User talk:Remsense

July music

story · music · places

The story is today about the first published composition by Arnold Schönberg which I was blessed to hear. Listen, and perhaps read what Alma Mahler (to-be-Mahler at the time, to be precise, who was present at the first performance) said, and yes that was too much for the Main page ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a Bach cantata premiered 300 years ago OTD. - A meeting of two women - the occasion of the cantata - is pictured in our local church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

3 July is the birthday of Leoš Janáček, and I'm happy I had a meaningful DYK in 2021. It's also the birthday of Franz Kafka, and I uploaded pics from his family's album seen in Berlin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Libuše Domanínská, the subject of yesterday's story, would have turned 100 today, but I missed that ;) - Overnight, Tamara Milashkina became GA and Lando Bartolini went to the Main page. I made my story about his almost unbelievable career, from Luigi in Il tabarro in Philadelphia in 1968 (with a nod to Liberty) up to Calaf in Turandot in Beijing in 1999 ;) - 4 July is also the birthday of Brian Boulton who was a pioneer of a concise infobox in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pictured on the Main page: Brian's Mozart family grand tour, my story today, and Mozart related to all three items of music on my talk: our 2023 concert, an opera in a theatre where a Mozart premiere took place, and those remembered, Martti Wallén, a bass, and Liana Isakadze, a violinist from Georgia (whose article would be better with more details about her music-making). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart again if you click on "music" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the cherished message on my talk! - I have a Bach cantata and three musicians who died on the Main page, so am busy and thus brief. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Parameter normalization

Some of the things I noticed:

• When there are multiple authors, this script removes the 1's from the first one and moves the others to the end of the citation. They belong together, and the juxtaposition 1/2/3 is clearer.
• Some editors (including me) find |surname= and |given= easier to keep straight than |last= and |first= when dealing with a mix of Western and East Asian names.
• |postscript= logically belongs at the end.

But most of what it does is impose the script author's stylistic choices, contrary to the usual principle of not switching between acceptable styles. Kanguole 17:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for making the difference in preference more clear to me. Remsense诉 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example of Citation bot restoring the 1's removed from parameter names by ProveIt. It's a recipe for eternal robot wars. Kanguole 10:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean: eternal robot wars? Folly Mox (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That sort of thing, yes, though in this case both bots are user-triggered. In theory, the editors triggering them take responsibility for the edits, but in practice they never do. Kanguole 11:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kanguole sorry for burdening you about silly style stuff repeatedly—I'm trying to be a bit more communicative about this stuff—it seems you strongly prefer the hyphenation of ISBNs as given in the source, right? Just so I know what rule I'm following. Remsense诉 09:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The placement of hyphens (if present) is specified by the ISBN standard (see ISBN#Overview). You can get the full data here – select "pdf sorted by prefix". Various conversion tools are available, but it may be simplest to use {{format ISBN}} – this template is supposed to be subst'd, but subst doesn't work inside citation (and other) templates, so you can just use {{format ISBN|9780123456789}} and a bot will do the replacement soon enough. Kanguole 10:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea this was the case—thanks for teaching me something as well! Remsense诉 10:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

And thank you for showing me the easy way to fix it...I'm just going to write to e script first because I suddenly have a lot of backtracking to do to remedy my unbeknownst-to-me bad behavior. Live and learn. Remsense诉 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction: the bug with subst: is only inside <ref>...</ref> tags – it works just fine in a separate list of citations. Kanguole 11:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A bit of help

Hi Remsense, hope you're having a great day! In June a tragic and deadly stabbing occurred in Suzhou, of a person targetting Japanese national leaving the Japanese School of Suzhou. A Japanese mother and child was injured, saved from almost certain death by a Chinese woman who died protecting them. The whole event made a huge wind of attention in China when it occurred, partially due to the nature of the attack but also the rhetoric by netizens.
I expected an English page to be made soonish after the events, however, that wasn't the case, with no page even now. I feel like this page is very important to have but I don't know if I have the ability or even mental strength to create/translate this page from Chinese. Could you be so kind to translate it, or inform someone who can? Thank you very very much. (here's the page in Chinese btw, or just search up 2024 Suzhou stabbing) Zinderboff(talk) 20:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I will absolutely take a look. Thank you for making me aware of this. Remsense诉 20:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There should be no shortage of RS for this article. Apart from Chinese and Japanese sources, a quick search shows articles from CNN BBC The Guardian etc.
Again, thank you for this, the whole affair really made me sad and lose hope in humanity a bit more than before. But I really shouldn't be surprised, though, seeing I too was taught since a child that the "Japanese were devils and the pinnacle of evil and destruction". Zinderboff(talk) 21:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I usually don't write about current events at all, but I've got something started at User:Remsense/2024 Suzhou knife attack—feel free to add to it. I'm going to try and suppress my usual perfectionism with my drafting so I can get this published promptly. Remsense诉 22:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently polishing the mess that was the translated material I dumped on the draft, along with adding sources. Please check later for further issues, thanks! Zinderboff(talk) 16:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about further delays—I think this is adequate to publish, lest I spend more time gilding the lily. I've gone ahead and moved it to mainspace. Remsense诉 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Remsense, Hope you're having a great day! I have no idea for I never looked into DYKs much, but does this article match the requirements for a DYK entry/nomination? A quick look at the rules makes it feels like it does fit the guidelines though I'm not 100% sure, and if it does fulfill the DYK would you like to nominate it? Thanks! Zinderboff(talk) 05:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI

Hi Remsense, I have seen that you have reached 3RR in Bali. Following good practice, I don't template the regulars, but I'd better mention it (in passing). The actual purpose of my "visit" is to give you an idea who you are dealing with: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YilevBot. In a few days, we will be able to handle all the mess they produce with WP:BANREVERT and without having to worry about 3RR then :) Keep up the great work you're doing in Wikipedia, seeing your contributions in article and talk space is always a delight. Cheers! Austronesier (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That really meant a lot, thank you. It's not unique to me, but I find myself not at my best when I feel I'm not contributing my best. Kind remarks like yours really help one refocus on what matters. Remsense诉 12:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

ask

Hello How do I ensure that the photos we upload on Wikicomons are not subject to copyvio? because most of the photos I get come from certain sites, I surrender.. I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You have not taken those photos, you do not have the right to rerelease them under a free license for use on Commons. I recommend taking a closer read of what the form on Commons is trying to tell you while you're uploading, and see the pages it links to regarding free media. A helpful page is Commons:Copyright rules. Remsense诉 06:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion

Please explain how my edit does not warrant inclusion, who is to say you are the ultimate source of what does or does not warrant inclusion. It is a noteworthy fact and much more obscure adaptations are included in the article. Please consider undoing your edit as I enjoyed writing it and feel you have no reason to discredit it. HagenBradley (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Generally we discuss content on article talk pages, so that all editors interested may have a say. Remsense诉 07:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright man. HagenBradley (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Odoacer dispute

Hello,

Wanting to move our brief discussion the other day over my attempted edit on Odoacer#King of Italy here- I'm not seeing why listing the de jure and de facto status of Odoacer's polity is necessarily redundant. By that logic, wouldn't everything else in the infobox also be redundant, since these things are already mentioned in the article? Evaporation123 (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Personally I do find manually added de jure / de facto stuff highly tiresome, as if we don't have English phrases that can be employed to the same effect. I agree with Remsense in this case that de facto independent is redundant, since de jure under suzerainty implies independence in practice. If there were another polity that was the one with actual control over the one in the infobox, while lip service was paid to the Eastern Roman Empire, that would be non-obvious to warrant inclusion IMO. Kindly, Folly Mox (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Revert culture

Hey Remsense!

Checking to see if you are still alive and have not choked to death from boredom like I almost did reading about the church controversies in Kaldellis's new history. :-) Related to that, I do appreciate how you keep a close eye on the fly-by edits on the Byzantine Empire page as it's constant!

There was one that you reverted today where someone added that it was an autocracy. We had a similar discussion on the Roman Empire talk recently and several of us agreed autocracy is correct. My goal is we should try to keep these two articles in sync (for obvious reasons), but even if you didn't know that, we should also to strive for clear consensus on all topics when we revert and encourage people to bring it up in Talk if they disagree as it's worth a discussion. Regardless, I agreed with the revert this is more about creating a more positive editing culture by being more explcit. Thank you for your contributions! Biz (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, alright! My bad, thanks for letting me know. Likewise, thank you for your contributions. I've decided lately to impose a stricter 2RR on myself, or at least talk quicker. :)Remsense诉 21:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Glossary of Taoism

Hello, Remsense. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Glossary of Taoism".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A heads up

Hi Remsense, hope you're having a great day. Just a heads up that I've nominated the Suzhou knife attack article for DYK. This is my first nom so I have no idea if I messed it up or not. Cheers! Zinderboff(talk) 11:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, cheers! Looks totally fine to me. Truth be told, I feel a teensy bit nervous about having my writing about such a sensitive event be promoted on the Main Page, but I only say that with the trust that it doesn't at all come off like a discouragement or anything like that, I'm glad you went and did it! Remsense诉 12:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I attributed you as the primary author (whatever the thing is called when submitting the DYK nom). Is that alright? Cheers! Zinderboff(talk) 15:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fine! Remsense诉 15:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants

Hello, Remsense. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Glossary of the Chinese language and writing system

Hello, Remsense. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Glossary of the Chinese language and writing system, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses revert

Dear Remsense,

I had just made an edit to the sidebar for the Wars of the Roses page, adding a note specifying that the House of Tudor was supported by Yorkists, which was reverted - I know this small clarification might seem unnecessary but I really think it adds very relevant and appropriate clarity. Without the note, it inaccurately makes it seem like Henry Tudor was against the House of York (rather than against one faction of it) and that his victory was just another episode of Lancastrians vs Yorkists - which is very much not the case on close examination of the belligerents.

