User talk:Remsense

GA review timeline

Just a quick question. You picked up my article for GA review a couple days ago now, but haven't begun reviewing dispite being fairly active on Wikipedia? (Edit: Woah! Over 1000 edits so far.) By all means, there's no rush, and I have no issue waiting—I'm just confused is all. Is there a reason you're waiting? If so, when are you planning to start? I'm gonna try to keep my schedule clear. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Remsemse? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Was just tabbing to it, my bad! Remsense ‥ 论 16:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, take your time. I'm in no rush. Just wondering what's going on. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, all right then, keep your secrets. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, if it's possible, could you give me an idea of when you're wanting to start? I'm free for the next few days... and after next week, I might not be free until May. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for this—was planning on getting the bulk done today. Thanks for letting me know. Remsense ‥ 论 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Farkle Griffen I am beyond sorry about my disappearance—I had a family emergency and wasn't able to edit. Are you okay with me resuming the bulk of the work now and possibly wrapping up after you're able to address any concerns I bring up? Remsense ‥ 论 00:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense I understand, and I hope everything is okay! That's alright with me, but I might not be able to make any large edits until May, if you're okay waiting a bit. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense To be clear, I'm okay with you resuming now. The "if you're okay waiting a bit" was specifically about large edits. Sorry if that was confusing. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, my schedule cleared up a bit early. I'm available whenever you are. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, It's been a few days since you last edited the article. Is there anything I can help with? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Farkle Griffin, this will be done by Monday. I've been sick and again should've communicated this to you. All I have left is the spot check for sources, and I have real perfectionist issues where I have truly inconvenienced you because I really want to do reviews right and get in my own way. Remsense ‥ 论 16:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, I hope you feel better soon! Though please don't feel bad. Waiting isn't something I care about, and I appreciate a good perfectionist. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, just checking in. Still planning to get it done today? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

May music

story · music · places

check my talk today for two pics of Margot Friedländer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

musings on 15 May --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you today for Chinese characters, "about a writing system (really, a set of systems) used continuously in some form for over three millennia, facilitating some of the most ramified literary culture and communications technologies in human history. While all writing we know of has its origins in symbols that represent units of meaning instead of units of sound, Chinese characters are the only such symbols that are still used; all other systems have been replaced with fundamentally phonetic writing. To those used to the latter, they represent evidence of how differently writing can function."! - Amazing!! Enjoy TFA day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

the stats were above average! - reasons to look at Bach (and listen): it's a recent GA (not by me), he assumed the position of Thomaskantor OTD in 1723, he's up for PR, and several of his cantatas for GA, and his Easter Oratorio for FAC --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Why were Virus Updates Reverted?

Hi- I noticed that you reverted my edits to the virus page almost immediately (within 7 seconds) after I posted them. This is not enough time for you to have reviewed the versions to determine whether my revisions were an improvement to the existing text. Can you please provide me more context as to why you have reverted them? I feel that my updates provide a clearer and up to date explanation about the latest in Viral Evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virus&action=history

I am more than happy to take any constructive feedback, but would like to post my updates as I believe they provide a better explanation of the topic.

Thanks! Nataliemgreen (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-21

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

• The Editing Team and the Machine Learning Team are working on a new check for newcomers: Peacock check. Using a prediction model, this check will encourage editors to improve the tone of their edits, using artificial intelligence. We invite volunteers to review the first version of the Peacock language model for the following languages: Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, English, and Japanese. Users from these wikis interested in reviewing this model are invited to sign up at MediaWiki.org. The deadline to sign up is on May 23, which will be the start date of the test.

