User talk:Remsense

Archives

2015 – Apr 2024 May 2024 Jun–Jul 2024 Aug–Oct 2024 Nov 2024 Dec 2024 Jan 2025 Feb–Mar 2025 Apr–May 2025 Jun 2025

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

Hello, Remsense,

I think I've said this before to you but please do not be so dismissive and condescending to new editors who come to talk pages to talk about articles and ideas. You can't know that an IP editor you talked to months ago on a different talk page is the same person as someone you encountered today. You must do a better job of Assuming Good Faith, especially with new editors, you could literally be chasing people away.

I can see now that if you are ever blocked in the future, it won't be because of problems with your editing but due to problems with civility. Please ease up on cynicism and try to remember the enthusiasm you had as a new editor. All of this here is just asking for an adjustment in your attitude and comes after encounters with you on ANI over the past year. You are generally right, on-the-mark regarding policy but it is the way you talk to other editors that can use some adjusting. Think this is possible? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I know you don't know that they're the same person, but I do know that. I haven't fleshed out the deep-dive exposé as it is a non-trivial exercise, but they don't need me to, given they also know who they are, alongside multiple admins who've had to block them over and over the last several months. You have not done this, but for editors who have happened to have these pages on watchlist they are a well-worn presence by now. They are not subtle, and it is frankly not difficult to identify them once one is familiar (which is an amount of work I don't expect you to automatically do!). They are not welcome here and we shouldn't have to put up with their insidious nonsense they've already wasted so much of our time with. Remsense 🌈 论 05:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is poor request, editors having to deal with long-term proxy disruption need support, not reprobation. CMD (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an unacceptable social dynamic if I were wrong. I know it would be ideal if I could just show the magic collection of three diffs so the connection is obvious at low volume to make things as easy as possible for admins taking a look, but I'm not quite clever enough to identify those diffs, unfortunately! Remsense 🌈 论 05:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock work is tricky because it often relies on significant familiarity of the farm, but that can also lead to undue paranoia. This seems a pretty clear-cut case though, and if you do have a pattern of civility issues as is being alleged, such allegations should come with an example that isn't a response to proxy-jumping. CMD (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't get why the instinct is to go and comfort the IP on their talk in a manner that makes it seem like my concerns are totally vapid and worth ignoring, which is clearly just going to encourage them to wreak further havoc because they'll be more convinced they can get away undetected. All that instead of, say, asking anyone else in the history of any of these pages or the admins in any of these block logs if they have a similar sense of what's going on. I don't mean to turn things around because admining is hard and certainly more stressful than the sock work I find myself having to do sometimes, but I'm really at a loss with the logic here unless the assumption a priori is I'm completely full of it. I make mistakes in this vein, but I think I've earned a bit more than that. Remsense 🌈 论 05:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, Remsense is a god amongst Wikipedians and you should've asked for his permission before you ever tried to make this sad accusation against our Messiah. Axel4301 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Axel4301, well, in reality I make a lot of mistakes on here and sometimes do inconvenience others in their work because I jumped to conclusions. Liz's job is way harder than anything I do on here and I appreciate very much her doing it—I'm glad there are moments in my foibles here that are apparently somewhat aspirational for newer editors. I just wanted to clear things up in what was a mutually stressful heated moment here because it's not necessarily obvious. Remsense 🌈 论 16:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that my edits were reverted. Could you please explain the concerns you had so we can work together to improve the articles. Maybe I missed some rules here? if I missed any guidelines or rules, I’m happy to adjust accordingly Iseeyouu1 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

remsense you have reverted three in a row edits of mine on completely different articles, you better leave me alone or i will revert all your edits Azaad271011 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what is the preffered spelling for Sinology/Sinologist on enwiki (I know both are correct). I was copy-editing an article where I happened to change the lower to upper case, was this alright? Gotitbro (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remsense. I'm following up on the template that you put into the article on Theodicy in December 2023. The template notes a problem with "idiosyncratic tone and presentation, especially in the 'biblical' section". Recently, I completed a general copy edit of this article. Would you have time to take a quick look at the updated version, to determine if the template should remain in place or be removed at this point? - Pac Veten Pac Veten (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit on this article. I previously created a separate article about this, but another editor suggested adding the information to the existing Isaiah article. How do you think I should proceed? Oliwiasocz (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice Uria-Monzon and her story, Julia Hagen and her no story --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Bach's day of death, I decorated my user pages in memory of his music, and my story ends on "peace". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this account making lots of edits to remove compound English, usually to remove "out" from compound terms, e.g., "separate out" (often a synonym for distinguish) by "separate", which does not always mean the same thing. Or "grow out of" to "grow from"(!) I found more than a few instances of changed meaning or unidiomatic changes. Not sure what to do, but seems like your bailiwick: [1]. My inclination is to revert the lot, but it's hundreds of edits in the past few days. Tito Omburo (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tito Omburo is this still an outstanding concern for you? Remsense 🌈 论 17:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone else has stepped in. Thanks! Tito Omburo (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your objection is solely due to the author's stance on World War II, then the passage in question has nothing to do with World War II. It can very well be cited from other historical sources. I'm not aware of whether Wikipedia has banned the use of Taniyama Yūjirō's articles, nor do I know her position on World War II, because what I read was simply her article about the Battle of Baekgang, which has nothing to do with issues like WWII comfort women. It's purely about Japanese domestic history.

