User talk:Remsense

Welcome ...

story · music · places

... to WP:QAI or the cabal of the outcast ;) - what a nice surprise when waking up! Good luck with your first GA! ---- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a really good time of it so far! And my good mood just got a lot better, thank you Gerda. You're a real inspiration—and one that attracts other wonderful people for me to learn with, at that. Remsense诉 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Great to hear you are having a good time. - I'd like to talk about a topic where I often don't have a good time: infoboxes. In your first reply to the recommended MoS change, you mentioned "summed up", while I don't think an infobox should sum up or not, but rather collect those relevant items that can be listed in a parameter-value scheme. Of course not a creative mind's working. But his works. No? Let's look at Mozart, perhaps, and the last long discussion leading there (of I don't remember how many, - I summed them up at some point years ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are certain specific ways where it's totally reasonable for an infobox to be reference versus simple summary. To be brief, I think all the use cases here are totally fine—I'm mostly referring to phenomena such as people adding minor generals to articles about battles. To me. the underlying logic is, if one has to ask "well, what relation does this datum have to the topic exactly", it requires attestation in the article, and if it's clear from the structure of the data, it doesn't. For Chinese-language articles, {{Infobox Chinese}} often includes synonyms of terms that aren't explicated in the article itself, simply because it would unduly clutter the article body. I think that's totally fine.

Thank you for asking for elaboration, I was quite terse and reductive while making some of my points, hoping not to give people too many paragraphs of mine to scroll through, but elaboration is worthwhile here. Cheers! Remsense诉 13:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you know that I am the No. 1 suspect of war crime in infoboxes? Back in 2013, we had an arb case, and I invented the idea of two comments max in a discussion, and it was turned against me as a restriction, and I came to think of it as a liberating blessing. (See my 2013 talk archive in case of interest in history.) I was on vacation during the ongoing MoS discussion, and took the liberty not only not to respond but even not to read it, - that's what vacation is for. I read some now, and try to understand, and confess I didn't get far in the process, but you have to start somewhere. So, let's break it up and be specific. Does the Mozart infobox work for you, yes or no? And if no why? Is the RfC discussion of last year of any help understanding viewpoints? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think the infobox presently on Mozart is very nice. I think my specific angle is different from those that would disagree with this sort of presentation. Remsense诉 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, - in the discussion there are several who still resent any infobox for classical composers. Little history lesson: in 2010, two things happened, a specific infobox was created for these people ({{infobox classical composer}}), and an RfC found any infoboxes for them not suitable and resulted in removing many of these, replacing them by hidden messages that you can still find today, see Debussy or Stockhausen - "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page." (in other words, before even editing seek permission, - contrary to the bold editing concept). - I was already on Wikipedia at the time, but didn't notice one or the other. I wrote cantata articles, and right now I'm determined to improve one of them to GA quality, Du Hirte Israel, höre, BWV 104 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Though I was not here for these developments and as such don't have much to add—suffice it to say that I agree with your points of emphasis as regards content and conduct. I do think it's non-trivial for people (read: for me) to achieve ideal conduct that is both pragmatic in conserving time and effort (broadly construed) versus treating the large, anonymous class of potential editors with the courtesy they absolutely deserve.

Thank goodness there is always more Bach, thank you for making today the day I hear this piece for the first time Your work is always instructive for me. As an aside: I really want to improve Wikipedia's music theory articles, but it seems a difficult topic to dial in for a modern global audience compared to the relatively low volume of musicological scholarship compared to other areas of art history, especially in the gap between vernacular literature and scholarly analysis. But things could certainly be a lot better right now. Some music and musicology articles I have on my endless to-do list are:

• Harmony
• Art music
• The People United Will Never Be Defeated!