Updates for editors

• From May 20, 2025, oversighters and checkusers will need to have their accounts secured with two-factor authentication (2FA) to be able to use their advanced rights. All users who belong to these two groups and do not have 2FA enabled have been informed. In the future, this requirement may be extended to other users with advanced rights. Learn more.
• Multiblocks will begin mass deployment by the end of the month: all non-Wikipedia projects plus Catalan Wikipedia will adopt Multiblocks in the week of May 26, while all other Wikipedias will adopt it in the week of June 2. Please contact the team if you have concerns. Administrators can test the new user interface now on your own wiki by browsing to Special:Block?usecodex=1, and can test the full multiblocks functionality on testwiki. Multiblocks is the feature that makes it possible for administrators to impose different types of blocks on the same user at the same time. See the help page for more information. [1]
• Later this week, the Special:SpecialPages listing of almost all special pages will be updated with a new design. This page has been redesigned to improve the user experience in a few ways, including: The ability to search for names and aliases of the special pages, sorting, more visible marking of restricted special pages, and a more mobile-friendly look. The new version can be previewed at Beta Cluster now, and feedback shared in the task. [2]
• The Chart extension is being enabled on more wikis. For a detailed list of when the extension will be enabled on your wiki, please read the deployment timeline.
• Wikifunctions will be deployed on May 27 on five Wiktionaries: Hausa, Igbo, Bengali, Malayalam, and Dhivehi/Maldivian. This is the second batch of deployment planned for the project. After deployment, the projects will be able to call functions from Wikifunctions and integrate them in their pages. A function is something that takes one or more inputs and transforms them into a desired output, such as adding up two numbers, converting miles into metres, calculating how much time has passed since an event, or declining a word into a case. Wikifunctions will allow users to do that through a simple call of a stable and global function, rather than via a local template.
• Later this week, the Wikimedia Foundation will publish a hub for experiments. This is to showcase and get user feedback on product experiments. The experiments help the Wikimedia movement understand new users, how they interact with the internet and how it could affect the Wikimedia movement. Some examples are generated video, the Wikipedia Roblox speedrun game and the Discord bot.
• View all 29 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, there was a bug with creating an account using the API, which has now been fixed. [3]

Updates for technical contributors

• Gadgets and user scripts that interact with Special:Block may need to be updated to work with the new manage blocks interface. Please review the developer guide for more information. If you need help or are unable to adapt your script to the new interface, please let the team know on the talk page. [4]
• The mw.title object allows you to get information about a specific wiki page in the Lua programming language. Starting this week, a new property will be added to the object, named isDisambiguationPage. This property allows you to check if a page is a disambiguation page, without the need to write a custom function. [5]
• User script developers can use a new reverse proxy tool to load javascript and css from gitlab.wikimedia.org with mw.loader.load. The tool's author hopes this will enable collaborative development workflows for user scripts including linting, unit tests, code generation, and code review on gitlab.wikimedia.org without a separate copy-and-paste step to publish scripts to a Wikimedia wiki for integration and acceptance testing. See Tool:Gitlab-content on Wikitech for more information.
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Meetings and events

• The 12th edition of Wiki Workshop 2025, a forum that brings together researchers that explore all aspects of Wikimedia projects, will be held virtually on 21-22 May. Researchers can register now.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 23:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	Wow, I'm impressed with Chinese characters, which is WP:Today's featured article. Congratulations on reaching FA with such an interesting and complex subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 I've just noticed that your Chinese characters article is today's featured article and I wanted to give you a barnstar for it but @WhatamIdoing beat me to it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 Momentarily logging back in specifically to drop a congratulations here! TFA is a pretty big milestone. Really grateful for and proud of your work here! I'll be back eventually 🤍 Folly Mox (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to thank everyone here for this, and admit I'm just very bad at accepting compliments much of the time, as a factor of appreciating them, so I'm sorry it appeared like I just ignored them. Remsense 🌈 论 00:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Chief executive officer

An article that you have been involved in editing—Chief executive officer—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Legend of 14 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Mass Edit Reversion Campaigns

Your actions give the appearance of being engaged in odd revert campaigns from your mobile phone, instigating edit warring, and includes not giving intelligible and clear explanations for this behavior. This looks to be in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. Please read WP:REVERTRARELY and WP:REV. Each reversion should have a reasonable explanation, nor should it have the appearance of unfair bias.