So if the concern is only about the author’s stance on WWII, then I will instead cite this source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140822224849/http://www.tosyokan.pref.shizuoka.jp/data/open/cnt/3/50/1/ssr1-7.pdf

  白村江の戦いと廬原氏

The content is essentially the same, and I believe this author does not have a problematic WWII stance. I don’t believe every author of Japanese history books is affiliated with fascist or far-right groups. If this author has no problematic views, then citing this book should not be an issue. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to engage with my concerns, genuinely, but your notion of what I'm saying is a bit disjointed. Denying the historical existence of comfort women, say, entails an almost certain lack of reliability in general for any claims, owing to lack of scholarly scruples, lack of respect from peers in the field, and almost certain material conflict of interest owing to close connections with organizations interested in scholarship lacking scruples. That's how it is when WP:NPOV is core policy. There are exceptions where sources have to be examined with care, but this wasn't one of those cases. Even if the material is unproblematic, it remains a total disservice to our readers to point to a totally unreliable source in order to "verify" it.

I don't read any Japanese, but machine translation tells me this does verify your claims. Feel free to re-add the material to History of Japan while citing this. Again, I appreciate you leveling with me very much. Remsense 🌈 论 19:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I sincerely appreciate your response. Regarding the issue of the source I previously cited, I apologize for referencing content written by an inappropriate author. However, when I cited that source, I was unaware of the author's stance on World War II. I did not know that she was associated with fascist ideologies or a denier of the comfort women issue. What I read was solely her article on the ancient Battle of Baekgang, and from that, I could not discern her position on World War II history.

Therefore, I apologize for having cited that author. The content I added itself was not problematic, so I have now replaced the source. Going forward, I will cite this new source. If this new source does not have any problems regarding its historical stance or academic integrity, I will use it for citation. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Thanks again. Remsense 🌈 论 19:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you explain why you reverted me so I can understand. I'll explain my edit: I believed that the Kingdom of Italy should only be used on infoboxes while the term Fascist Italy should only be used on the body of the article when if it is supported by a reliable source. If you think this needs a concensus. I already went to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history's talk page to consult about this topic. But if there's another option. Could you please tell me? PrimeNick (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't hard and fast rules like that that apply to every article. When one goes out of their way to make what they see as a correction of that kind across many articles, they're acting as if there is broader consensus than there is. It can get pretty disruptive pretty quickly, though of course your good faith is recognized and appreciated. That's a large part of the nature of contributing here. Remsense 🌈 论 05:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look I get it. But was there even a general agreement that we should use Fascist Italy on infoboxes or did I miss something? Thanks. PrimeNick (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any such consensus. As I'm touching on, there probably shouldn't be one. Imposing one over the other simply is not a good use of our time, unless there's real substance to this issue I'm missing. Plenty of WWII sources refer to "Fascist Italy", and I'm sure plenty emphasize the continuity of the monarchy during this time also. Personally, for issues that aren't covered in our guidelines or by clear consensus, WP:PRESERVE is the best approach, even for these kinds of content presentation questions, on articles I haven't done a substantial amount of work on—not to an elitist protectionist end, but merely I generally know what I'm doing and whether there's a clear reason to use one form of a country's name over another. Remsense 🌈 论 03:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like East African Campaign and Greco-Italian war uses the Kingdom of Italy on their respective infoboxes. PrimeNick (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what it means for there to be no consensus is that there is no clear agreement among editors that something should be the case. Different articles making different choices would be considerable evidence of just that, would it not? Again, take a peek at WP:OTHERCONTENT—this is a very common pitfall editors encounter. Remsense 🌈 论 03:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why Were My Edits Reverted? What Is the Issue? Is This Specified in Wikipedia's Guidelines? Ömereditss (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I told you why, please re-read my edit summaries. See: WP:NOTADICTIONARY, MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV Remsense 🌈 论 11:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[4] - DVdm (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I've totally misread the context here, but my understanding is that Zappa is speaking impressionistically there in the way he's wont to, so it would seem potentially misleading to me to reproduce it in wikivoice. I am generally very anti-scare quotes, but here it would seem best to indicate there is a non-literal sense to what he's saying there. Remsense 🌈 论 16:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you point, but I really saw no reason whatsoever for the anon to make that unexplained change. In my opinion there was no problem with the original reading of the source and the way it was worded here. But out mileages may vary. Anyway, no big deal either way . - DVdm (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the passage may do well with another pass to make it clearer for readers? I'd have to read the greater context in the quoted source. Remsense 🌈 论 16:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I don't speak Spanish, so my assessment is done with the aid of machine translation.