As historian Rosemary Horrox puts it in Richard III (2020): "the opposition which brought down Richard III was not a reactivation of the Wars of the Roses, although the choice of figurehead might make it seem so. It was more truly a violent splintering of the House of York, which fatally divided the Yorkist polity far beyond any rifts that might have been caused previously by hostility to the family of Edward IV’s queen. Simply put, the former servants of Edward IV rejected his brother’s seizure of power."

Further, A.J. Pollard writes in The Wars of the Roses (1988): "Unlike Edward IV or Richard III, [Henry VII] did not come to the throne at the head of a powerful indigenous affinity. He led an ill-matched coalition of die-hard Lancastrians and excluded Edwardian Yorkists. He was the adopted head of the remnant of Edward IV's household" 92.29.56.96 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course there's no dispute that it's verifiable fact, but the issue is that infoboxes are not meant to contain every nuance of the topic. A rule of thumb is if it needs a footnote, it should probably remain in the prose of the article where it can be properly explained, and not in the infobox, which is for key facts at a glance. Remsense诉 16:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

okay, thank you for your response! 92.29.56.96 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtfulness! Welcome to Wikipedia. Remsense诉 16:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Zhuangzi filial piety

Hello, I won't object to your removal but do you happen to know a better source discussing filial piety in the Zhuangzi? Even if it doesn't belong in that section, it came to my attention because I was researching it. So it's still relevant for me. If we can come up with better sources, we can make a section on filial piety.FourLights (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I could not tell you off the top of my head: I will investigate my sources the next time I'm actively working on that article. I have been slowly trying to fill out the "themes and analysis" parts so that will certainly have a place, but I've really been dragging my heels since it's nigh impossible for me to figure out how to structure discussion that includes both work done in the context of western philosophy, and work done in a Chinese tradition that simply doesn't work in concepts of "metaphysics" and "epistemology" Remsense诉 12:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Roman military awards

Hello! I noticed you made some reverts with respect to my edits on several pages regarding Roman military awards, specifically for Marcus Agrippa & Crassus.

While I understand your reasoning per your explanation in the edit log of Crassus, would that then apply to the following pages: Julius Caesar, Pompey, Scipio Aemilianus, Gaius Marius, Sulla, Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, Aulus Atilius Caiatinus, Metellus Pius, Scipio Nasica Corculum, Gaius Duilius, Fabius Maximus, Pompey Strabo, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, Gaius Sosius, & Publius Ventidius. In particular, I noticed you've made recent edits to Pompey and Gaius Marius and did not make the same objections for those pages.

Just asking for further clarification on the matter. Thank you! User:Reviewer1830 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC) Just asking for further clarification on the matter. Thank you! Reviewer1830 (talk)

Hey! I would say those articles have the same issue. Editors get jaded with this stuff very quickly, as many (all?) articles are flawed in a number of ways, and we can't fix or even notice them all, so we often only fix individual things we notice in individual articles, leaving new editors confused at the inconsistency. Cf. WP:OTHERCONTENT. The key is getting a feel for the underlying principles, which we all struggle with at first. Cheers! Remsense诉 13:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

DCWC August update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:

• Magentic Manifestations (submissions) – 338 points, mainly from nine good articles. He's a contender for the "most submissions for a single country" specialty award, with nine submissions for India.
• Arconning (submissions) – 305 points, including from six seasonally-appropriate Olympics-related good articles.
• Generalissima (submissions) – 290 points, the bulk from her featured article about Greenlandic interpreter Qalaherriaq and two China-related good articles.
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) – 245 points, mostly from the achievement of bringing Genghis Khan to featured status.
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) – 144 points from three good articles, including two about Kiribati elections, and four reviews of good article nominees.

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Thought experiment

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Thought experiment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Bludgeon

You may also need to read wp:bludgeon, I can hardley tell them and not tell you. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly. I've said my piece, but it definitely was 5 replies overdue. Remsense诉 14:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Soooo

Where do we go from here? As far as i can tell there are still multiple issues that never really got answered.

Closing admin only seemed interested in one of them so that didn't really got anywhere Trade (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

? Trade (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about this situation in particular, and no one else seemed much convinced of the utility of a general RfC a la the 2010 one, so I am afraid I don't have much more to contribute to this. Remsense诉 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

I'm done editing my comment regarding "Socio-linguistic register" or whatever.