Please respect other editors. Reversion is not to be used because someone feels like it, just because they don't like something, or as a form of unfair targeting.Wukuendo (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Odd reversion campaign or response to odd addition campaigns is a fairly clear matter of perspective. Like I already told you in edit summary, I see no reason for mention of this little-known language in every possible location where it possibly relevant. It's not WP:DUE, or at least you've made no attempt to demonstrate that it is (i.e. that its mention is of any real relevance to readers, and doesn't amount to advertising.)

(I don't care about that essay, I care about actual site policy. If I wasn't meant to use the revert option, it wouldn't be there, and I'm not required to have the same feelings about being reverted that you do.) Remsense ‥ 论 14:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Your behavior is violating the spirit of Wikipedia: (1) Nearly all of your reversions were without explanation. This is in the record. (2) "I don't care about..." What you personally like or don't like, is not actionable policy of Wikipedia. You are not "Wikipedia's boss or owner" nor are you in the role of an administrator. (3) Disagreements on article details or policy are to be discussed on talk pages with other editors. Preferably, before actions are taken or as the result of consensus. You have ignored doing this, and instead have instigated an edit war, which is on public record. (4) Making accusations against an editor or language, has to be proven, otherwise we can say such things for any language or any page.

Your actions are a violation of the policy on neutrality. Read the article (WP:NPOV) again. "Avoid stating opinions as facts". "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints." Other languages are allowed to be represented. Other editors are allowed to make contributions. If you state the purpose of your massive reversion campaign was because of your opinion about something being "little known", than your actions should be against all such languages. All "lesser known" languages should have been removed, along with an explanation or comment on talk as to why that's so. Your actions look very much like specific targeting, which can be proven.

Lastly, do not violate WP:3RR. You are being repeatedly asked to be reasonable, provide explanations, show specific policy, and get consensus from other editors.Wukuendo (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I gave you an explanation, whether you go out of your way to ignore it or not. If you have questions about how WP:NPOV applies let me know, but don't pretend I didn't give you a reason based in site policy. Primary sources, which are all you've cited, do not demonstrate WP:DUEness of something's inclusion. Stop wasting my time and address the actual concern of why this language mention is relevant for readers, as demonstrated in secondary or tertiary sources about each of these concepts. Otherwise, all you're doing is advertising obscurities and uselessly cluttering up many articles. I don't have to treat that behavior like it's constructive, because it drowns us. Remsense ‥ 论 14:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to but in on someone else's talk page, but I had been considering reverting these edits myself. Wukuendo, the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion of this material. Remsense's edits are standard process here (see WP:BRD), and they are obviously not in violation of any policy. I concur that adding all these references to a language with such a tiny usage share (around 0.19%) is WP:UNDUE. MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

No explanation was given for nearly all of your initial reverts. That's on public record.

Editors are allowed to boldly edit. The onus is on the person reverting the edit and give explanations.

Being neutral, would mean that all so-called "lesser known" languages would have been removed, but no such actions were taken. That can be seen on nearly all articles affected by this behavior. You have given no proof that the languages removed were "lesser" than various others you allow to remain, outside of your opinion.

Doubling down on personal opinion, is not neutrality. We are all equal.Wukuendo (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to also butt in on this talk, but Wujuendo, you got it backwards. You said, "The onus is on the person reverting the edit and give explanations" but WP:ONUS says, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Masterhatch (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

My changes to the articles came with references and explanations. Reverts were initially made without explanation. Then additional reverts were made with an opinion of "little known", without proof, references, and in violation of the policies about neutrality (WP:NPOV). "Opinions are not fact". Objective proof is something like programming language rankings. I'm interested in doing what is fair and ethically correct. Trying to force other editors to capitulate to such bias, is not neutrality or being reasonable.

"We consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" (WP:WEIGHT). GitHub rankings and TIOBE are valid third party neutral sources. Furthermore, the reversions are contesting inclusion of a specific language, reflecting personal opinion and "I don't like", while other languages have no references nor proof of the assertion being made that they are more popular.

