User talk:Remsense

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

March music

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving article quality in March! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today Jörg Streli, an architect to whom you can listen (in German, though) and the Jahrhundertring, nominated for GA (both hidden on the main page) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your reversion of my edit

Hello,

In response to your statement that American English allows for "towards" in addition to "toward," I wholeheartedly believe that as well. However, many reliable sources (including Merriam Webster, the foremost American dictionary, and Grammarly) state that the latter is generally preferred—even if not necessarily prescribed—so why is it that we are not to go with it?

Thanks, Solo4701 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere like Wikipedia, I would point immediately to the principle of WP:COMMONALITY as key to our survival: conventions like ENGVAR should be conceptualized as aiming to reduce the total possible surface area for confusion and dispute, not ever potentially making it even more fractal and granular, as potentially jutting up stumbling blocks where none actually need to be. Remsense ‥ 论 04:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking by the way—I appreciate the attention to detail, I really do. FWIW, I've started a discussion here if you want to chime in. Remsense ‥ 论 04:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I may provide input when I have more time and have reviewed the corresponding articles; my preconception is that we simply ought to ensure consistency in a regionally apposite manner (otherwise, how else?), a principle by which the Andrew Jackson article—among others—fails to abide. Solo4701 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English-language sources)#Graphemes

How is the tweaking of the wording going? 216.58.25.209 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely slipped my mind, thanks for your patience & for reminding me. Remsense ‥ 论 23:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps copyediting could be based off of the version I just reinstated. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Just wanted to say that I greatly appreciate your work on WP. :D Double sharp (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can be bad at taking compliments (apologies to others for previous barnstars I haven't shown adequate appreciation for, while I'm thinking about it) but I really do appreciate it. You're a particularly esteemed colleague to me, so I have to admit it's particularly validating. Remsense ‥ 论 18:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(o_O) That's quite some praise! Sorry for being just as awkward in my reaction. And yeah, we do seem to encounter each other a lot on WP, probably thanks to similar interests. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text (literary theory) reverts

Here's my problem. If I look at the article history I can see you went over the 3RR ([1],[2],[3],[4]) and, if I wanted to use administrator discretion I could have blocked you from editing the article as well. (To be clear, I'm not going to because that would not help the encyclopedia). More to the point, arguing over the linking of the word writing in the article is a rather silly and pointless thing to do. In your shoes, I would have probably reverted once, and if reverted back, walked away from the article (probably muttering "what a jerk") and done something else in the knowledge that if it was that serious an issue, somebody else would have dealt with it. I'm disappointed not so much that the other party got blocked (I don't agree with the blocking rationale of "not here to build an encyclopedia", it's more "incapable of getting on with others") but that it was over such a silly and pointless tidbit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was their choice to call me that, and I have no apologies about trying to prevent their edit summaries from appearing in peoples' watchlists, even if it wasn't perfectly effective. You already know how divergent we are per the acceptability of their conduct, so I'm not sure what else you want me to tell you: you're the admin and I accept your decisions, having already expressed my criticism of them. Remsense ‥ 论 20:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each to their own I guess. I just shrug this sort of thing off. I see EvergreenFir has now indeffed, and I remember at their RfA they got a little bit of slack from proudly displaying a series of insults hurled at them on their user page. I like that sort of thing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I usually don't care if they insult me directly, but the use of racial slurs is different. That, plus the escalation is tone and IDHT pushed it to an indef. their UTRS request showed even further escalation. I may have been a bit overkill, but the racist stuff deserved a block imo. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, I'm just slightly perplexed at how it ... well, escalated so quickly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you figure it out, please let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 21:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

claims

What new claims? OutsidersInsight (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not my talk page, but instead Talk:Cambodian–Vietnamese War. Remsense ‥ 论 07:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad...