Does this place pass WP:N? if not it shouldn't have an ill

Yes, I believe this to be the case based on this subset of the sources cited by the es article:

• periodicovas: 1
• pagina12: 23
• telem: 4

The building is of historical and cultural importance; the BA city legislature passed a bill to make it a protected structure. Three separate media outlets, independent of the building and related organizations, reported on this process: [1] threat of closure/demolition [2] bill presented to legislature [3] restoration plans [4] reopening ceremony (sigcov mostly in second half, due to announcement of other film/TV-related initiatives in speech). Besides reporting on the events, the sources contain some details about the building's history and architecture.

As these were readily available via the es page, I did not see a need to look for additional sources.

If there is no further opposition I would appreciate if you'd self-revert – I prefer to 1RR if possible.
Cheers, 2406:3003:2007:1F3:6DA5:6902:CCB3:DA37 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? 2406:3003:2007:1F3:6DA5:6902:CCB3:DA37 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense where is that specific photo of him considered the "stable consensus"? I can't seem to find any other discussions on this in recent time and the old photo of John Tyler getting changed to his presidential oil painting seems to be the exact same scenario as this. Under striving consistency across articles of similar nature (US presidents), surely that would mean this would change as well? TheCake2001 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Consensus, stability in choices like lead images is often a sign of consensus, though it depends on how much attention the article is getting. It's also vital to understand that most decisions like these should be made to serve each individual article, instead of prioritizing some greater "consistency" whose enforcement across articles can become quite disruptive quite quickly. (See WP:OTHERCONTENT.) On high-traffic, mature biographies like those for US presidents, it's almost always going to be ideal to start a talk page discussion about such a change first, because such prominent elements are often (not always) the way they are for some good reasons, though discussions can always generate new consensuses. Remsense 🌈 论 19:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I'll start a talk page about it now, thanks for the advice. TheCake2001 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

(I reported Azaad271011 for vandalism)

Redacted II (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I warned the most recent IP who reverted your edit over at Connecticut. I’ve noticed it’s been an ongoing edit war. Hopefully that will deter them. But maybe you should request a temporary protection on the page as a next step? Have a good one Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello apologies for my edit, I missed the discussion on the talk page. 🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know you reversed my edit adding CompE as an accepted abbreviation for Computer Engineering, but I’m wondering if you would be willing to give me the go-ahead to add it. It’s a pretty common acronym both when googled or on other internet venues. It’s by far the most common acronym I’ve noticed in my time studying the subject at multiple universities among faculty and students. Retr0r0cketVersion2 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider a reliable source for the Navajo New Year? There are numerous web sources, all of which feel about the same level of "reliable." Chaostar (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Germanic parent language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic parent language until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

– Treetoes023 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, and welcome to the 27th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 2025! Boy, does it feel good to kick off the year with an issue. Yep, it's been a year since we cleared out the 2022-2024 backlog with issues 23 and 24! Good times. Though in this case "a year" just means... 6 months? 😯 The salience of whatever joke I was planning to make here has vanished speedily. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!

Featured script

[edit]

WikiTextExpander by Polygnotus, is this edition's featured script. At the click of a configurable hotkey, this script will find and replace or link a configurable list of phrases within the selected text in all source editors (even in the comment/reply field!). Besides allowing the quick insertion of templated messages, this script greatly mitigates the WP:WTF? problem by providing both the legibility of familiar words and the convenience of shortcuts. And to those asking, the capitalization of "Wikitext" as "WikiText" was a necessary sacrifice for far-more-memorable acronymy.

