User talk:Remsense

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)

Help? My story today is about a woman, nominated for RD but needing support as I write this. A composer died whose article is long and mostly unreferenced. And some articles open for review, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 27 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/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)

Afsharids

The Afsharids had 2 Imperial Standarts. One was made by adding yellow silk to the original and both were in use. Also those are not really "flags" they are imperial standarts. SnowyMercury455 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

little robot message at talk:Mathematics

Hopefully I didn't give offense by deleting it. I agree with you that "THIS ARTICLE HAS GOTTEN SO MUCH WORSE" was an excessive and unhelpful heading, and that the content of the comment was also not really up to standards for Wikipedia discussion. But in my opinion we should answer even impolite messages with forthright but polite responses instead of with snarky impersonal notes. If someone has a problem with the IP editor's tone/content they should just say so directly, perhaps along the lines of "Please assume good faith instead of imputing ulterior motives to Wikipedians and please comment respectfully instead of flinging insults." I think your replacing the title was fine, but leaving aside the tone the note at the top was also somewhat confusing to me, appearing at a glance like part of the initial comment, the little robot icon notwithstanding. All the best. –jacobolus (t) 16:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Alongside the actual purpose of the retitle, it was a little joke that didn't land; you retained the former and did away with the latter. I appreciate the consideration, but seriously no offense taken there in the slightest! Remsense ‥ 论 17:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Shaanxi

added a link pointing to Chinese civilization

Yu the Great

added a link pointing to Ding

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Templates are supposed to be used

When you create a template like {{Tlitn}}, please ensure that it gets used somewhere. Unused templates are usually nominated for deletion. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I usually try to—this time I was negligent in doing so. Thank you! Remsense ‥ 论 01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

undone edit

Hello there,

I have noticed that one of my edits has been undone specifically an edit on Writing system.

thanks,

Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 02:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed that map from Writing system earlier when I started working on it—it's unsourced and I think several choices it makes are problematic. Among those problems, I fundamentally don't think a global map is the best way to present this information to begin with. Other than being colorful to look at, it would seem to do a worse job than a table or a paragraph of prose—area is rarely proportional to interest on a demographic world map, and this is one of the cases where that's most a problem, in my view. Remsense ‥ 论 02:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok I am sorry

Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks for asking! Remsense ‥ 论 02:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

An lushan rebillion

Hello can i understand why you deleted my edit about abbasid caliphate in the page i gaved all the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.209.168 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to continue the discussion on Talk:An Lushan rebellion: in short, the sources given did not adequately verify the claims added to the article. Remsense ‥ 论 12:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

question about infoboxes

Ive come to appreciate your work on infoboxes but i cant seem to understand why you are against the "supported by" sections?? Nohorizonss (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you refer to a specific example? I'm not sure whether I'm against them in principle, but most of them denote comparatively minor involvement that's often best excluded. Remsense ‥ 论 22:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

in my personal experience, when i was young and started exploring geopolitics, the supported by sections in the chinese civil war or russian civil war were very useful to be know at a glance, while later the infoboxes did get bloated by minor players like eg: a breakaway state which existed for a small period( for eg alash autonomy) supported a major side in russian civil war BUT now even the major players in the chinese civil war like nazi germany, usa on the side of kmt and soviet union and comintern for the ccp are excluded which doesnt really bloat the infopage in any significant way and these players are usually the major drivers of the war and their efficiency of support one of the lead factors in the outcome Nohorizonss (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say that it really needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Specifically for Chinese Civil War, I actually really do feel the exclusion of "Supported by" listings is the right choice: it properly reflects how little the Soviet Union, United States, Germany et al. actually participated in that particular conflict. To include them would skew the due focus away from the parties who did almost everything in deciding the outcome. (There's an argument about how the international shenanigans at the end of WWII were the point where outside meddling mattered, but this strays into "too nuanced and specific for the infobox", possibly.) For other conflicts like Korean War, excluding the USSR would be very inappropriate in my mind, even though they committed almost no material support to speak of—their consultation and diplomacy were crucial to the way the conflict unfolded. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

the aid given by the Soviet union and the military weapon left by them after Japan's withdrawal from the north and their massive arms deliveries for free played a huge role , us didn't leave any stone unturned either , as far as I can recall there is an account of Chiang Kai shek in his memoirs that roc could easily have won the war of not for their misappropriation of funds and their rot within , another account said that roc claimed to construct some massive airfields with us aid but when the US representatives reached there there was only air

it's hard to imagine that a civil war of that scale could happen without huge financial and military aid on both sides Nohorizonss (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

These are conversations I welcome having; I don't claim to know what exactly to include all the time. Thanks for engaging in good faith in any case—I really want to get around to improving a lot of Late Qing and Republican China-period articles themselves much more, and not as much their infoboxes, and that often helps of course. Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Or for example in the Turkish war of independence or war against minorities, Soviet union gave tons of gold and weaponry to kemalists for free as they wanted saw him as a bulwark against western "puppet states" and to retain most of transcaucasia, it can be said that Lenin singlehanded won Kemal that war as no other nation would have supplied weaponry even for money and Lenin also proclaimed " we sacrifice Armenia for the sake of world revolution" ( he saw similarities between Bolshevik ideology and kemalist statism) Nohorizonss (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Glossary of the Chinese language and writing system

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Glossary of the Chinese language and writing system, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Dictionary of Chinese Character Variants

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

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!} 22:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Death of Milton King and Talk:1972 Sidney Lanier Bridge collapse on "History" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Literature of Botswana, Talk:The Parson's Tale, Talk:Hell and Middle-earth, Talk:Fictional planets of the Solar System and Talk:Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) on "Language and literature" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Candomblé and Talk:Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer on "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Outline of the Chinese language

Hello, Remsense. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Outline of the Chinese language, 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) 21:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Zhuangzi (book)

Thanks for your revert of my edit to Zhuangzi (book) - I was unaware that the subject of the sentence was the person, not the book. However, since the author has not been referred to by that name up to that point, it's definitely confusing for anyone new to the topic. I've made another edit which I hope makes things less confusing, but having two entirely different entities with the same name (except for italicisation) in the same article still makes for a really confusing read. Would it be reasonable to refer to the author as Zhuang Zhou throughout this article to eliminate confusion? — The Anome (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now made the change throughout the article. I hope this helps rather than hinders the clarity of the article. — The Anome (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's the diff of all my edits. I have proof-read the diff, and hopefully I haven't inadvertently messed up any usages of "Zhuangzi" in direct quotes, book or article titles. (edited) — The Anome (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 2024 Suzhou knife attack

On 31 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2024 Suzhou knife attack, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a knife attack in Suzhou, China, led to the deletion of hundreds of ultranationalist posts from social media platforms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Suzhou knife attack. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2024 Suzhou knife attack), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent dispute over the Republic of China (1912-1949)

I have created a new discussion on the article’s talk page regarding the recent controversy surrounding the lead article. Welcome to participate if you interested in taking part. Sheherherhers (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

link to Chinese disambiguation page on Qin Shi Huang

Hello @Remsense, I see that you have recently been doing some work on Qin Shi Huang and your profile says that you have some understanding of Chinese. There is an interlanguage link in that article for Song Zhong, but the destination page in zh.wiki is a disambiguation page. I don't know what the proper destination link is, and do not read Chinese to try to figure out, but I figured I'd ask you, since you adjusted that section of the text most recently. Thanks! Cleancutkid (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)