Sorry about the Main Page thing. If I recall, CSDing the Main Page should have been disabled a long time ago, but apparently wasn't on TwinkleMobile. I had no actual intention to do so, as I was under the impression that it had been disabled. I apologize deeply for any trouble this caused you. I should know better, and I am truly sorry. I understand that my actions have consequences, and I take full responsibility for that. Again, I am deeply sorry for the idiotic decision I made. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it would be disabled. Just keep in mind we generally don't make silly things impossible for regular users. Remsense ‥ 论 11:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true

The page isn't protected by "GENSEX" (while woman yes). JacktheBrown (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I'm trying to save you from yourself here. You were told "broadly construed", and unfortunately it immediately made sense to me that you may not have fully internalized what that actually means. Remsense ‥ 论 12:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No user has ever understood what "broadly construed" really means; this was just an attempt to gradually remove me from the encyclopedia (it may happen soon on my own initiative). JacktheBrown (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jack. No one is out to get you. It is in some sense a vague definition, but at the same time if you get sanctioned because you thought a post on Talk:Man comparing the legal sex discrimination in different countries was somehow not covered—that would be completely on you, given it is not even disputable as "broadly construed", that's just blatantly the core of the topic (gender and sex). Again, I'm telling you all this because I don't want you to blatantly shoot yourself in the foot, but you have to work with me here. Remsense ‥ 论 12:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the topic ban, I made a mistake, just one, this one; to clarify. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what did i do?

like i didnt edit anything 2600:480A:4A51:9300:1A68:854F:973F:FE4B (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of degradation

Hello, Remsense

I've noticed an erase you've made on an article I've seen fit to be re-edited. Please explain why have you downgraded my level of editing and erased my work?

Kindly yours KOALANE J.J. JJ Koalane (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what edit summaries are for. Remsense ‥ 论 19:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

You are deleting my edits for no reason I am not a spam, i just did read some articles by carrier and added them to wikipedia 45.247.121.81 (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, briefly mixing up Richard Carrier in my head with another author who isn't someone we want to link from encyclopedia articles. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 21:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you are a good person thank you 45.247.121.81 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nineveh edit

Hi, how are you? I see that you reverted my edits on the Nineveh article. You said that it was because no grammar mistakes were fixed. Can you be specific about what grammar mistakes I introduced? PotatoKugel (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, because I made another (ugh) mistake there. Remsense ‥ 论 01:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PotatoKugel (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it!

I realized "spelt" was valid in British English as soon as I committed the MOS edit. You beat me to the revert though! Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Min968

Once again, thank you very much for helping me get back and your suggestions have also helped me a lot. I intended to give you a barnstar but didn't know which one to choose, so I'm writing this thank you note instead. Respectfully. Min968 (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

meiji restoration infobox picture

hi!! i just wanted to clarify that my purpose for changing the infobox picture wasn't undertaken 100% independently or without consideration for other editors' involvement in the project. the main points of my reasoning can be found on the article's talk page, after a couple of weeks of waiting and receiving no objections i decided to change the picture. i admit this was maybe still a little too fast, but i didn't really see how the previous picture was at all illustrative of the restoration process in fact. but please raise any objections, i would rather establish a proper consensus about what to use in, and how to write, the article than impose my vision unilaterally. best wishes!--Plifal (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abdullah I.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chritsopher Columbus "See also" deletion

Dear Sir,

You have twice deleted an addition to the Christopher Columbus page. The addition was placed in the 'See also' section and linked to the directly relevant and internal "Origin Theories of Christopher Columbus". Please explain again your logic as the link in Wikipedia summarising the use of 'See also' fully supports the initial revision.

Truly, Teatree767 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you couldn't read the edit summary very directly pointing you to the reason, my reply here won't help. Remsense ‥ 论 13:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the edit summary but couldn't understand your logic. That is an unhelp response that prevents either inquiry or education. Would appear that you afraid to properly explain yourself. Teatree767 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first two sentences of the guideline section I linked you. Remsense ‥ 论 13:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the talk page in social psychology. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Social psychology#Merge proposal".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Senomo Drines (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute one can have over the contents of articles they have not read. I will not be engaging with this, which would seemingly require additional editors to spend time reading the articles in your stead. Remsense ‥ 论 13:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

Hey i noticed you righfully warned me a couple of days ago for an edit on the Barack Obama page, and i was wondering what your permission status is. is it admin, extended confirmed? or what?