Sorry for the repeated edit conflicts. Jruderman (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Remsense诉 04:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

feedback

I request that you help me consider whether there might not be a better arrangement for the data in my first three sections. At the moment I will try creating a third section. Or send someone you consider even-minded. Thank you.FourLights (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look ASAP. Remsense诉 22:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

African language oral literature

You very hastily undid an edit when I was STILL WORKING on the Hausa article. I have several important oral literature references to add, starting with proverbs and also Hausa folktales. I have been adding oral literature sections to African language articles for the past several weeks as you can see on my user page. The point of using PUBLIC DOMAIN sources is so that they can be consulted by others and used for AI language training, etc. The availability of Hausa texts in the public domain is especially important, and the Hausa language article is a logical place to put those references, as I have been doing for Zulu, Swahili, etc. I hope you will please engage in a dialogue with me before you delete the content I added to the Hausa article. I had just prepared the Robinson material when you deleted my work. I restored the work, included the Robinson material, and will now wait until I hear from you; thank you. Laurakgibbs (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I see that you again deleted my content without engaging in a dialogue with me. I don't think you are folklorist, and I think you do not understand the importance of orature (proverbs, etc.) in documenting the history of African languages. Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurakgibbs (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit a second time. I stated my reasons in the edit summary; if you're still working on material that is in an incomplete state (i.e. pure primary source information and quotes without secondary or tertiary analysis, as is what we provide on an encyclopedia), it's best to do so in your sandbox rather than on the article itself, as other editors may not know you're still working on it. Remsense诉 23:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been my practice to do the edits one reference at a time to make dispute resolution easier, but I can certainly do all the references at once and edit the article in one go if that is what editors prefer.

But the main issue is this: your reasons for deleting the content do not make sense in the context of African language studies, for the reasons I explained (and those are just a few of the main reasons; this is a complex and important topic, and I can explain in as much detail as you would like) -- I see the Hausa oral literature section is back; does that mean I can continue to add the oral literature sources that I have collected for Hausa? I will add them all at once if that is the preferred practice.

I hope there will not be any further problems re: oral literature additions to African language articles; if you do have questions, I am glad to answer them.

Thank you. Laurakgibbs (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, we publish tertiary analysis based on secondary sources. We do not include original research, and our use of primary sources is very limited. Please keep that in mind, as these topics are important but do not require original research. I understand well that oral tradition is inherently distinct from written tradition, but Wikipedia is not capable of communicating the former without it being mediated by the latter, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources I am citing ARE research, ethnographical research conducted by anthropologists, missionaries, colonial officials, etc. who put the language material IN CONTEXT, providing translations, commentary, etc.

Some of the articles I have edited had random proverbs from random websites, and I have left that content there (although that is the kind of content I think would be eligible for deletion based on your criteria), but the whole point is that I am adding secondary sources which can be consulted online at the Internet Archive. Laurakgibbs (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The concern is that the research in this particular is over a century old, which is borderline unacceptable for a straightforward analysis without more recent sourcing. Standards and methods of research, as well as the applicability of the information itself change over time. Remsense诉 00:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you moved the convo to my user talk page, I have replied there to your more recent comments. I am keeping in mind the tradeoffs here; I appreciate your concern, but I am still confident that this Internet-Archive-based project to systematically add oral literature references to the African language articles will be a step forward in this area of Wikipedia that is very much in need of additional references. Laurakgibbs (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

American Left - moved

Could you please reverse your move of American Left to American left which was made on an uncontroversial technical request.

As stated in the Foreign Policy Research Institute style guide, which is based on the University of Chicago Press’s Chicago Manual of Style: "Political groupings other than parties are usually lowercased: independents; right wing; leftist. But: the Right, the Left." Other style guides are consistent with this usage.[1]

Note that MOS:IDEOLOGY, the reason for the move, says that ideologies should be in lower case, but the Left is not an ideology. In any case, it is a guideline not a policy, so editors could determine that other factors apply.

Any move request should have been posted to the article talk page as two previous requests were.

Thanks.

TFD (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally my bad. Thank you for letting me know. Remsense诉 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I greatly appreciate that. TFD (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Jomon people

My edit regarding the affinities between prehistoric Chinese peoples and Jomon and subsequently, descendants of the former, doesn't seem at all objectionable and is backed by recent genetic studies. AngelusVastator3456 (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to gain consensus for the additions at Talk:Jomon people. Remsense诉 04:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey! A little help on Talk:Colombia

Hey, I have noticed you re pretty active on Wikipedia and have spoken with one of the users who submitted n edit request, I was wondering if you could make the two edit requests on the talk page. Teotzin190 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look! Remsense诉 04:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! - I have a Bach cantata open as GAN, BWV 101, turning 300 on 13 August. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview ("celebrate the art of women") and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. - I try to get back to your PR, really, but day after day there seems to be something less patient than Chinese characters ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving article quality in August! - Today's story is about a stage director, - watch Aida, so tender so cruel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A friendly question.