None of the articles in question had this special new criteria of needing to be more popular than others listed, in addition to their notability, which looks to be a diversion away from the issue of trying to force personal opinion as policy.Wukuendo (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not the right place to justify the inclusion of V and/or Pony in those various articles. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Significance of V (Vlang) and Pony. NebY (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on the last edit at Decimal separator (indicating they aren't backing down from warnings of this misbehavior), I've blocked them completely for 72 hours. I considered a partial block (from pagespace), but given Wukuendo's current inability to understand BRD, CONSENSUS, ONUS or WEIGHT, I thought it safer to just end involvement altogether at this time. Given Wukuendo's eventual block expiration I'd appreciate editors taking the time to make the case at the link NebY has added above. BusterD (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Equality (mathematics) GA review and check-in

@Remsense, It's been a while since you last updated the GA review, and I noticed you've been on and off Wikipedia recently. Last time we talked you said you had a family emergency—Is everything alright? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, I need you to be honest with me here. What's going on? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I was one day late in forecasting when I would be able to edit again, and I was working on the review while doing other edits. Will be done within a couple hours. Remsense ‥ 论 03:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. If you end up needing/wanting more time, that's fine, but PLEASE give me some kind of notice when you do. I feel bad pinging you so often. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Though, I'm mostly surprised there wasn't more feedback. I was expecting to be yelled at more – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense. I don't want to hurt someone, but if you ever have burdensome things in real life and may not responded to the review, you can ask for a second opinion. Hopefully, I can take over the review. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, would a second opinion help you? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

And for @Farkle Griffen, I recommend you should ask WT:GAN and do the similar advice I give to the reviewer. You might want to finish the nomination as soon as possible, and handing this problem to someone else, but I guess you have to wait for the reviewer's respond. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, can I get an update on what's going on? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Desperately trying to get work in on my ultimately unsuccessful entry as the Core Contest was expiring. I meant to ask about one of my points, so here: do you think it would be worth discussing more about concepts pre-Aristotle? Indeed, equally is traditionally a primitive concept, but work I've read on the early history of mathematics is interested in how exactly number itself arises, I'm not sure how directly justified it is though Remsense ‥ 论 00:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Oh, which article were you trying to submit?

My only worry is that it may be hard to source since in my experience, very few sources mention equality explicitly. Though, I suppose we could just use the sources for "number" and assert that it implies equality, like in the Prehistory section of Cardinality. We could also take some bits from the history of geometry for the history of "equality of magnitude".

On that note though, it might be worth making a "Number and maginitude" section. There's two facts that I've wanted to include in the article but couldn't find space for. The fact that "equality of number" is cardinality, and for real numbers, the fact that the statement $\forall \varepsilon >0\,(|a-b|<\varepsilon )$ is equivalent to equality, which makes real numbers extensional objects, similar to sets.

Not sure if this would be enough to fill a section though, or if it's even worth mentioning. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, thoughts? Though, perhaps this conversation should move back to the GA review. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Also, do you think you have an upper limit on when you think you'll be done? The last few have passed, and I do feel bad pinging so often for updates. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-22

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

• A community-wide discussion about a very delicate issue for the development of Abstract Wikipedia is now open on Meta: where to store the abstract content that will be developed through functions from Wikifunctions and data from Wikidata. The discussion is open until June 12 at Abstract Wikipedia/Location of Abstract Content, and every opinion is welcomed. The decision will be made and communicated after the consultation period by the Foundation.