IDK how to read (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Our policies and guidelines are community enforced, and administrators have a purely technical role of actually clicking some of the buttons. Remsense ‥ 论 17:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i know and i agnowlege that what i did was wrong, i just want to know how you warned me without admin. IDK how to read (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to apologize, it's enough that you are receptive to communications. There's a tool called Twinkle that allows editors to send these standardized messages. Happy editing. Remsense ‥ 论 17:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-12

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

Twice a year, around the equinoxes, the Wikimedia Foundation's Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) team performs a datacenter server switchover, redirecting all traffic from one primary server to its backup. This provides reliability in case of a crisis, as we can always fall back on the other datacenter. Thanks to the Listen to Wikipedia tool, you can hear the switchover take place: Before it begins, you'll hear the steady stream of edits; Then, as the system enters a brief read-only phase, the sound stops for a couple of minutes, before resuming after the switchover. You can read more about the background and details of this process on the Diff blog. If you want to keep an ear out for the next server switchover, listen to the wikis on March 19 at 14:00 UTC.

Updates for editors

The improved Content Translation tool dashboard is now available in 10 Wikipedias and will be available for all Wikipedias soon. With the unified dashboard, desktop users can now: Translate new sections of an article; Discover and access topic-based article suggestion filters (initially available only for mobile device users); Discover and access the Community-defined lists filter, also known as "Collections", from wiki-projects and campaigns.
On Wikimedia Commons, a new system to select the appropriate file categories has been introduced: if a category has one or more subcategories, users will be able to click on an arrow that will open the subcategories directly within the form, and choose the correct one. The parent category name will always be shown on top, and it will always be possible to come back to it. This should decrease the amount of work for volunteers in fixing/creating new categories. The change is also available on mobile. These changes are part of planned improvements to the UploadWizard.
The Community Tech team is seeking wikis to join a pilot for the Multiblocks feature and a refreshed Special:Block page in late March. Multiblocks enables administrators to impose multiple different types of blocks on the same user at the same time. If you are an admin or steward and would like us to discuss joining the pilot with your community, please leave a message on the project talk page.
Starting March 25, the Editing team will test a new feature for Edit Check at 12 Wikipedias: Multi-Check. Half of the newcomers on these wikis will see all Reference Checks during their edit session, while the other half will continue seeing only one. The goal of this test is to see if users are confused or discouraged when shown multiple Reference Checks (when relevant) within a single editing session. At these wikis, the tags used on edits that show References Check will be simplified, as multiple tags could be shown within a single edit. Changes to the tags are documented on Phabricator. [5]
The Global reminder bot, which is a service for notifying users that their temporary user-rights are about to expire, now supports using the localized name of the user-rights group in the message heading. Translators can see the listing of existing translations and documentation to check if their language needs updating or creation.
The GlobalPreferences gender setting, which is used for how the software should refer to you in interface messages, now works as expected by overriding the local defaults. [6]
View all 26 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the Wikipedia App for Android had a bug fixed for when a user is browsing and searching in multiple languages. [7]

Updates for technical contributors

Later this week, the way that Codex styles are loaded will be changing. There is a small risk that this may result in unstyled interface message boxes on certain pages. User generated content (e.g. templates) is not impacted. Gadgets may be impacted. If you see any issues please report them. See the linked task for details, screenshots, and documentation on how to fix any affected gadgets.
Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

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

MediaWiki message delivery 23:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Only up as I ant sleep, tomorrow. They are on my watchlist Doug Weller talk 22:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do ants sleep, anyway? Or do they sleep? E Eng 07:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do, in micro-doses. CMD (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

You get enough flak for reverts as-is, so how about a constructive idea instead: this revert was kinda correct, but not because it didn't have an edit summary – "Perestroika" is already mentioned earlier in the article, so it would be best to link it in the body and remove it from the See also per MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN. Toadspike [Talk] 15:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the change. Toadspike [Talk] 15:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO COMPLAIN AGAINST MY DISRUPTIVE EDITING, ESPECIALLY THEODOSIUS I, EASTERN ROMAN EMPEROR