Recently I stumbled upon the article Gējì which has numerous, numerous problems. Since I am new to the whole WP:CHINA thing, I don't really know how to go about bringing the article to the attention of the project so that it could be categorized as needing attention. There are presently over 200 sources on the page, many of which are in Chinese, and many of which are not formatted properly. Likewise, the article is meanderingly long and in desperate need of copyediting. I had originally had the mind of working on it and improving it myself, but the vastness of what needs to be done doesn't make it a suitable solo endeavor. How do I go about categorizing the article so that others from WP:CHINA might be inclined to clean it up? Brocade River Poems 06:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. This is a notable topic, but the Wikidata link for the zh.wp article goes somewhere else entirely. I'll try to find and address the classical sources soon, and see what I can do about the other citations. Nan Nü probably has plenty of articles that could be used as sources, but iirc that journal is hosted at Brill (RIP). Folly Mox (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Admittedly the vastness of what needs to be done on the article has left me feeling rather overwhelmed, so much so that I don't even know where I would begin to start. Brocade River Poems 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Brocade River Poems 00:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Electric industry in Austria-Hungary article

Why do you repeatedly sabotage my edits related to the electric power industry and electronics, as if the article on the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were solely your own sandbox? Have you perhaps acquired Wikipedia? What makes you think you alone can decide what is important in the article and what is not? Additionally, I have restored information to the article that was present in the lead for YEARS after you arbitrarily deleted a section. It is clear that your editing is a case of Wikipedia: I just don't like it.--Mandliners (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"I like it" is just as facile as "I don't like it". The actual issue, like I was trying to say, is you're putting content directly in the article lead, which is meant to be a summary of the article body. In my view, even if you were doing this in the expected manner and putting the content in the body first which is then summarized in the lead, this would be undue weight as a summary in the article lead. Remsense诉 20:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Question about DYKN

Hi again, hope you're having a fantastic day!
I think that the Suzhou knife attack article passed DYK review since I saw the person who reviewed it citing it for their own DYKN. However, I have no idea what this means.
Will I know when it would be on the front page, or which hook would be used since the review said the alt hooks were better? Thank you in advance, I hope you're having a great time wherever you are in this world. Zinderboff(talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Approved hooks get put into a pool, from which they are selected by an admin to assemble one of several preparatory sets that's arranged a few days ahead of time. Remsense诉 20:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Zinderboff(talk) 03:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle Record

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cao_Cao&diff=prev&oldid=1239676509 Hi! I'm not sure what rule I'm breaking by adding a battle record here? It's simply the same thing adapted from the page on Alexander the Great. I see your reasoning is that "it's clunky", which I don't understand, and "communicates nothing that the prose doesn't already", which is not technically true, as there are battles there that are unmentioned in the prose, and, even if it were true, I wasn't aware that a chart like this was only allowed to exist if and only if it had unique information. By that standard, I'm not sure any battle records would be allowed to exist on Wikipedia outside of as their own separate articles. Yet, we can certainly see that this is not the case, as Julius Caesar, Hannibal, and the Alexander example above shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyyuuta (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think the table serves much purpose on Alexander the Great either; it has many of the same design problems in that article as well—this is why direct comparisons to other articles are fraught justification for inclusion per WP:OTHERCONTENT. If there are battles that are unmentioned by the prose, that's a separate issue, since they would need to be specifically cited. Moreover, if they are not mentioned in the prose, it is distinctly possible they are simply not important enough for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia article about the subject. Remsense诉 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

To begin, I want to draw this back to one of your reasons - "it's clunky". I can see that you also think it's clunky in Alexander, but I still don't understand why you think so.

Next, you say that direct comparisons to other articles are fraught justification for inclusion, citing WP:OTHERCONTENT. Which, yes, is principally true. However, you said directly preceding this that it "has many of the same design problems", which is a direct comparison between the two articles in and of itself and of their problems. Even ignoring that, WP:OTHERCONTENT would only be an argument for articles not being compared, not for the nonexistence of a battle record.

Next, you say that "[i]f there are battles that are unmentioned by the prose, that's a separate issue, since they would need to be specifically cited", which I can agree with. I can also place citation to those battles in the battle record.

Next, you say that "if they are not mentioned in the prose, it is distinctly possible they are simply not important enough for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia article about the subject". At the risk of WP:OTHERCONTENT, I want to note that this is a general principle, applied to all general-purpose encyclopedia articles. This brings me back to the end of my last post, which is that by this standard there should be no battle records outside of their own article in general, for if the battles are covered by the prose then the record is redundant, and if the battles are not they are not important. Note that unlike in my last post, I am not nesting this argument in the comparison of other articles, or at least such that it is no more a comparison to other articles than your quoted point is.