Remsense诉 16:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and good plans! Now that we looked at Mozart, what do you think of Vivaldi, - check out talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I also think Vivaldi is fine! I apologize if my conduct in the RfC came off as overly dogmatic or easily conflated with certain concerns by others. Remsense诉 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that Vivaldi is missing something I think is essential. I said "check out talk" for a reason ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for being terse: things like lists of works are completely reasonable inclusions in infoboxes to me. Like I've said, my concerns are with totally unquantified inclusions, this is the opposite. Remsense诉 22:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, reasonable to you and me, but not to those who reverted them. I think Vivaldi would be finer with them, whatever way, saying so many operas or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about your "oppose" to the Wugapodes suggestion. You refer there to your own previous comment and to Ssilvers. Your own is too long for now, but what I read from Ssilvers is short: "This would blatantly violate the ArbCom compromise. It also appears that canvassing may be going on here." What in that do you mean, or do you mean something else, - then please clarify in the discussion. (I seriously don't know of any ArbCom compromise. To my possibly limited knowledge, ArbCom just quoted the MoS item that we are discussing, requested a community-wide RfC which we seem to have, finally, and so left things to battle again and again from article to article which hasn't made editor relations sweeter. For me, Mozart and Copland are compromise, and could be models.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My initial !vote was not worded very well—I have an awful habit of zigging in an attempt at brevity when I should zag in an attempt at clarity, and vice versa. Outside of the context of threaded discussion, I will try to elaborate my entire position as concerns infoboxes from the ground up. I will strike my remarks that may imply I think there is canvassing, ArbCom violation, any other behavioral issues going on, since I do not believe that to be the case.

• Infoboxes are an article layout convention that presents key facts about an article's subject in a highly visible and discrete manner, such that readers may access this information at a glance.
• Infoboxes do this largely through presenting a summary distillation of an article's contents as key:value pairs, in the context of a broad classification of the article as a given type—e.g. 'person', 'creative work', 'event'.
• A relative hierarchy of importance is also communicated through the particular layout of an infobox's data.
• Infoboxes are extremely successful: readers effectively intuit their contents as being the most important information about an article's subject, which they also associate with those of other articles with similar infoboxes. Readers may not know that it's called an infobox, but they understand associations being made when they see {{Infobox chess match}}, {{Infobox academic}}, or {{Infobox criminal organization}} at the top of an article.

Having established that, my core points are:

1. The reification communicated by the presence—or absence!—of an infobox should be treated with care in marginal cases. Some article subjects are quite unlike others of their "class" in terms of representation in sources. Most commonly, a given subject may be somehow obscure: we may not know when a person was born, analyses may differ as to what key a piece of music is in, it may be unclear what actually transpired during a historical event—possibly to such a degree that there is no single quantification of what type of event it is. In many cases it is sufficient simply to leave problematic parameters unpopulated. We can also change or deprecate infobox templates as to better suit their applicability. However, the space of possible edge cases is very large to the extent that I feel uncomfortable establishing that broad classes of articles should have infoboxes—the applicability of a given class of infobox should be justified first. A sparely populated infobox communicates something different than the absence of an infobox to the reader, with either possibly being more appropriate for a given article.
2. Infoboxes are not useful, and in fact can be organizationally harmful, on articles that only consist of a lead and references or otherwise don't require distillation or summary in their present state.
3. Many abstract subjects, including most sub-articles, do not require infoboxes—e.g. Feudalism and Immortal Beloved. This boundary is fuzzy, and guidelines should not favor pulling one way or the other due to these boundary cases being those of most concern in my mind.

Many of these points were acknowledged in the proposed language and by those supporting it, but I do not feel said language was adequately flexible or didactic for the purposes of a content guideline. Remsense诉 12:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain, and I think you would do that discussion and its closer a favour if you placed your last line in your oppose, in your words something like "good idea but not worded carefully enough". Instead of sending the poor closer to two other locations within a very long discussion. - At some point there you said "recommended" is a weasel word, - please explain. For me, it expresses exactly the consideration that an infobox is not required and should not be required. How would you say that? - If I was the closer I would try to give little weight to all comments that seem to understand the proposal as saying "required" and not "recommended". In my "support" I wrote no reasoning because my reasons to not exclude infoboxes from classical composers are in the list given just above, where they have worked well and have not caused trouble, Clara Schumann for example, not by me, stable for more than a decade. Did you read my story today? There's one every day ;) - "places" change less frequently, but there are new pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

