User talk:Remsense

Help with an RSP question

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Why did you revert my Delhi Sultanate edit?

any reason?

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

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

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

United States

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

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)

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)

Re: References to Holst’s The Planets

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

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

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

@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)

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)

GA Review

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

Tittha Sutta et al.

Hi Remsense,

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Archives

Hi, how are you?
How do I merge my two archives? User talk:JacktheBrown. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Image edit

Me, don't care :D:D:D:D Mightyfootttt (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)