Finally, I have a suggestion: How about if I were to simply create a separate page for the battle record? Either as a "List of..." page with just the list or as a "Military career of..." page with a short prose summary followed by the battle record? Lilyyuuta (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Most commanders (e.g. Napoleon, Genghis Khan) do not have a separate table for battle records in their articles: It just doesn't seem a useful addendum to the prose as it exists, as all it does is reprint the same information but divorced from helpful context, especially if the mostly redundant columns are removed from consideration. Tables take up a lot of vertical space, which matters especially with an article that's already too long—Cao Cao is 15k words, which is absolutely too long for any article per WP:AS. In my view, editing work with this article would generally be paring down, not building further up, at least until we have a better view of what else may be refactored into an ideal version of the article. I don't own this or any article, so you're free to put the table back if you really think it adds a lot, but I have a feeling other editors could agree with my points. Remsense诉 21:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Confucianisms

Hi just noticed that you changed a recent edit of mine, If you could suggest a better way of putting it then that would be great. The main point is that the hereditary timeline is incorrect as Confucianisms was the main philosophical influence then in its decline Taoism and Buddhism (as initially it was not indigenous) then Neo Confucianisms as a response. There are no real references that state it is the other way around, you may have not noticed this but it is a kind of historical negativism if left as it is. Your thoughts please. Foristslow (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is, personally. Neo-Confucianism was formulated in response to Taoism and Buddhism during the late Tang; this is an adequate one-sentence summary which is elaborated upon in the article itself. You may be reading detail into it that it is not really stating for a general audience? Remsense诉 00:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply I am including the actual sentence from the article. "Confucianism developed in response to Buddhism and Taoism and was reformulated as Neo-Confucianism". You may notice that it does not say what you you are claiming it to say. It starts with Confucianisms being developed in response which is misleading especially for a lead statement, and is historically incorrect, hence me pointing out historical negativism. Your thoughts please. Foristslow (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

would the simple explication of "Confucianism further developed" clear things up in your mind? Remsense诉 01:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

yes but also a) As a result of Confucianisms decline b) and due to the growing influence of Taoist and Buddhism Neo- Confucianisms was established as a response. Or there about"s. Thanks for working this out with me. Your thoughts please. Foristslow (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That is funny very clear ok yes "further"is fine also just including "due to the influence of Buddhism and...." Neo Confucianisms was.... Foristslow (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your vigilant oversight of several of Wikipedia's core articles, ensuring their quality and accuracy by scrutinizing and addressing problematic edits. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You're too kind! I've been trying to tighten up my false-positive rate lately and adjust my approach to achieve more friendly, more constructive results quicker, but it means a lot that an editor I look up to a considerable amount would look on my imperfect record like this. I've got to get a modest gallery set up soon... Remsense诉 07:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Do You know or recognize that root word is synonym of "etymon" ?

Please answer me: YES OR NO ? etc Thanks. Pasquale Di Massa (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that's beside the point. Not every synonym of a term needs to be or can be included in the first sentence. In fact, there's likely a problem if the first sentence mentions more than one or two. There's the rest of the lead, and indeed the remainder of the article where such facts can be included if need be. Many alternate terms or alternate forms of terms do not need to be explicitly mentioned at all, though I would include "etymon" somewhere in this article's case. Remsense 诉 19:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'm italian and in my language only 2 synonyms are used (etimo AND radice di parola). Please, culd You insert in definition: basic meaning of lexical cognates word, to link to cognates ? It's logically very important to have a an english international definition. Pasquale Di Massa (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Etymon is used in English, but it's important to note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary: in most cases we can't include terms solely based on usage in other languages. In any case, I'll take a look. Remsense 诉 20:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, at list linking to "cognates word" is very important in definition. Pasquale Di Massa (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Grange

Please will you explain what you are doing by nominating the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Grange and closing it as Keep 10 minutes later? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC).

Sorry for the blip—I just changed my mind, and should've been more clear about that. Remsense ‥ 诉 22:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Rania212's comment at Talk:Kingdom of Aksum

Hey, I hope you're well. I'm wondering about the thinking in deleting that comment. We do have WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. I don't think the conversation that Rania212 wanted to start was likely to go well, but there aren't a lot of circumstances in which we can delete others' Talk page comments. I plan to weigh in on the Greek discussion at some point—I've just been too busy to do the appropriate work with sources. But I'm not going to weigh in on the comment deletion beyond this note. Take care! Pathawi (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, the question they (in effect) asked is one that was already comprehensively answered for them months ago. More than with most analogous talk page disputes, it's fairly clear that they do not misunderstand the answers they have been given; all that's left is the uncivil rhetoric, which can only generate further disruption. Other tries to reduce net disruption might include immediately closing the thread. The guideline says deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. I agree, but given the history on this particular page of rhetoric being multiplied without substance instead of merely ignored for its substancelessness, that's why I thought removal was the best try here specifically. In short, I think it plausibly makes more sense to remove such posts, assuming each of the particular conditions mentioned above (AGF for the user effectively exhausted; clear tendentious track record by the user; environment where for one reason or another disruptive rhetoric has historically been amplified or otherwise rewarded) are clearly the case. Thanks for having me articulate my reasoning, cheers! Remsense ‥ 诉 01:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Person