Greetings, Remsense. I am Madamrose1965, an (Redacted) editor with a passion in history ( not occupation but editing what is incorrect ). I have seen your complain against my disruptive editing, especially at Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius I. I understand that disruption is very annoying but I will also not refrain from declaring that it is my right to correct what is wrong, especially at pages regarding Eastern personalities and else. If u have any issue then go to wikipedia authorities and ask them to correct their laws. Because it is everyones right to have right information as a member of wikipedia authority tweeted in response to the current Turkish Presidents policies and undoubtedly it is. I am young and inexperienced if any mistake is done guide me as u may be experienced and older than me. Madamrose1965 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social psychology (sociology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Identity theory.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name change at Republic of Cuba (1902–1959)

Hey @Remsense there is a name change discussion at Republic of Cuba (1902–1959), and I think you'd find it interesting. Give it a look, and leave a vote if you can. Mangokeylime (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-13

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 Wikimedia Foundation is seeking your feedback on the drafts of the objectives and key results that will shape the Foundation's Product and Technology priorities for the next fiscal year (starting in July). The objectives are broad high-level areas, and the key-results are measurable ways to track the success of their objectives. Please share your feedback on the talkpage, in any language, ideally before the end of April.

Updates for editors

The CampaignEvents extension will be released to multiple wikis (see deployment plan for details) in April 2025, and the team has begun the process of engaging communities on the identified wikis. The extension provides tools to organize, manage, and promote collaborative activities (like events, edit-a-thons, and WikiProjects) on the wikis. The extension has three tools: Event Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation Lists. It is currently on 13 Wikipedias, including English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and Spanish Wikipedia, as well as Wikidata. Questions or requests can be directed to the extension talk page or in Phabricator (with #campaigns-product-team tag).
Starting the week of March 31st, wikis will be able to set which user groups can view private registrants in Event Registration, as part of the CampaignEvents extension. By default, event organizers and the local wiki admins will be able to see private registrants. This is a change from the current behavior, in which only event organizers can see private registrants. Wikis can change the default setup by requesting a configuration change in Phabricator (and adding the #campaigns-product-team tag). Participants of past events can cancel their registration at any time.
Administrators at wikis that have a customized MediaWiki:Sidebar should check that it contains an entry for the Special pages listing. If it does not, they should add it using * specialpages-url|specialpages. Wikis with a default sidebar will see the link moved from the page toolbox into the sidebar menu in April. [8]
The Minerva skin (mobile web) combines both Notice and Alert notifications within the bell icon (). There was a long-standing bug where an indication for new notifications was only shown if you had unseen Alerts. This bug is now fixed. In the future, Minerva users will notice a counter atop the bell icon when you have 1 or more unseen Notices and/or Alerts. [9]
View all 23 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

VisualEditor has introduced a new client-side hook for developers to use when integrating with the VisualEditor target lifecycle. This hook should replace the existing lifecycle-related hooks, and be more consistent between different platforms. In addition, the new hook will apply to uses of VisualEditor outside of just full article editing, allowing gadgets to interact with the editor in DiscussionTools as well. The Editing Team intends to deprecate and eventually remove the old lifecycle hooks, so any use cases that this new hook does not cover would be of interest to them and can be shared in the task.
Developers who use the mw.Api JavaScript library, can now identify the tool using it with the userAgent parameter: var api = new mw.Api( { userAgent: 'GadgetNameHere/1.0.1' } );. If you maintain a gadget or user script, please set a user agent, because it helps with library and server maintenance and with differentiating between legitimate and illegitimate traffic. [10][11]
Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

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

MediaWiki message delivery 22:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hm

Was this a misclick or do you know something I don't? Or both. Polygnotus (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All (save for possibly Wimbledon) were over- or re-linking. Remsense ‥ 论 06:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with adding list of attendees of the First Council of Nicaea?