ps: I think it's quite generally a good idea to not refer to any other editor's comments when saying oppose or support. I have seen A saying "per B", and later in the discussion B changed their mind. However, I did that for Mozart, as you may have read, but not without irony, playing with someone else's comment. He had opposed "per the cogent arguments by Ssilvers", and I had supported "per the cogent arguments by Voceditenore". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (look up places) - I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I do very much! It certainly doesn't hurt that the photos used for both are stunning. Remsense诉 19:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! - Listen to my story today ;) (a DYK hook written in 2012, before I even knew of "infobox wars") - Some day I hope to do justice to your detailed points above, - no time today. Could you do me a favour and just strike the reference to Ssilvers in your oppose, please? (Because that name will be associated with the arguments in the Mozart discussion, - please read there if you haven't, and decide if cogent or not for you. I looked up "reification" - a new word for me, and I'm not sure I quite understand it, - language being one of my barriers in arguments). - The Copland compromise was seen by 10k, without concerns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for missing that before, I'll do so. Remsense诉 08:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"Reification" is a word I lean on a lot trying to explain design and such things, probably unduly. The sense in which I'm using it can basically be replaced with "thing-ification"—the process whereby a concept accumulates and becomes clearly defined and entrenched in someone's head. The process of reification is distinct from that of "pattern identification" per se, but there's overlap—we usually consider things that are "overly reified" as trivial, stale, or impersonal. Music's a fantastic explanatory vehicle for it, actually. Sonata form as traditionally understood is basically wholly an exercise in the double-edged sword of reification: how does one communicate abstract motives in a way that creates concrete feelings in the audience, but doesn't draw attention to its own process of being a developing motive in a way that manifests as unmerited boredom or confusion in the audience, without pulling them out of the non-conceptual experience of music? I hope that gives you more of an idea and didn't just add a few more unclear sentences to the pile. To rephrase the original sentence: readers have their own working understanding of what an infobox is and where it should be, even if they don't put it into words. Remsense诉 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, - some day I'll try to understand, - patience please. I had a good day out, added a few pics (the last ones for March), and have three recent-death-articles in my workshop - always time-critical or no longer recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the three was posted, Notker Wolf, quite a character! - Another died though, and I once began his article, so again three waiting. - Just the daily update: Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939), and below (on my talk) three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. For our infobox topic: there's a cute short Q&A on the Anderson talk, from 2020. Sounds like it could be so easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

For a bit, I thought e-guitar meant he was rocking one of those fancy MIDI controllers with the keys arranged as a fretboard! Also, every philosophical work in German sounds so profound in translation. Remsense诉 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you ;) - plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What a talent. It's quite humbling to remember before electronic amplification that the organ was quite commonly the closest thing many got to hearing and feeling "the presence of God" in terms of sonic totality. Remsense诉 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and I like your thought about "feeling" the organ sound. My story last year mentioned God's presence, on this day ;) - Relief: the last of six RD articles in one week is now on the Main page - yesterday I heard a great recital with many anti-war songs by Jewish composers whose music was banned by the Nazis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Der Kontrabass is so fun! It reminds me of the piece "Failing" for double bass, though the latter is a bit more tongue-in-cheek, arguably to its detriment. Remsense诉 20:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligent efforts in reverting vandalism! Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I think it's a bit serendipitous that I happened to get my first one for this, as it definitely feels like the "laziest" thing I do on here. :) Remsense诉 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

Regarding this comment: I'm not sure "pork-barrelling" is the phrase you're looking for. The term is typically used for handing out specific benefits targeted for specific groups to secure their support, with the connotation that it's the only reason for doing so. In this case, I feel the proposal is genuinely attempting to outline a consensus viewpoint of past discussions. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I did misuse that term, that stretch in general was not my finest work. Remsense诉 15:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Roman calendar

Just in case it seems that my post at talk:Roman calendar#Lead too long was questioning your judgement re the {{lead too long}} tag in the article, let me affirm that it was entirely coincidental. I don't type that fast.

PS when do you ever sleep? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please question my judgment even more than you feel you need to.