Hi Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

can you take a look to my sandbox page and help me to add the sources inside the article Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging from what you've written, it seems fairly clear that this person is not sufficiently notable for an article on Wikipedia. There can be no help with sources because it isn't likely that any sources exist, as this person has not done anything to attract independent coverage by them. Please take another look at WP:Notability and perhaps Help:Your first article. Remsense ‥ 诉 08:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Here you can see the full name of the topic he has more than 15 sources in Arabic and Turkish and language Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Ali-Al-Suleiman/author/B08FTH58CJ

and news sources from Daily Sabah and Trt World and Anadolu Agency Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no indication that this person meets our notability criteria, apologies. Remsense ‥ 诉 08:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

did you check the sources above? for the big news sites in turkey? Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There is reliable + significant coverage on this topic Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

you can see google news also ! Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, we have the Daily Sabah interview—I almost have to treat the TRT and Anadolu pieces as one, since they are so similar in content. As these are all public media outlets, there's actually been discussion that's recorded concerns with WP:TRT and WP:ANADOLU when they write about topics that are related to official government narratives. Having read the articles, I fear there's a bit of that going on here. Remsense ‥ 诉 08:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense regarding Anadolu Agency, TRT World, and Daily Sabah, these are reliable media outlets when it comes to non-political matters. We also have coverage in Turkish, such as Akşam and Yeni Şafak and Albawaba , and in Arabic, we have comprehensive coverage of the topic.” Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

unreliable source?

hello, i was wondering why my edit was considered unreliable? Omagari is a known type designer who formerly worked for Monotype, i think his blog should be considered a reliable source Svenurban (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

in case you couldn't find it, the revert is at Special:Diff/797180441. Svenurban (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, sorry—yes, I think that should be fine if that's the case. Feel free to put it back. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Just seen this. I'd endorse that it's a solid source to add, Omagari is very knowledgeable on this. Blythwood (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

What's your point of removing the word "mainland" when mentioning Taiwan

Please carefully read WP:NC-CN before arbitrarily reverting my edits with your handy Twinkle tool. Thanks! 38.150.67.44 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I helped write a fair chunk of that page, so you needn't worry about that. There's no reason to specify mainland China in those cases—a distinction is not required—so it's seen as tendentious to add it for no real reason. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's apparently controversial to say "China and Taiwan" instead of the politically neutral term "mainland China and Taiwan", per WP:NC-CN.38.150.67.44 (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No it is not; you are deliberately misreading it. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, if you think the word "mainland" in mainland China is by no means acceptable, I suggest you remove all the words of "mainland" in pages like Mainland China and Cross-strait relations. Please tell me how I had "misread" the articulate guideline. 38.150.67.44 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not unclear what areas are being spoken about, and no logical inconsistencies are being made. It doesn't make sense to say someone moved from China to Hong Kong, because that's moving within the same country. Taiwan is a different country, so areas where it can be confused with merely "China" are narrower. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"Due to potential ambiguity, it should only be used when a distinction with Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan is required"

Taiwan is apparently mentioned in the guideline, as its status as a "country" is disputed and not without controversy. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:TWRFC. This is not a situation where there is confusion, as they are two different countries. and are treated as such in a straightforward manner, unlike with HK & Macau. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Off the topic. Again you cannot just equate China with mainland China, the latter of which is for distinction with HK, Macau, and Taiwan. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

China and Taiwan are two separate countries. Thus, a simple mentioning of both is not confusing. We may need to distinguish them historically or in other specific contexts. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We may need to distinguish them historically or in other specific contexts

Exactly as you said, that's why we should use the term mainland China per Due to potential ambiguity, it should only be used when a distinction with Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan is required 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope, as this isn't one of those specific contexts. There is no confusion as to what is meant here; I'm saying that for the final time. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

How are these Chinese dialect/language articles not "specific" or relevant here? I repeat, these languages or dialects are used in both mainland China and Taiwan and entail distinction. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Because there is not a situation where "China" would be confused with Taiwan. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No, there is. Again, how do you believe that there is no distinctions when talking about two regions of mainland China and Taiwan using the same language/dialect? Directly address my question please. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no potential for confusion unless one would insist that "China" would include Taiwan by default. That is not how they are treated on Wikipedia, so we're good. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That "China would include Taiwan by default" is at least a consensus among international organizations including UN, WHO, ISO. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Good thing they are not the ones who tell us what to write. Please see WP:NPOV, and then WP:TWRFC for how it applies. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are the ones who didn't abide by WP:NPOV here, equating China with Taiwan is simply not politically neutral as the neutral term should be mainland China. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Equating China with Taiwan obviously creates confusion as readers may question Wikipedia's neutrality. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:NPOV endorse equating China with Taiwan, the latter being a disputed region? 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It certainly endorses following what English-language reliable sources do, which overwhelmingly treat China and Taiwan as separate countries. Specifically, see WP:POVNAMING. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