Updated scripts

[edit]

• CanonNi: AlertAssistant has been fixed and rewritten using OOUI instead of Twinkle's Morebits. Such modern, very tool. (Do note that the maintainer has since become inactive.)
• NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader has been updated to use modern JS APIs that replace the browser's URL bar with the link you clicked on to load in place. The "back" (and "forward") buttons also work now. Cool, innit?
• My prayers have been... answered? DreamRimmer/Search sort is a fork of PrimeHunter/Search sort that makes the 11 portlet links much smaller and nicer to look at.
• andrybak: Unsigned helper no longer shows an error when the message to sign was added in the earliest 50 revisions of a page's history. This is especially relevant to pages with short histories.

Newly maintained scripts

[edit]

• Cyberdog958/Superlinks finally fixes the famous Bradv/Superlinks to work with Vector 2022!

Improve a script

[edit]

• Many of our favorite scripts such as Fred Gandt/userResourceManager and Guarapiranga/search-shortcuts haven't been updated for Vector 2022. You could be the one to change that!
• Elominius/media timer and PrimeHunter/Search sort work, yet have alien user interface design. Someone could improve them...
• BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.

Requested scripts

[edit]

We need scripts that...

• allow sorting lists of citations such as by URI or other identifier
• automatically convert the capitalization of citations' titles
• collect a list of discussion participants and generate a ping list
• automate starting merge discussions
• ...and many more, all available at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests

Miscellaneous

[edit]

In breaking m:Tech/News, Gadgets can now include .vue files. This makes it easier to develop modern user interfaces using Vue.js, in particular using Codex, the official design system of Wikimedia. Codex icons are now also available. The documentation has examples.

New scripts

[edit]

• Appo/Globstory integrates OpenHistoryMap, updating the map whenever hovering/clicking on a location or year, the latter of which changes the map to be (hopefully) accurate to the year selected. It's pretty interesting.

• 

  Somewhat similar to WP:NavPops, Awesome Aasim/linkinfo (pictured) provides a collection of links to replace the right-click context menu, presented beautifully.
• Chaotic Enby/Recent Unblock Highlighter is the #1 WP:ROPE dispensary of the year. Admins exclusive, naturally.
• Chew/HighlightQuotes: Makes all text between double quotes have a yellow background. Shiny.
• Daniel Quinlan/RangeHelper allows you to treat IP ranges as users and calculate the smallest range that contains specific addresses IP.
• Dbeef/C+ allows CheckUsers to generate a {{sock list}} from the Special:CheckUser page. Its checkboxes make this task hassle-free.
• DreamRimmer has been working at it with the state-of-the-art Vue.js mw:Codex UI lately!
  • /CHUHelper and /EFFPRH reply to username-change and edit-filter requests, respectively.
  • /DraftNoCat deactivates the categories on a draft article. Dogs are better, really.

  • 

    /EasySubpage (pictured) creates subpages... easily!
  • TBanHelper warns you when your current page's title contains certain namespaces or keywords, sternly.
• DVRTed/multiContribs provides an aggregate view of the contributions of multiple users and a link at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations to automatically activate it with all users in a sockpuppet category.
• Edit7hesadparts/linkColorRandomizer turns your links rainbowy.
• Macaw*/noRefListAlert alerts you when the list of references is missing.
• Polygnotus
  • /DetectPromo is an interesting alternative to the classic Moonythedwarf/extra-unreliable, though of course the word list is somewhat different, you'll see.
  • /DiscussionToolsDrafts gives you a centralized page to see automatically-saved DiscussionTools reply drafts, just like EditRecovery.
  • PreviousDiscussions provides a link to search for your username on subpages of another user's userpage and talkpage conveniently.
• Twineeea/noRedLinks brings you to the "read" instead of the "create" tab when you visit a red link. Contemplate life's mysteries as you stare into the blank! Deeply.

No, this is not going to be the enduring tradition of S++ for the future. This was meant to be a joke for the special occasion on the first day of the fourth month but was delayed by four months because I'm lazy.

---

• About the newsletter
• Archive
• Subscription options
• Discuss this issue

Hey Remsense, I noticed you try to hand a warning three days on my personal talk page for "disruptive editing" before deleting it and a question inquired into my mind. Are access dates exclusively used for news citations and not other references like books or journals? I wondering this because people have been removing my recent edits for adding unneeded access dates and urls. So I check the access date template to try to see anything what citations access dates should be used for and I found nothing that states access dates are exclusive for newspaper cites. Can you found any sources stating explicitly that new citations are the only place for access dates? 69.114.78.139 4:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.78.139 (talk)