As per your concern: oh dear, I guess I have been on here a lot lately, huh? Suffice it to say things on my end are a bit odd and fluxious right now, but in a way where it'll all pan out in the end—but for the time being Wikipedia has proven a shockingly good distraction in the times I've really needed one. As happy as I've been with my recent onsite contributions, March 2024 is otherwise headed straight for the dustbin of history as far as I'm concerned; I shall not be consulting my recent activity graphs on XTools to determine exactly how bad I've been... Remsense诉 22:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

“ There are decades in which nothing happens, and there are weeks in which 8,000 edits happen. ”

Remsense诉 23:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For wrangling the template Unichar because I have some idea of what goes on behind the scenes to make it ever work. You can go get some sleep now! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, you're a joy to work with. (I've since caught up on sleep, don't worry!) Remsense诉 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Djong Talk Page

Hello, me again, i was wondering if you can act as the third person to dispute on Djong talk page. As i foresaw, the editor who reverted the edits can't provide a single evidence on the talk page and refuse to reach a consensus, but anyhow any help would be kindly appreciated. Thank You Merzostin (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The Core Contest has now begun!

The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Lest I forget

Thank you for your indispensable contribution to Cross Temple, Fangshan–you contributed a fifth of the content! Do rejoice with me in its passing as an FA. Wikipedia is such a miraculous place.

I plan to take a substantial break from Wikipedia after I finish the GAN at hand, so I am writing this note of appreciation before that. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No, thank you very much for doing the real work in bringing the subject to Wikipedia in the first place. Folks like you allow me to learn and contribute in a way where I can make my own particular skills and habits useful while slowly getting better at the core work of research and dedication. The article is emblematic of areas I really want to help feature better on Wikipedia, and I really look forward to future collaboration with you, it's been a pleasure. Cheers! Remsense诉 16:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Research User

Hey, since you participated in the Zorastrianism discussion. I wanted to know, since I am usually not involved often in Admin-noticboards issues, but am I required to open a new issue witht he user for being repeatedly offensive or can this all fall into one notification on the admin board? How are the rules in this regard? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

They already have a discussion at ANI going—you seem to have found it actually!—if I'm not mistaken. If you have related concerns not explicitly addressed yet, they will be best served just by mentioning them in a reply there. Remsense诉 01:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Hi Remsense, I saw this edit of yours and thought it was funny, so here's a barnstar for you! Keep up the great work (and the good humor)! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me take the opportunity to say it's been great to see your contributions to China-related Wikipedia lately! I'm glad my pith—which nine times out of ten I would rather not have made—has some appreciable net positive somewhere at least! Still trying for that "irenicist" ideal at the end of the day, though, but I'll never be perfect. Remsense诉 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate your efforts, and keep up the great work! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I could use a Shanghainese consultant for some work I'm planning on doing, do you know about any reliable sources on Wu/Shanghainese you'd recommend, either in Chinese or English? Remsense诉 02:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have much knowledge in linguistics, but I saw this website the other day, which might be a good source. Thank you for asking! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Resolving an issue

I need to bring this up to avoid an edit war, but it’s reffering too the page for the Mexican-American war, where i removed parts of Nebraska from the list of terrotories ceded by Mexico. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I was wrong on that one, yeah. Remsense诉 14:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The Chronology of the Bible

Your edit is entirely erroneous. You say theres no reliable source for the Masoretic text not containing the book of Maccabees? Is the Masoretic text itself not a reliable source? How about any website on the internet other than this one wiki page? Or any every other wiki page that pertains to the Masoretic text. What source do you have listed for the opposite being true? You don’t have any listed at all. The Septuagint is the text that contains the books of Maccabees.

This is page has verifiably false information all the way through it. It says the Masoretic text is most commonly used. Thats not correct. The catholics use the Septuagint and there are 300,000,000 more Catholics than there are Protestants. The Greek Orthodox use the Septuagint, that adds another 260,000,000 to the number. So 560,000,000 more Christians use the septuagint than those who use the Masoretic text. Thats not even counting all of the denominations that use King James Version that also uses the Septuagint, which is a fair number of the protestants in the world, and close to half of the Christians in the US.

All of the information on this page is easily shown to be false. Not to say it mentions a lot of stuff that is fringe. Lukeferg96 (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the Masoretic text itself not a reliable source?

See WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources are generally considered more reliable for supporting most claims on Wikipedia. All I've done is remove claims from the article that aren't supported by the reliable (i.e. secondary) sources it cites. I recommend engaging with the sources cited in the article before raising any additional concerns, as you can't know if something is fringe if you haven't actually engaged with the body of research on a subject. If you do, be sure to cite specific sources on the talk page so as to effectively reach a consensus with your fellow editors.