Updates for editors

• Since last week, on all wikis except the largest 20, people using the mobile visual editor will have additional tools in the menu bar, accessed using the new + toolbar button. To start, the new menu will include options to add: citations, hieroglyphs, and code blocks. Deployment to the remaining wikis is scheduled to happen in June.
• The #ifexist parser function will no longer register a link to its target page. This will improve the usefulness of Special:WantedPages, which will eventually only list pages that are the target of an actual red link. This change will happen gradually as the source pages are updated. [6]
• This week, the Moderator Tools team will launch a new filter to Recent Changes, starting at Indonesian Wikipedia. This new filter highlights edits that are likely to be reverted. The goal is to help Recent Changes patrollers identify potentially problematic edits. Other wikis will benefit from this filter in the future.
• Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users will see suggestions of articles for further reading. The feature will be available on both desktop and mobile. Readers of Catalan, Hebrew, and Italian Wikipedias and some sister projects will receive the change between May 21 and mid-June. Readers of other wikis will receive the change later. The goal is to encourage users to read the wikis more. Learn more.
• Some users of the Wikipedia Android app can use a new feature for readers, WikiGames, a daily trivia game based on real historical events. The release has started as an A/B test, available to 50% of users in the following languages: English, French, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Turkish.
• The Newsletter extension that is available on MediaWiki.org allows the creation of various newsletters for global users. The extension can now publish new issues as section links on an existing page, instead of requiring a new page for each issue. [7]
• View all 32 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

• The previously deprecated ipblocks views in Wiki Replicas will be removed in the beginning of June. Users are encouraged to query the new block and block_target views instead.
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Meetings and events

• Wikidata and Sister Projects is a multi-day online event that will focus on how Wikidata is integrated to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. The event runs from May 29 – June 1. You can read the Program schedule and register.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 20:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Decorative?

In the Communism article my edits were reverted and you cited that it's purely decorative but when I look at articles of Nazism and Fascism there are clearly visible images of the ideologies leadership, on that basis is it appropriate for me to add a picture of Karl Marx in the Communism article as he is the founder of the ideology?. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't put those images in those articles either—that someone put content in some other article doesn't mean it's a good idea or one that adheres to site guidelines, either there or elsewhere. Like I said, it seems purely decorative, and guidelines are pretty clear that images should ideally have pertinence and clear value for illustrating aspects of the article subject. By talk page, I meant Talk:Communism and Talk:Democracy so others who care to weigh in regarding the article can see and do so. Remsense ‥ 论 10:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Remsense. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 06:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Citation styles in Book of Revelation

I've been trying to get a discussion going in the talk page of the article Book of Revelation about choosing the citation style. I don't know where you stand on the issue, but I would like to get your input since you are one of the more experienced editors on Wikipedia and you edited the article recently. 66.215.184.32 (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Prolific Nyam Nyam Tiger vandal

FYI, that same user Special:Contributions/Nyam Nyam Tiger who just indiscriminately trashed a number of the articles on Chinese characters is also making constant section blanking and indiscriminate deletion edits from this IPv6 block: Special:Contributions/2603:8000:e800:5f4e::/64

Same pattern of removing entire paragraphs or sections based on a couple existing CN tags (which were often intended to apply only to a sentence or two), and as you mentioned before, a bot could do that kind of mass editing, but such a bot isn't wanted here or it would have been deployed by now. And I really don't think Wikipedia should be taking advice on how to rip apart articles from someone whose main productive contributions here seem to all be in (*checks notes and contibutions pages*) articles about children's TV cartoons. 71.2.163.69 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I was just typing up another ANI post when they got hit with a 31-hour block from SFR. I'll go and file it in the likely event they reappear. Remsense ‥ 论 14:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Why did you revert an edit made by SoojinHD219134star at the article List of potentially habitable exoplanets? You undid that of a registered user WITHOUT giving any explanation in the edit summary. Unsource? Redundancy? Undue? Masqueraded vandalism? No reasons were given.2402:800:62C2:9575:4D3:DD62:894A:46AC (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It wouldn't be vandalism, but I would assume that it being unsourced led to one of the reasons of why, its always good to cite things and follow Wikipedia's WP:MOS (and policy) to prevent deletions. Anything not properly sourced may be challenged. I cant speak for them but that's what I think.

Not everything that isn't cited would be deleted though. JamesEMonroe (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Evolution

[8] sorry but what is "dogmating"? And am I wrong in trying to adhere to WP:SD40? it's lio! | talk | work 12:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh goodness that was a bad typo on my part, I meant to write "dogmatic", my apologies.