An academic source and two primary sources from 1898 and 1939 of authors which worked with originals were cited. The originals are from the 6-13 centuries. User3810486 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of verifiability. There's very little utility in an exhaustive list for the average reader: if they want such a list, they would consult some source other than an encyclopedia article. Remsense ‥ 论 22:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could have made a drop down list instead of deleting the entire entry which took effort to complete. I intend on doing that please refrain from deleting verified and interesting information as you alone should not be judge of what the average reader needs. User3810486 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we generally do not allow collapsing such elements by default, cf. WP:NOHIDE. That serves to emphasize my point—if it's not worth showing to the general readership in full, it might not be worth including in a generalist encyclopedia article. Remsense ‥ 论 23:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the list is very relevant information otherwise why would they publish it in 1898 and try to sort it out in 1939? I will be adding information on the lists as the numbers range from approximately 170 to 320 (Latin, Greek, Coptic, Arabic, Armenian) lets see if that is to your liking and relevance. Regarding the list itself I urge you to think about it, it shows the presence of early Christianity in Asia Minor and Middle East, something which is no longer. User3810486 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think literally any list of any 200 individuals is vital information on an encyclopedia article. I know what you could maybe do: perhaps you could transfer this over to a page on Wikiversity as an educational resource, and then you could put a link to it in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 23:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably that is what I will do. I still strongly disagree with you, its not just "any list" and I assure you many people would be interested in who was present as much as they are interested in the process and the outcome. It is a wonder the lists survived in the first place. User3810486 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I really do—and I appreciate you engaging with me in good faith about it. Everyone's fallible, but part of what I've learned editing an encyclopedia is how best to serve readers that may only spend five, even two minutes skimming a given article. Remsense ‥ 论 23:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In similar cases (because it is not unusual), the problem has been resolved by creating a separate List of attendees of the First Council of Nicaea article. That's the beauty of a hypertext encyclopedia: people who want the detail can drill down to get it, those who don't need it (now) don't have to wade through that detail. wp:Think of the reader, the majority of whom are using mobile phones. So I suggest you create the list article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC) (talk page watcher)[reply]

He Jiankui

Hey there, saw you reverted my entry on List of Chinese inventions due to the source being weak, I've added it back with a stronger source. Please let me know if this should suffice. Aeviternity1 (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have cited a paper by a lawyer, so I'm not really sure why she would be a reliable source to characterize technical breakthroughs in genetic engineering. Really, it's mostly a bioethics paper. Your addition really seems a bit misplaced, if that makes sense. Why is this particular incident an "invention"? The closest element to an invention here is CRISPR, which was first disclosed by a team working out of UC Berkley in 2012. Remsense ‥ 论 23:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what you mean, these two citation would probably be best: https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2019/07000/genetically_modified_babies_and_a_first.23.aspx

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6813942/

But towards your greater point, as for its characterization as an "invention" or not, I think the case is strong that human germline engineering represents a landmark invention. It utilizes CRISPR technology for a novel purpose and applying CRISPR to humans is not a simple cut and paste of the processes used on other animals. From the mid 2010s onwards scientists have been developing human germline editing and their initially poor success rates transferring intended genetic material to embryos is testament to the challenges of adapting CRISPR to humans. In He Jiankui's case, he successfully (and highly unethically) combined CRISPR with assisted reproductive techniques to achieve heritable genetic modifications, though with mosaicism. If that doesn't seem significant on its own then perhaps the successful non-viable human embryo edits achieved by other teams in China in 2015 or 2017 should be chosen instead? But seeing as the development of human germline editing has almost entirely been by scientists based out of China, an entry of some sort seems warranted. I'm just unsure which milestone to pick. Aeviternity1 (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Penny for your thoughts? Aeviternity1 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea of what that could look like:

Human germline engineering: In 2015, researchers led by Puping Liang used CRISPR/Cas9 to edit non‑viable human embryos—an early step that demonstrated the viability of HGE.^[1] This was followed by a more successful attempt in 2017 from another team in China.^[2] The field reached a controversial milestone with He Jiankui’s experiment, in which he produced the world’s first gene‐edited babies, igniting fierce ethical debates and calls for tighter regulations.^[3]^[4]