Cheers! Remsense诉 10:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, I suppose I didn't think to make this particular point clear, but at no point does the article claim the Masoretic Text at any point contained any of the books of Maccabees. Make sure to read these things carefully, as God helps those who help themselves! Happy editing! Remsense诉 10:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Even without explicitly saying that “The masoretic text contains maccabees” it is still making a claim that is inaccurate. It explicitly claims that the Masoretic text ends with the re-dedication of the temple in 164bce. That is incorrect. I am not against the theory in this page, it doesn’t bother me. I just am against publishing inaccurate information. If the page is going to say its about the chronology of the Bible and specifically about the masoretic text, then it is publishing verifiably false information.

It also does specifically say “ The 374 years between the Edict of Cyrus and the re-dedication of the Second Temple by the Maccabees complete the 4,000 year cycle.”

Once again there are ways to keep this page the same without it being incorrect. It could say it is about the Catholic Old Testament or the Ortho Old Testament and it would be accurate.

Also, the way the page is written it really isn’t even about the chronology of the Bible, it is about the theory that is proposed. I have formal training in history and if you say chronology, it means the timeline of when things happen, not theories about numerology. Lukeferg96 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not saying that either. It's saying that the text was compiled with a larger cycle of time in mind, even if the end point isn't explicitly contained in the text. Remsense诉 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It explicitly says the chronology of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible does not include the Maccabean revolt or the re-dedication of the Temple. It also explicitly says the Masoretic text throughout the article. Lukeferg96 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's really not my job to rephrase what the sources are saying to you. Discuss it on the talk page, perhaps. Remsense诉 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I have looked at the sources and they do not support the claim that Maccabees is in the Bible. The sources cited are books that are about chronologically and the theories in them are not mainstream. None of them say the books of maccabees are in the Bible. The sources I looked through had little to no reviews on academic sources, and the reviews i have read on Jstor had criticism for the theory. Have your looked through the information in the sources?

“Masoretic Hebrew Bible(the text of the Bible most commonly in use today) measures the passage of events from the creation to around 164 BCE (the year of the re-dedication of the Second Temple)” What book was the Temple re-dedicated in? It was in Maccabees.

“While difficulties with biblical texts make it impossible to reach sure conclusions, perhaps the most widely held hypothesis is that it embodies an overall scheme of 4,000 years (a "great year") taking the re-dedication of the Temple by the Maccabees in 164 BCE as its end-point.” How can Biblical chronology go to the year 164 bce if the Bible doesn’t include any texts in it that are describing that period. If the page was about Hebrew literature, and not just the Canonical books, it wouldn’t be inaccurate to have this information. It also could be about thr chronology of the Septuagint. However that is not was this page says it’s about it says that it is about the chronology of the Bible, I.E. the Tanakh,(The Torah, the Nevi’im, and the Ketuvim.). Not to mention the claim that the Masoretic text is the one that is used the most for the Old Testament.

Fringe according to Wikipedia is theory as:”In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.” That is exactly what this page does. Lukeferg96 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

How to watch over the outlines

I just added this section to the WikiProject:Outlines page, and thought you might find it useful...

The outlines need watchdogs, to keep an eye on them and make sure they are secure and well maintained.

Here are some tips for effective monitoring of this valuable resource:

Tip 1: Place article alerts on your talk page

Place this project's articles alerts template on your talk page in such a way that it floats at the bottom, so that you see it every time you read a message there. To do so, copy and paste this code near the top of your talk page:

<ref>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Article alerts}}</ref>

This will allow you to easily keep track of outline deletion discussions at AfD, requested moves, featured list nominations, and other formally tagged outline-related nominations.

Note: Article alerts doesn't catch everything, like page edits and untagged discussions. For those, we have watchlists...

Tip 2: Use this WikiProject's watchlist

There's a comprehensive outline-related watchlist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Watchlist using Related changes.

Follow the instructions at the top of that page.

Also feel free to keep that page up to date by adding new outline-related pages to it.