By your logic, why does WP:NC-CN recommend the use of mainland China? Should we all use the controversial expressions like "China and Taiwan" in all Wikipedia articles and simply removing all the words containing "mainland China"? 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It should only be used when a distinction is required, like the guideline happily says. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I repeat, there is distinction in the articles of languages here, where the geographic distributions in DIFFERENT regions are presented. Otherwise, we would say English is widely used in the United States and Guam, while the correct expression should be English is widely used in the continental United States and Guam, in order to make a distinction. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be true if Taiwan were a part of China. Remsense ‥ 诉 14:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to potential ambiguity, it should only be used when a distinction with Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan is required, Please read this line from WP:NC-CN.38.150.67.44 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes; on every page you've changed, a distinction is not required. A distinction would be required if saying someone moved from mainland China to Hong Kong, for example. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a rigid interpretation based on the exact word of the guideline. Again, in the language articles here, we are talking about two regions of mainland China and Taiwan. You cannot just equate mainland China and Taiwan. Period. 38.150.67.47 (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about China and Taiwan; there is no reason to specify further, and to do so is palpably tendentious, per only be used when a distinction [...] is required. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

How do you believe that there is no distinctions when talking about two regions of mainland China and Taiwan using the same language/dialect? It's not one language that is exclusive to either the mainland or Taiwan. Again, you cannot just equate mainland China with China. The official name of Taiwan is Republic of China, in case you forget. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't care about official names or viewpoints on Wikipedia, we care about balancing reliable sources. Please see WP:NC itself, as well as WP:NPOV—as they've much more important than WP:NCZH for successful editing in this area. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned the official title just for your knowledge, and again we are having a dispute over article content, which is governed by WP:ZH 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The ones I mentioned are far more important; I should know, I helped write WP:NCZH. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, we are dealing with specific article content. And participating in the guideline writing doesn't give you privileges in the discussion here. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just saying I know what site policies are; WP:NCZH essentially supports the generalities of WP:NC; the latter would totally override the former if there were a contradiction. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I figure we are not talking about article titles as regulated by WP:TITLE, right? We are talking about your controversial removal of the word "mainland" from the politically neutral expression "mainland China and Taiwan" per WP:NPOV. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a reason WP:NC has that shortcut: article titles and general naming conventions essentially follow the same rules, as they both concern what entities should be referred to as. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think removing the word "mainland" inside the infobox is about article titles and general naming convention. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's quite obviously a convention for how something is named. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Replacing mainland China with China clearly violates WP:NC-CN. There is simply a difference between the two. 38.150.67.48 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the difference is not that China includes Taiwan. Remsense ‥ 诉 13:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion of the Shang dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sudden revert

Hi Remsense,
You reverted my edit to "Flags of Austria-Hungary", due to a lack of reliable sources, however the sources you wanted are already present on the page, and support the files which I tried to add. I also don't see how merely changing image files to superior versions requires a source.
In addition, I noticed that the message you left on my talk page was also very bot-like; very non-specific. Makes me wonder if you actually looked at my changes before reverting. OddHerring (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, thanks for asking! We often use standardized messages for different classes of discussion. That article gets a lot of the same edits from new users, so I suppose I was particularly quick, but I could've been a bit clearer upfront, I apologize. So, the version you're adding seems to derive directly from lithograph, which includes those borders in diagrams of the flags meant to make the details maximally distinctive for the reader. The actual flags didn't have those—think about how much extra pain that would be to manufacture—which you can see from actual photographs of either original or reproduction flags (I can't say here) like at File:Austro-Hungarian North Pole Expedition, HGM, 2017-03-08-6.jpg Remsense ‥ 诉 07:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, hope you're having a fantastic day! There seems to now be two dots in your signature, is that for any reason?
On another note, the “诉” character in your signature always read a bit weird for me, it feels like its the button to "complain" to you (which evidently many do). I know it was "聊" then "留" before, could something like "讨论" or "论" work? Cheers! Zinderboff(talk) 20:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm well enough! Given I wouldn't dare talk at length about my signature unless someone asked—essentially, the new dark mode that's being made available made my previous signature display improperly, so I decided to trim back the styling to one foreground and one background color—I'm very often badgering people to simplify cluttered designs, so I want to practice what I preach! This was what I happened upon that still differentiated the username and talk button.

And yes—I remember someone suggested 诉 to me as a tongue-in-cheek replacement for 留, which doesn't really scan as 留言 by itself. While I have my foibles and imperfections that I'm forever working on, I genuinely do not like the idea that it would generally be seen as overly snarky or cynical rather than cheeky? I might consider going to 论 or back to 聊 if that's so among native speakers. Thanks for the chat! Remsense ‥ 诉 20:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! Yeah 诉 reads (to me at least) as short for either 投诉, 诉说 or 诉苦, which all essentially mean complaining about something to someone else (in this case you). 讨论 is perhaps the most accurate translation of a "talk page" but if you wish to stick to singular characters native speakers will generally undestand 论 just fine. Cheers! Zinderboff(talk) 20:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be a nice little homage to, among other things, “齐物论”, my favorite sequence in literature. It's definitely nice to use a ubiquitous vernacular character with plenty of literary depth in its history—anyway— Remsense ‥ 论 21:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Zinderboff(talk) 22:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

F*** you and Sinebot.

You are a troll. 112.202.154.48 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)