Let me know if you feel this entry addresses your concerns. Aeviternity1 (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will delete this after you get the chance to respond so the references don't gum up your talk space. Aeviternity1 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be making our own original deductions about what constitutes an invention. If reliable secondary sources characterize something as an invention, and as being invented in China, then it may be due for inclusion. Remsense ‥ 论 15:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Aeviternity1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, Lv J, Xie X, Chen Y, Li Y, Sun Y, Bai Y, Songyang Z, Ma W, Zhou C, Huang J (May 2015). "CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes". Protein & Cell. 6 (5): 363–372. doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5. PMC 4417674. PMID 25894090.
^ Tang L, Zeng Y, Du H, Gong M, Peng J, Zhang B, Lei M, Zhao F, Wang W, Li X, Liu J (June 2017). "CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human zygotes using Cas9 protein". Molecular Genetics and Genomics. 292 (3): 525–533. doi:10.1007/s00438-017-1299-z. PMID 28251317. S2CID 16358211.
^ Rose, Bruce I.; Brown, Samuel (2019-07). "Genetically Modified Babies and a First Application of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR-Cas9)". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 134 (1): 157–162. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003327. ISSN 0029-7844. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Greely, Henry T. (2019-08-13). "CRISPR'd babies: human germline genome editing in the 'He Jiankui affair'". Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 6 (1): 111–183. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsz010. ISSN 2053-9711. PMC 6813942. PMID 31666967.

Hello Remsense

Just a question by pure curiosity. What is the advantage, for Wikipedia and for readers, of having a map of the Germanic peoples and Europe in 476 that does not show the Warnes, the Langobards, the Heruls and the Romance languages, rather than a map that shows them? How is having less information more interesting? Thank you! 2A01:CB1C:82C7:7700:7057:A386:DEB1:9E0A (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to the replacement of File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png with File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.jpg. Firstly, the obvious answer is that added information isn't free and depending on the article a reader may or may not find the added elements to be of little to no relevance. That's not why I undid the swaps, though—the issue is visible in the file name. It's not acceptable to render such a map as a JPEG, where particularly damaging lossy compression is introduced for no benefit. If you still have the source files, I recommend rendering and reuploading the newer version as a PNG, like the original. Remsense ‥ 论 14:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

You violated the 3RR rule here:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282495007 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282494246 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282493783

Please take back your final revert. 2601:2C1:8500:7D50:458D:9DE2:A398:B63D (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reread WP:3RR, and then please read WP:ONUS and WP:OR. Remsense ‥ 论 19:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for edit warring. 2601:2C1:8500:7D50:458D:9DE2:A398:B63D (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste their time because you misread the policy. Remsense ‥ 论 19:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKILAWYERING. WP:3RR is not an explicit guideline every editor must follow. The whole point of the rule is meant to stop edit warring, not perpetuate it. Asking Remsense to take back their revert goes against the spirit of that policy. Senomo Drines (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this is the wrong way of looking at 3RR, IMO. Wikipedia:Edit warring is absolutely a policy page. 3RR makes totally clear that expected admin discretion for an edit warring block essentially drops to zero—if I violate 3RR and get blocked for it, that is entirely the fault of my own discretion and not the blocking admin's.

Given that the mechanism within intended to throw cold water on edit warring, any instance where editors stop reverting each other is a success. I ask others to self-revert depending on what article state seems best to work from in the ensuing discussion. Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays

"Nowadays" because the very notion of "number theory" applied to Babylon is arguably an anachronism. Garald (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two points I can think of: the word nowadays is informal and encyclopedic in tone—and it is unnecessary to anchor the concept to the present; whatever qualifications are made should closely mirror what the source actually says. We all get frustrated while editing, but it's worth noting your edit summaries are particularly incivil, so I'm asking in the pending discussion that you please relax a bit. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at Muhammad in Islam

