User talk:Remsense: Difference between revisions

Good article reassessment for Roman Republic

Roman Republic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —GoldRingChip 21:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

to be notified then to the arrow and space out of resume and the winter Soldier of fortune oil and vitamine oil and gas industry and vitamine oil for the logging in to the separate of any questions to the asking price is so bad and bad habbit to the centre cost and defend their stories and recost and se their stories and sentences of law and la 2409:40E2:11EC:953B:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Undoing Edit to Empress Theodora

On the page you linked to discussing the advice given for moving pages, it said that if you have no reason to believe it could be remotely controversial to change the page, then be bold and go for it. You for some reason I have no conception of claimed it was egrigious to move it without discussion.

A name that is accurate, beyond doubt in the historical record as to the social rank Theodora once held, and which has utility that the current name lacks seemed to be one that would not have even crossed my mind or the three thousand kilometre radius around my mind as something that should be controversial and so that is why I moved the page on my own initiative. Gingeroscar (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Musical writing

Hi. There probably is no point further discussing about musical writing in the talk page of History of writing. You wrote there that you studied composition and indeed, I therefore respect your opinion. I am a music theorist and I wrote extensively on musical semiotics. Let's leave it at that, it is a good idea of WP that we remain anonymous...

You write that what music expresses is "non-conceptual" while (verbal) language "articulates the conceptual." Roman Jakobson discussed this in what he called "introversive" and "extroversive semiosis" (see Semiotics). Kofi Agawu expanded on this in Playing with signs (Princeton UP, 1991), also in Music as Discourse (Oxford UP, 2009). You may know that the IPMS (International Project on Musical Signification) argues that musical signification mainly is of the order of "narration." All this would be worth a long discussion, but I don't think that it concerns writing as such. Charles Seeger wrote an important (and famous) article about "Prescriptive and Descriptive Music-Writing" (The Musical Quarterly 44/2, 1958). He did not wonder whether music-writing truly is writing, he apparently had no doubt about that.

Musical writing has several aspects in common with verbal writing. It may not be as ancient, but I it probably is the earliest non-verbal writing. It shares with verbal writing that it was not at first meant to record sounds (of speech or of music), but rather to registrate aspects that didn't need to be expressed in speech or in music-as-sound (as philosophers of music write to distinguish it from music-as-written). Turning back for a while to non-conceptual vs conceptual aspects, one could also stress that literature, particularly poetry, at times may not be referential – and this may link with the fact that they often exist only in writing.

I won't intervene on the History of writing article, I have enough to do without that and it isn't realy my domain. I thought nevertheless that something might be said there about musical writing – or the title of the article changed into History of verbal writing? And let's further discuss it here, if you think there is anything worth further discussing. Best. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate your insight here. I want to emphasize that your comments reminded me to include some mention of these and other aspects in the article! Best. Remsense 🌈 论 02:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That is to say, I really appreciate the sourcing leads you've given me to explore, and hopefully I can ping you soon to see the work in this very interesting area proportionately reflected in the article, as well as in Writing itself, etc.

(Trust me, I only mentioned my own background so that you wouldn't feel you were potentially wasting your time writing insightful replies that would go totally over my head! I fully appreciate this is your domain, not mine.) Remsense 🌈 论 12:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

... and today look at the autograph of Beethoven's last piano sonata and listen to the pianist who wanted to serve the compositions most of all --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-26

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

Weekly highlight

• This week, the Moderator Tools and Machine Learning teams will continue the rollout of a new filter to Recent Changes, releasing it to the third and last batch of Wikipedias. This filter utilizes the Revert Risk model, which was created by the Research team, to highlight edits that are likely to be reverted and help Recent Changes patrollers identify potentially problematic contributions. The feature will be rolled out to the following Wikipedias: Azerbaijani Wikipedia, Latin Wikipedia, Macedonian Wikipedia, Malayalam Wikipedia, Marathi Wikipedia, Norwegian Nynorsk Wikipedia, Punjabi Wikipedia, Swahili Wikipedia, Telugu Wikipedia, Tagalog Wikipedia. The rollout will continue in the coming weeks to include the rest of the Wikipedias in this project. [1]

Updates for editors

• Last week, temporary accounts were rolled out on Czech, Korean, and Turkish Wikipedias. This and next week, deployments on larger Wikipedias will follow. Share your thoughts about the project. [2]
• Later this week, the Editing team will release Multi Check to all Wikipedias (except English Wikipedia). This feature shows multiple Reference checks within the editing experience. This encourages users to add citations when they add multiple new paragraphs to a Wikipedia article. This feature was previously available as an A/B test. The test shows that users who are shown multiple checks are 1.3 times more likely to add a reference to their edit, and their edit is less likely to be reverted (-34.7%). [3]
• A few pages need to be renamed due to software updates and to match more recent Unicode standards. All of these changes are related to title-casing changes. Approximately 71 pages and 3 files will be renamed, across 15 wikis; the complete list is in the task. The developers will rename these pages next week, and they will fix redirects and embedded file links a few minutes later via a system settings update.
• View all 24 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, a bug was fixed that had caused pages to scroll upwards when text near the top was selected. [4]

Updates for technical contributors

• Editors can now use Lua modules to filter and transform tabular data for use with Extension:Chart. This can be used for things like selecting a subset of rows or columns from the source data, converting between units, statistical processing, and many other useful transformations. Information on how to use transforms is available. [5]
• The all_links variable in AbuseFilter is now renamed to new_links for consistency with other variables. Old usages will still continue to work. [6]
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

• The latest quarterly Growth newsletter is available. It includes: the recent updates for the "Add a Link" Task, two new Newcomer Engagement Features, and updates to Community Configuration.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 23:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Modern Monetary Theory

Thanks for your feedback on the revision. Can you please point towards any areas that you believe should be made more neutral?