It's only helpful metadata if there is some possibility for its being relevant to accessing the source itself. Otherwise, it's a totally redundant artifact of the citation generation process that merely takes up space for readers and especially for other editors trying to navigate and understand the source text of an article. IMO it's almost the least useful thing one can go out of their way to add unless there's a direct issue the date serves to clarify. Remsense 🌈 论 04:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason you reverted the edit i made on Mihrimah Sultan? Melty love (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw you revert my edit on Perestroika, I was going to edit in the source properly without violating copyright but you already did it for me. Thanks for that and for bringing the copyright to my attention, as well. Much appreciated! 70.27.125.50 (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for some key information added to those articles. Remsense 🌈 论 19:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :) I proposed my arguments on the Venus talk page, where someone seemed to agree with me. Basically at these wavelengths the measurements described did not observe the surface, but the atmosphere. Their conclusions were that they saw a slow rotation of the solid surface, but they were seeing the atmosphere ... but the atmosphere actually rotates fast ! So I proposed removing, because I do not see how to rephrase in a way that makes this paragraph useful. Cheers, LazyAssed Contender (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Remsense 🌈 论 21:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Remsense,

I hope you are doing well. My name is Owahidneel, and I am a relatively new editor here on Wikipedia. Recently, I submitted a draft article about Tawhid Afridi, but I noticed that some of my edits were reverted and the draft was declined.

I understand and respect Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and I want to improve my draft to meet the community standards. I would be very grateful if you could kindly guide me or provide some feedback on what changes I should make to get my draft accepted.

Your help and advice would mean a lot to me as I am eager to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Owahidneel Owahidneel (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I see essentially zero chance this would be published. If you're only interested in Wikipedia to write or expand articles about yourself or others you know, then I strongly suggest doing something else with your time, because we have notability criteria, and if you or someone you know ever meets them, then someone else will probably make the article. We spend a lot of time asking people not to make the articles themselves. Remsense 🌈 论 00:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you be more specific about what's supposed to be revdel'd at Glasnost and why. There's no indication what source is being copied and I can't see that any copyvio has been removed. Nthep (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're a month into the 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest, with stiff competition at the top of the leaderboard already! Our current top five contestants are:

1. Spookyaki (submissions) – 256 points, mostly from a handful of GAs about women's history in Latin America as well as the 1991 Haitian coup d'état.
2. vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) – 229 points, back with a number of articles on abortion in various African countries.
3. simongraham (submissions) – 213 points, mainly from GAs on species of jumping spiders in both Africa and Azerbaijan.
4. PizzaKing13 (submissions) – 200 points, with five GAs on articles relating to Salvadoran politics, history, and griddle cakes.
5. BeanieFan11 (submissions) – 168 points from a few GAs, a few DYKs, and a few ITNs on athletes from a variety of countries.

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier!

On behalf of the coordinators, we'd like to thank all the participants for helping to combat systemic bias on Wikipedia! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you seem to be everywhere I go and how do you have such vast knowledge on the most random things Cyberified (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? I didn't see you on any other articles. Remsense 🌈 论 20:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We met on two Wikipedias; one about pangolin trade, and the other about Ho Chi Minh City. Cyberified (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense Hey, just checking if you’re still there :D Cyberified (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what an answer to your question would be? Apologies. Remsense 🌈 论 20:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just curious as to how you know so much about so many topics; it’s honestly quite impressive. Cyberified (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 03:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the edits in Adolf Hitler that you've reversed. Did you really reverse it just because of the reason I've explained? You didn't have to reverse all of the changes though. Thanks! Richie1509 (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were all pretty arbitrary, and I could see just as easily another editor putting them back. We have, as a general rule, MOS:VAR for a good reason. Remsense 🌈 论 07:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But should we add the chancellor for Führer the opposite as well or no need? Richie1509 (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a useful way of thinking about offices, so when the ends should always involve thinking what helps readers understand the topic, then I don't get it at all at present, I admit. Remsense 🌈 论 07:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, adding Chancellor "Himself" in the Führer office. Should we do that? Richie1509 (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remsense,

I hope you're well!

I just wanted to ask about the recent reversion of the edit I made to the Culture section of the Saskatchewan article. You noted that it had "possible prose issues" (which is entirely plausible--I stayed up way too late doing that research and writing that section, and the quality may have suffered as a result). "The Subway" has received significant coverage in media for its Saskatchewan reference; by Wikipedia's standards, it's worth noting. How can I edit the issues you found so that that section can be reinstated?

Thanks!

Audrey Audreyeve (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping up and trying to make a point in the discussion on Talk:Massacre of the Innocents. Reread your comment there. I apologize but I am a tad confused about you were saying there. Since that discussion seems to be a bit tense right now, I wanted to ask you about it here. Were you suggesting a compromise phrasing? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was my gut sense of what it should be, but keeping in mind I care about the same policies as everyone else, and would be liable to be swung fully in one direction or the other, as it were. Remsense 🌈 论 17:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]