Hi Remsense, I saw you reverted an editor due to suspected AI use. If you use WP:Twinkle, it has a notice in the options you can leave an editor about using AI/LLM. Based on your revert, I left that editor a note which you can see on their talk page. S0091 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I typically do leave precisely that message. This time I didn't, so thanks for reminding me. Remsense ‥ 论 19:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! S0091 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content at Timurid Dynasty

Hi, an IP address has added content that is unsourced and cannot be verified, hence please take appropriate action as per WP:BLP and WP:V. You have reverted many times the Timurid Dynasty, so I decided to let you know, so that you can take action. ⚡ VortexPhantom ⚡ (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland

You reverted my change of "least densely populated region" to country with the comment that "it is not". I hope have shown clearly on the talk page that it is a country (tho I have no problem with the more exact designation of 'autonomous territory' in the introduction. You haven't commented so I will tomorrow undo your reversion, because the article is clearly wrong at this point. Antarctica is 7 times the size and has one tenth the population, few of them permanent. Either neither or both can be described as 'regions'. If you can justify your argument, please do. Chris55 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have to agree with Chris. See also Scotland, which is a country despite being far more integrated with the rest of the (British) United Kingdom than is Greenland with the rest of the Kingdom of Denmark. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC) (talk page watcher)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

CS1 error on Truth

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Whatever. IP was witchhunting links down and applicating enwiki rules onto other independent communities without proper discussion regarding its reliability. A09|(talk) 15:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it! I just want to make sure we don't re-add a source where one may Find Out How to go to heaven etc. Remsense ‥ 论 15:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Gear & Oar

Per your statement, "You writing it out must make pretty explicit in your mind that that's not the same thing, not even close. This article isn't "list of technology with earliest surviving examples found in China"". This seems pedantic. By your logic, no list of inventions is correct as hypothetically earlier examples could always exist. We work with the evidence that exists, not speculation. No invention claim prior to the modern era would stand up to such conjecture.

"Dates for inventions are often controversial. Sometimes inventions are invented by several inventors around the same time, or may be invented in an impractical form many years before another inventor improves the invention into a more practical form. Where there is ambiguity, the date of the first known working version of the invention is used here."

^From the timeline of historic inventions. I see no reason why the same standard ought not be applied in this situation.

A casual ctrl+f across a few pages uncovers that lists of inventions routinely make mention of "first known" examples:

List of Greek inventions and discoveries-5 entries
List of British inventions and discoveries-2 entries
Timeline of Russian innovation-2 entries

Aeviternity1 (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really is not pedantic—it is maintaining basic stability in what key concepts are and for what key words mean. I'm sure many other articles are plagued by similar confusions, but that is a bad reason—among the worst, really—for why we shouldn't try to do better by bother our sources and our readers for this article. (cf. WP:OTHERCONTENT.) Remsense ‥ 论 19:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is no plague of confusion here. The inclusion of "first known" entries in various lists and timelines of historic inventions is deliberate and not mistaken for two reasons. First, these instances are pertinent to the subjects at hand. Second, it is impossible to prove a negative. "First known" serves as a cautious acknowledgment of the vast expanse of historical data that may have been lost over time. Ultimately, we rely on available evidence rather than unfounded speculation. Aeviternity1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not an invention, it should not be conflated alongside inventions on a purported list of inventions. There are very specific implications that are inherently made by that conflation—you know this, because that's seemingly the point. You feel they are essentially like enough and that's why you want to treat them the same.

I agree—if historical data does not exist, we're not entitled to draw or gesture to conclusions based on what we think the data might've been. We are not qualified to make those analyses. That includes extrapolating our own value judgements and novel comparisons outside what scholars themselves say.

