitled to disagree, but I'm not quite sure if I'm being accused of misconduct or not. Remsense  诉  10:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your reversion
You reverted a grammatically correct edit and reverted back to an incorrect verion. Empires do not refer to empires, only the term empire refers to empires. Terms go between quotation marks. Cheers. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not quite that simple. We are constantly struggling with the use–mention distinction, but really we have very few articles that are about terms as such. For almost any article, just about the last thing you want to do is put quote marks around the term in the lead sentence. Almost any other solution is better, even a grammatically incorrect one if it gets closer to a proper fix. Remsense  诉  18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Browser compatibility
Hi @Remsense, I tried both Chrome and Samsung, but both browsers show the exact same misalignment. Infogiraffic (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Would you consider posting a screenshot so I can see what it looks like? Remsense  诉  21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will come back on this later. Infogiraffic (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense, here you have it: https://snipboard.io/mos6C4.jpg. Infogiraffic (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see! I think I know how to fix it, I'll let you know when I finish. Remsense  诉  20:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Seleucid empire map
Regarding the map you deleted, I understand there are roughly five maps of the Seleucid Empire. However, this particular map was significant because it depicted the empire's borders at the beginning of its decline, also their new territory and important cities at that time. For comparison, the Dacian Kingdom page has approximately ten maps. Could I please re-add this map to facilitate discussion? BalcanVali (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A discussion would be great, but it's really important that every claim made in an article is verifiable in a reliable source: that includes claims made in maps about territorial boundaries. I recommend starting a talk page discussion there in any case. Remsense  诉  20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

13 reverts
13 reverts on Talk:Orange (colour) over a minor comment is seriously out of control. You've been blocked twice recently for edit warring. Even if you were claiming an exemption for talk page vandalism, you would have needed to note it in the edit summaries as per WP:3RRNO. The better approach would be to stop before reaching such a high number of reverts, report the talk page vandalism, and either allow someone else to revert or wait 24 hours. The answer is not edit-warring with a vandal. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this was POINTY. Apologies. Remsense  诉  01:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

About Beijing and Guangdong
Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can participate in. I only corrected the errors in the header and updated the new content, but never deleted your content. I also carefully read the hidden content. Please cherish the fruits of others' labor. You must also read the errors in the entry summary. Thank you for your understanding. Moreover, in the introduction, how could you think of the item involving GDP as "municipality"? How can the "GDP" data indicator be related to "municipality"? If you still don't understand, you can read other excellent entries. I am more concerned about the two English entries about Beijing and Guangdong. One is the capital of the country and the provincial administrative region with the highest per capita GDP, and the other is the province with the largest economic size in China. The content and quality need to be improved, and I have been trying to supplement them. Thank you again for your understanding. You can make comments on the entries but you cannot delete the content added by others without authorization. This is disrespectful to others. User:Cncs wikipedia 20:46 UTC June 13, 2024


 * Just now I saw that you have revoked all my updates and additions. It should be stated that all data are preliminary data, and they have been reviewed and officially released by the National Bureau of Statistics of China, and the data are credible. Even if it is revised again later, it will not deviate too much from the existing data. Moreover, including the revised data officially announced by the provinces and the whole country, it will be revised again after the national economic census every five years. As long as the data is official, it is reliable. For the provincial and important city entries, first, I updated the latest data in 2023; second, I corrected the display errors caused by the previous editor, such as the Guangdong entry; third, I corrected the data errors caused by the previous editor, such as the Jiangsu entry. You cannot revoke other people's edits at will, just as I cannot revoke your edits at will. Moreover, I only pay attention to it in order to correct errors. I hope you can understand. User:Cncs wikipedia 21:19 UTC June 13, 2024