Tip 3: Related changes can also be used on outline lists

In the desktop view of Wikipedia, one tool available to monitor activity on outlines is related changes. To use it on outlines, go to Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines and click on "Related changes" in the tools menu.

In order for this to work on all outlines, Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines must be kept up to date.

Beware: "Related changes" looks a lot like "Recent changes", and it is easy to accidentally use the latter by mistake.

Tip 4: Use the outline categories for monitoring...

Related changes works on the various Category:Wikipedia outlines pages, too.

That's all for now

I hope the above tips help.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   19:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism Revert I Made

Hello, Remsense!

I'm somewhat confused about your revert of my revert of this edit. The vandalism I mentioned in my revert description specifically looks like this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SKc6Bvid1TalkHi-353K3fTFU9X3HKc4/view?usp=sharing. However, in the revert you made the text in the linked image has disappeared from the page, which makes me confused.

The vandalism in the image didn't appear in the markdown of WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- -'s edit - only the preview of the edit, which makes me wonder if I saw a glitch and reverted something that didn't exist.

Looking at the other things WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - included in their edit, it seems like the rest of that revision of the page was constructive, so I understand why you made your revert.

I'm a newer editor to Wikipedia, so a general explanation of what happened and what I did wrong would be appreciated.

ObsessiveScribe (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also confused! Looking in the page revision history, I don't see the introduction of that image anywhere, so I do not have a better explanation—I very much appreciate your concern and communication regardless, so thank you! Remsense诉 19:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Outline draft tracker

Hey,

Here's a page I created for tracking outline drafts, that shows the date of the latest edit for each.

Such as for these outline drafts you created:

• Draft:Outline of Chinese characters.
• Draft:Outline of the Chinese language.

Drafts that haven't been edited in 6 months get deleted from draft space. This list lets us see if any drafts are getting close to the 6-month danger date. Once an edit is made to an outline draft, the date for it in this list automatically updates.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Draft tracker.

I hope you find it useful.

Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   08:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Nifty! Do you think finishing the GAN of Chinese characters before finally finishing the outline is backwards? Remsense诉 00:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope. You can do it in whatever order you like, including simultaneously. Some Wikipedians work on hundreds of different pages each day. ;) Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   06:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Like me! I was mostly being coy though, but I do think it's a great outline subject and I secretly want it to be the second outline to earn FL... Remsense诉 06:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a secret anymore! You better hurry up then, before somebody beats you to it.    — The Transhumanist   07:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

China government type

Sorry to chase you over here, on the status quo for this parameter, surely 'socialist state' is outdated? I get that it's referring to the state apparatus and the extreme level of intervention/control over modes of production, but surely there's a better term with more accurate economic inferences? State capitalism is more accurate imo although I dk whether there's enough consensus from recent academic sources. Do you think this deserves another RfC? Could be a slightly less braindead one than the last one lol Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What follows is almost entirely conjecture and OR on my part:

Iiiiiit's complex, to the best of my understanding. The Chinese government still proudly characterizes itself as Marxist–Leninist—the most recent, most prominent ideological current seems to be that summed up in Xi's 两个结合 'two integrations'—there's not even a common English calque of this one yet—it's quite textually just "we are fusing Confucius's ideas with Marx". Don't ask me how that works, but it seems they have something cooking over there, so what do I know as a rudderless baizuo. Really, I couldn't tell you.

In some ways, it's really nothing new, just socialism with Chinese characteristics with a new catchphrase, but also I think these articulations do matter and affect material policy! The state continues to operate in many ways without concern for a direct profit incentive like you might expect if the state were functioning as a traditional capitalist. Propaganda isn't all smoke, and it doesn't only "work" on specific groups at this scale. I myself have a petulant, reflexive dislike for the term "state capitalism"—simply because it doesn't actually mean anything, all capitalism is state capitalism—i.e. it can't exist without the state, and the state acts as a mediating body for capital even in the most laissez faire configurations. Again, this is largely just my opinion again, but you might see how it's a bit of a stumbling block for establishing a firm consensus reflecting sources that means much of anything.