Remsense ‥ 论 12:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As for your second question, the consensus for SD40 is actually pretty weak, if you look at the corresponding talk page you'll find a lot of exasperation and friction caused by editors (including past me) variously losing sight of the basic purpose of short descriptions in favor of making them strictly adhere to criteria of form or length. A short SD that doesn't aid readers trying to navigate to the article they want is categorically worse than a long one that does. Remsense ‥ 论 12:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense: got it, I've always believed that SD40 was based on the truncation of long short descriptions due to technical restrictions. it's lio! | talk | work 05:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh and this as well - I wouldn't call an excerpt from the lede "totally useless". What about just removing "mechanism of evolution" since it's not in the first sentence? it's lio! | talk | work 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No reply so I've gone ahead with this. it's lio! | talk | work 05:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

[Talk page stalker]: Hm, not at all sure that's a good idea, as it's core to the concept. Will revisit the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap A lot of things can be "core to the concept" - what matters is the most essential part of the description, which should logically be at the very front of the lede. I'm not going to push it though, feel free to revert. Have a great day, it's lio! | talk | work 09:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but in this case evolution-by-natural-selection is definitely the core concept, and in Darwin's thought up to 1859 the two parts can barely be separated; clearly, with sexual selection and drift, other mechanisms can now be visualised and the individual moving parts can more clearly be distinguished. For a short summary, the initial Siamese-twins pair need to be presented as one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I started a community consensus at the KJV talk page

I think the .txt file, if it could be archived, would be great as an alternative download with only 4.08 MB of space, I don't know, I just wanted to make a contribution. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you posted a reply at the KJV talk page, I will talk with you there. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced content

I see that you and another user have reverted my contributions that are mainly about removing unsourced content. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what I’m doing. Obviously Wikipedia recommends that we cite our content for authenticity. If a content gets tagged with "citation need", then the content’s authenticity is in doubt. I do agree that tagged content should be given a chance to be cited, but some of them remain that way into perpetuity which would necessitate removal. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me be as clear as possible. No, "citation needed" merely means just that: that a citation is needed, so that readers know where they can learn more. If someone actually has particular doubts about the correctness of content, they'd tag it instead with {{dubious}} or {{disputed}}—or more likely, they would simply remove it on the spot.

If you insist on these misinterpretations of how Wikipedia works going forward, the resulting disruption you cause will certainly result in additional blocks, and probably an indefinite block sooner rather than later. Remsense ‥ 论 15:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I will note that uncited material, whether or not it is tagged, is always open to removal. There are some exceptions there - for instance if it's lede text where the citation exists in the body - but it's not policy uncompliant to remove uncited text and if it is restored then it should be restored with a citation. Or with an explanation of why the citation is not required.

However it's also not a requirement to remove it and an editor who believes citations exist will often put a CN tag on it specifically to remind editors to look for a possible citation. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's acceptable for an editor to get a bee in their bonnet and decide themselves that uncited content is no longer permitted on Wikipedia. Again, the difference is whether an editor actually uses any discernment, as you'd happily agree meatbotting isn't ever acceptable conduct, and this is essentially a case of that. This isn't really relevant when looking at individual cases, but it's likely to be totally clear when observing greater patterns of behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 15:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you're saying looking over the associated edit history. It's one thing to do a thorough read of an article, note stale CN tags and determine whether they are, in fact, unsupported by sources. It's another thing altogether to do what looks likely bot-assisted filter-searches on the tags and then randomly deleting the material. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Opinion on Equality (mathematics) so far?

Aside from formalities in the review, what's your opinion on the article? It'd be nice to get some feedback from another editor, and you're the only one so far I know who's read it. Since it's the first article I've really worked on, and I was more-or-less the only one editing the article for a while, I have no clue how it comes off to other readers. Were there details you really liked? Hated?