I've tried to position any point as coming from what MMT states rather than as fact i.e., "MMT states that...", "This framework...", "According to MMT...", "MMT argues that...", "MMT is opposed to..."

Perhaps reworking "However, there is a growing consensus among mainstream economists, pundits, and finance executives that the insights of MMT are genuine and provide value for understanding how the economy works." into something like "However, there have been several mainstream economists, pundits, and finance executives stating that the insights of MMT provide value for understanding how the economy works."

FWIW I think the current state is an inaccurate and biased representation of MMT, which I why I am trying to make it more accurate and neutral. MwikiNpedia (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could make that decision unless the prose says something the cited sources don't, and you don't seem to have paid mind to what the sources already being cited say. We're not in the business of publishing original research. It's not acceptable to rewrite cited prose to a substantially different effect; that effectively puts your own words in the sources' mouths. Like I touched on in the edit summary, it doesn't matter what you or I think is biased or harsh—we are generally compelled to be biased and harsh if that's the verdict of our body of reliable sources on the subject, as it were. To opt otherwise would be to create a WP:false balance.

I see exceedingly little value in the tacked on NYT pieces from 6 years ago, and I really do not think it's possible that they would challenge the claims made in existing sources—which include actual peer reviewed scholarship, almost always a more reliable type of source than a news article from any outlet for a subject like this—to a degree that at all justifies the severe tone shift. What's more, you essentially claimed the articles wrote of a growing consensus, which they just don't say—and if they did, again, they would directly contradict the better-cited material already there.

FWIW, when I said talk page, I meant Talk:Modern monetary theory—content issues should generally be discussed on the corresponding talk page where interested editors can see and participate to reach a consensus. Remsense 🌈 论 11:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I followed the link you put in your response saying "you can leave me a message on my talk page." I'm happy to pick up the debate on the substance on the MMT page itself.

I'm new to making edits on Wikipedia and appreciate any feedback on getting better at contributing. However, I do believe that the current prose says something the cited sources don't. I have read cited sources and the current section does not accurately represent the research. Reading the Talk page on MMT now actually highlights that this seems be a problem many people have noticed but yet no one has put the time into redrafting it.

I reused existing sources and only contributed new ones where the point being made was significantly different and additional sources seemed suitable. However, you're right if you're su. "Puff pieces" seem an appropriate way of attributing public quotes from individuals made outside of any academic source. Considering that the current section is about public opinion, it seemed appropriate to me to update what public opinion actually is. The existing section cites 3 NYT "puff pieces" as sources already. If you believe that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, then I would suggest the whole paragraph is removed. Even the more explanatory parts of the section use the Bloomberg and WSJ as sources rather than academia. MwikiNpedia (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Reverts

IslaAntilia here. Hello. I noticed that you reverted two of my contributions today. I don't mind the France one, that's fine, I didn't have great sources, but I just wanted to attempt to turn the C-class article into a B-class article, and I thought that would help. I would've appreciated the line about the philosophers being kept in, because I think that source is fine and it deserves mention on the main page, but nevertheless. But you also reverted my edits on Sudan...and then re-did two of them yourself. I don't really appreciate my work being "stolen". I think my edit should be restored. Thanks. IslaAntilia (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Kid A

Have you even checked the Consequence article that you just reverted from my recent edit on the album? It's a completely different source to the one that you apparently said that is "already adequately cited". TheUser225! (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Please Respond on Talk

Hi @Remsense. I really don’t appreciate your willingness to revert my edits, make note of it on my profile, and not respond despite your continuing to make extensive, minor edits thereafter. I am seeking to be as polite as possible, but simultaneously this seems like a departure from the very mission you’ve set out for yourself on your profile. I would appreciate your response and engagement with my concerns, especially given that I was willing to do the same. This seems greatly un constructive, and teeters on bad faith. protecting your own peace doesn’t automatically solve the situation, it simply makes it easier for you.

All the best, and with hopes for a response - CSGinger14 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I am disorganized and sometimes respond to messages out of order. I didn't forget yours, apologies for allowing you to think I might've. Remsense 🌈 论 18:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Arameans article

Hello, when you have a moment could you kindly respond on the talk page? I've provided an explanation there for your review. How would you recommend we move forward from here in a way that avoids continued reverts? I've removed some repetition as you previously noted and restructured the passage with supporting sources to present this complex topic more clearly and accessibly, while maintaining a neutral point of view.PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Hello. I noticed the WP:AN/3 report involving the page House of Wisdom, which brought me to the other user's talk page. I'm not going to template you or anything but I wanted to mention that your comments on their page could very easily be considered biting the newcomers. The user seemed legitimately interested in improving Wikipedia and was struggling with understanding policy, which is understandable. Actually, most of the time we learn about policies and guidelines when we boldly screw something up and it's politely pointed out to us. It's okay for editors to make mistakes with referencing or the complexities of paraphrasing -- that's why people like you & I are here: to calmly point good-faith editors in the right direction, to answer their questions, and/or explain the policies. You were clearly frustrated with them, and even though you apologized, you then immediately swore at them after they tried again and asked for feedback. Everyone has bad days and gets frustrated, but if you feel yourself becoming upset like that in the future, it might be best to consider stepping away from the situation. All the best - - —tony 01:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue was that it was a copyvio issue. There's this two-track thing about it and BLP, where theoretically there is real legal liability at play that categorically supersedes policy, and it's easier to become frustrated over for how much damage it can do to the encyclopedia in terms of cleanup time when it goes undetected for any length of time. I'm just meditating on why that happened and developed far less amiably than it should've. Remsense 🌈 论 01:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Remsense, please join the noticeboard discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)