For example, it's perfectly obvious to me, as someone who remains utterly unqualified to conduct original research, that since many gears throughout history have always been made out of wood, that claiming (or here, conflating very deliberately with) an invention based solely on extant metal artifact evidence is shockingly misleading. Remsense ‥ 论 20:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-14

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

Updates for editors

The Editing team is working on a new Edit check: Peacock check. This check's goal is to identify non-neutral terms while a user is editing a wikipage, so that they can be informed that their edit should perhaps be changed before they publish it. This project is at the early stages, and the team is looking for communities' input: in this Phabricator task, they are gathering on-wiki policies, templates used to tag non-neutral articles, and the terms (jargon and keywords) used in edit summaries for the languages they are currently researching. You can participate by editing the table on Phabricator, commenting on the task, or directly messaging Trizek (WMF).
Single User Login has now been updated on all wikis to move login and account creation to a central domain. This makes user login compatible with browser restrictions on cross-domain cookies, which have prevented users of some browsers from staying logged in.
View all 35 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

Starting on March 31st, the MediaWiki Interfaces team will begin a limited release of generated OpenAPI specs and a SwaggerUI-based sandbox experience for MediaWiki REST APIs. They invite developers from a limited group of non-English Wikipedia communities (Arabic, German, French, Hebrew, Interlingua, Dutch, Chinese) to review the documentation and experiment with the sandbox in their preferred language. In addition to these specific Wikipedia projects, the sandbox and OpenAPI spec will be available on the on the test wiki REST Sandbox special page for developers with English as their preferred language. During the preview period, the MediaWiki Interfaces Team also invites developers to share feedback about your experience. The preview will last for approximately 2 weeks, after which the sandbox and OpenAPI specs will be made available across all wiki projects.
Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

Sometimes a small, one line code change can have great significance: in this case, it means that for the first time in years we're able to run all of the stack serving maps.wikimedia.org - a host dedicated to serving our wikis and their multi-lingual maps needs - from a single core datacenter, something we test every time we perform a datacenter switchover. This is important because it means that in case one of our datacenters is affected by a catastrophe, we'll still be able to serve the site. This change is the result of extensive work by two developers on porting the last component of the maps stack over to kubernetes, where we can allocate resources more efficiently than before, thus we're able to withstand more traffic in a single datacenter. This work involved a lot of complicated steps because this software, and the software libraries it uses, required many long overdue upgrades. This type of work makes the Wikimedia infrastructure more sustainable.

Meetings and events

MediaWiki Users and Developers Workshop Spring 2025 is happening in Sandusky, USA, and online, from 14–16 May 2025. The workshop will feature discussions around the usage of MediaWiki software by and within companies in different industries and will inspire and onboard new users. Registration and presentation signup is now available at the workshop's website.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 00:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of antisemitism

Hey there! Two quick things:

The two IPs are both in Ohio, and one is associated with a library.
The talk page banners indicate that the article is protected and is a contentious topic. But it's not protected (~~not sure it needs to be right now~~ actually, looking at the article history, semi-protect might be warranted), and I don't know anything about the designation of contentious topic. Would it be appropriate to give them the "Intro to..." template?

Just in the unlikely chance it makes any difference...

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can disregard this. I think I figured out the contentious topics template stuff. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGA Communism

Just double checking, but to be sure, you did not withdraw your nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGA Communism did you? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm the April fool for completely assuming I was clicking through to an April Fool's joke... Patrick (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has reverted the incorrect close. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[PC-20150418-1] Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, Lv J, Xie X, Chen Y, Li Y, Sun Y, Bai Y, Songyang Z, Ma W, Zhou C, Huang J (May 2015). "CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes". Protein & Cell. 6 (5): 363–372. doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5. PMC 4417674. PMID 25894090.

[2] Tang L, Zeng Y, Du H, Gong M, Peng J, Zhang B, Lei M, Zhao F, Wang W, Li X, Liu J (June 2017). "CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human zygotes using Cas9 protein". Molecular Genetics and Genomics. 292 (3): 525–533. doi:10.1007/s00438-017-1299-z. PMID 28251317. S2CID 16358211.

[3] Rose, Bruce I.; Brown, Samuel (2019-07). "Genetically Modified Babies and a First Application of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR-Cas9)". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 134 (1): 157–162. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003327. ISSN 0029-7844. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[4] Greely, Henry T. (2019-08-13). "CRISPR'd babies: human germline genome editing in the 'He Jiankui affair'". Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 6 (1): 111–183. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsz010. ISSN 2053-9711. PMC 6813942. PMID 31666967.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]