Do you think it could have a shot at being a FA? or is that a long ways away... – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I have thoughts foolishly withheld so far while I tweak, but in short I think it does a great job! Sorry I've been so quiet in expressing my actual thoughts Remsense ‥ 论 16:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm circling back around tonight, and then I'll type up the notes I was taking on paper that I was going to do when finishing the review—but obviously that's not ideal especially here. Remsense ‥ 论 16:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Out of curiosity... when does "tonight" start for you? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Imminently! I was just thinking about suggestions that aren't necessary for the review but I hope you'll appreciate? I'm much more amateur with mathematics than other topics I've worked on, so I hope you'll bear with me. :) Remsense ‥ 论 00:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course! I'm just excited is all. And hopefully the article was simple enough then—my biggest worry was WP:Technical. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, Dedhert.Jr did offer to give a second opinion above, if you think it'd make the review easier for the math-heavy portions. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, You're a bit of a tease, you know that? That's not an insult, it just keeps happening. If you get a chance, I'd like some kind of timeline. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a mess. Let me just get the damned spot check over with, and then I can keep working on the article because it's clearly fine. No more disappearing, I'm going to do it right now. I stopped apologizing because it felt quite bad to do until it was over it. Remsense 🌈 论 02:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Happy pride month btw – Farkle Griffen (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, THANK YOU!! This is so cool! And, for what it's worth, I accept your apologies. Although, if you'd like to make it up to me, I would still like your opinion. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi

My Edit on Larry Bird was Reverted and was tagged as vandalism, wanted to know why. Destinyokhiria (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Because I was totally careless and mixed up your edit with the one you reverted. Sorry! Remsense ‥ 论 00:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, No Problem 😊 Destinyokhiria (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know so I could fix my mistake. Remsense ‥ 论 00:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

😊 Destinyokhiria (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Etymology of biology

Hi. You reverted the whole section. Why? First, let me say that many, many similar articles include an etymology section: examples Sociology#Etymology, Philosophy#Etymology, Astronomy#Etymology, among so many. Second, in this case it's valuable, because it is a widespread misconception (mentioned in thousand of books and websites) that Lamarck coined the term, even though it was coined two years prior. Wikipedia is a great way to set the record straight --Jbaranao (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Many articles have a top-level Etymology section that don't need one. It should be a brief parenthetical statement at most. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Remsense ‥ 论 21:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. If an etymology is section is needed (if, say, there's some usual story to a term's history) then it should usually be the article's last section. Starting the article with an etymology is like saying to the reader, "You may as well stop reading now. This article is full of useless junk you don't care about." EEng 23:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not what I see all around, but ok, I will add it at the bottom --Jbaranao (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

But please note, I said it belongs at the bottom (or, at least, not at the top except in unusually situations) -- if it belongs at all. There has to be some special reason that the etymology somehow helps the reader understand the topic itself. EEng 20:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

reverted edit on sparta

Dear Remsense, I saw you reverted my spelling edit on the page of Sparta. Could you help let me know the reason for the revert? Im a pretty new editor and im hoping to improve my edit quality. kind regards! SarahSmithLay (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

There weren't any spelling corrections in your edit. I also linked you to an essay explaining why use of would should be limited in most circumstxances. Remsense ‥ 论 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The /32 you reported at AIV

They have announced themself as PVR in the past few days, which is probably why they're following you around. You can see a few other user talk pages he's been hanging out on (me, it's me, I'm the one), and maybe why Sir Sputnik blocked user talk space edits. Izno (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear! Thank you—I wouldn't've suspected I had done enough to end up in their crosshairs, but here we are. Remsense ‥ 论 03:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

To answer the question from your AIV post, limiting the range block to just the user talk pages was not a mistake. I was specifically going after PVR's WP:PROXYING attempts. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I figured! Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 23:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Etymology of Epistemology

@Remsense: Hello—hope you’re well. I noticed that my recent edit to the “Etymology” section on Epistemology was reverted. Could you please clarify which parts were deemed undue or redundant? I agree that some details may have been excessive, but I believe a concise etymology is appropriate since many encyclopedias include such sections. I’m happy to shorten or reframe the content—removing overly detailed explanations—while preserving a brief summary of the Greek roots and nineteenth-century coinage. Any guidance on how to align the contribution with Wikipedia’s style would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and feedback. Bahadur Tufang (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In other words, the article Epistemology is not about the word "epistemology", but about the concept it refers to. It's not typically a core concern for our readers to go into much detail restricted to the domain of linguistics and lexicography when weighing what information is most important for our readers who generally most want to read about philosophy. Remsense ‥ 论 09:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Being a Philology and linguistic enthusiast I extended the etymology section. Could you please guide me what should i do instead Bahadur Tufang (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

To me the article is clearly fine as it is, and further discussion of the etymology of "epistemology" shouldn't be added. Doing so would put unearned emphasis on a particularly narrow aspect of the subject discussed by scholarship from a relatively disjunct discipline—especially at the top of the article which affords it even more pride of place. Remsense ‥ 论 09:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bahadur Tufang, I think you might be interested in Wiktionary, where a correct, complete, and carefully cited wikt:Wiktionary:Etymology section is welcome for every word. They really need help. I suggest starting at the wikt:Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium, where the most knowledgeable editors can usually be found. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance Bahadur Tufang (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

2025 Core Contest Finished!

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Tech News: 2025-23

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

• The Chart extension is now available on all Wikimedia wikis. Editors can use this new extension to create interactive data visualizations like bar, line, area, and pie charts. Charts are designed to replace many of the uses of the legacy Graph extension.

Updates for editors

• It is now easier to configure automatic citations for your wiki within the visual editor's citation generator. Administrators can now set a default template by using the _default key in the local MediaWiki:Citoid-template-type-map.json page (example diff). Setting this default will also help to future-proof your existing configurations when new item types are added in the future. You can still set templates for individual item types as they will be preferred to the default template. [9]
• View all 20 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

• Starting the week of June 2, bots logging in using action=login or action=clientlogin will fail more often. This is because of stronger protections against suspicious logins. Bots using bot passwords or using a loginless authentication method such as OAuth are not affected. If your bot is not using one of those, you should update it; using action=login without a bot password was deprecated in 2016. For most bots, this only requires changing what password the bot uses. [10]
• From this week, Wikimedia wikis will allow ES2017 features in JavaScript code for official code, gadgets, and user scripts. The most visible feature of ES2017 is async/await syntax, allowing for easier-to-read code. Until this week, the platform only allowed up to ES2016, and a few months before that, up to ES2015. [11]
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Meetings and events

• Scholarship applications to participate in the GLAM Wiki Conference 2025 are now open. The conference will take place from 30 October to 1 November, in Lisbon, Portugal. GLAM contributors who lack the means to support their participation can apply here. Scholarship applications close on June 7th.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 23:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Mao’s portrait

Hey Remsense, I checked the archives of Mao’s article looking for the consensus for the image currently used and couldn’t find it, and the image currently used wasn’t included in the options voted on.

It seems like 1950A won the vote, but that doesn’t seem to be the photo used, and I’m not seeing where the decision to use the 1957 image was made. If I’m missing where that decision was made please let me know. Bagabondo (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The RM

Holocaust falls under APL and EE. APL is ecr per the list you gave. I was just trying to be helpful and do what needs to be done. Would you be ok with a self revert? Mikewem (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The page does not fall under APL to my understanding, nor should it. If it did, others very likely would've been pruning non-EC contributors to the discussion like in others subject to the APL ECR sanction. Remsense 🌈 论 03:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I should’ve started with hello and how are you. Pleasantries, etc.

Are you asking me to present WP evidence that The Holocaust involves antisemitism in Poland? Mikewem (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you very much for your level-headedness. Remsense 🌈 论 03:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s all because I’m secretly hoping to convert you to the “the” side. (Kidding, of course!)(or am I?)

But seriously, it’s a huge task to do this work all through text. Things happen. Ls sometimes look like Is. I’m always happy to see a positive resolution to temporary hiccups. Thanks for your commitment to the project, and happy editing. Mikewem (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)