And that doesn't even get into the history of Leninist states outside of China and how that impacts how people might think about China! Oh dear. Suffice it to say I am not convinced that the Chinese government is actually working in the direction of a classless society, to say the very least. But too far down this rabbit hole lies madness. I figure it's as meaningful as anything else just to relay what they say about themselves. Remsense诉 20:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you're probably right, but I think the state in state capitalism refers to the state controlling the means of production rather than it being in private ownership. Maybe Marxist-Leninist state apparatus instead of state-socialism? In reality it doesn't fit the binary socialism or capitalism, and this just refers to the system of government rather than the economy. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Advice for article improvement

Hi Remsense, apologies for bothering. I have been working the page for the Chinese Botanist and scholar Hu Xiansu for quite a while now ever since I learnt about him. However, I don't believe the page is where it could be, and would really appreciate a skilled eye to determine (and maybe fix) key issues with the article. Thanks! Zinderboff(talk) 10:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'm flattered you'd ask for my opinion. I'll take a look ASAP! Remsense诉 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! There's absolutely no hurry. Take as long as you need. Zinderboff(talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your reversion at Byzantine music

What is going on here? Platonykiss (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The first reversion was a little harsh, but I think I adequately mentioned the reason in the edit summary, though I'm happy to elaborate: large passages of text in non-English languages are not useful to the vast majority of readers on an English-language encyclopedia, even on articles relevant to deeply academic topics like Old Slavonic philology, or what have you. It simply doesn't do much but takes up space if one can't read it, and therefore is a net negative for the reader. I think it's fine to have access to the original text given the translation, so that's why I think putting it in the footnote was a better idea on my part. Remsense诉 11:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not harsh, but invasive and I also did not remark it first. Thus, I recommend to be more thoughtful with such interactions.

It is already there, not just with link to a translation, but also to a critical edition of the text, but I am confident that many readers (with a Slavic background at least) might wish to check with a simplified orthography of the original text (something that the quoted edition does not offer). The transcription at Petersburg does offer it now (not when I made this paragraph) and they can also check with a facsimile of the manuscript which has the real orthography. If you just had waited some minutes, I was about to insert a link!

You just ruined the work of half an hour.

By the way, who are you and what makes you think that you are authorised to behave here in this way?

I have never experienced here anything like it! Honestly I would rather appreciate, if you removed outdated bibliographical references which somebody parked in the sources list. It would be more helpful! Since I am not the rude type I just moved it to a better place. I hope you can learn from it. Platonykiss (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think putting it in the footnote was a better idea on my part

I have seen it now. That is ok! Platonykiss (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! It's really nice to see improvement in this area, where I haven 't any expertise but really think deserves more coverage on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

An additional note

Frankly I have concerns about a pattern of behavior with ProKMT making a whole slew of edits to infoboxes and tags with some clear and frustrating systematic biases that I could best describe as treating any movement for Chinese autonomy from the west as intrinsically reactionary. I assumed it was just anti CPC stuff at first but I think it's more than that. And they've not been great about engaging at talk or on their own userpage to discuss slowing down, paying more attention to reliable sources, avoiding OR, or collaborating to improve the grammar of their more extensive edits. The Boxer Rebellion edit was one more egregious example out of a consistent and worrying pattern. Simonm223 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ping @ProKMT for full transparency so they may see and respond to comments on their behavior if they so choose. That said, I certainly feel your concerns are warranted. I suppose I have demurred to date because...well, I don't want to seem anti-KMT, now do I? Remsense诉 00:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do. I've tried to reach out to them and, assuming they are a new editor, I would prefer that they listen and develop as an editor. Perhaps other people reaching out to them will help. But if they continue this spree of POV editing I think it's going to end in drama. Simonm223 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything more from ProKMT regarding my concerns - but they've continued pushing the POV that, for instance, the DPP is not anti-Communist, that even the KMT is against unification, and a general tendency to treat pro-western factions as left and pro-unity factions as right. This is starting to look a lot like WP:RADAR - have they spoken at all to you? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

They may not get pings. I think it's worthwhile having this conversation on their talk page. Remsense诉 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarification about the note in Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis

Sorry, I didn't understand the note you left in Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis, particularly the part where you said that when both monogenesis and polygenesis exist. The opinion on most professionals in the field is that either monogenesis (the most accepted) or polygenesis exist. , and the options aren't overlapping (the Nicaraguan Sign Language isn't a real language; according to Judy Shepard-Kegl, “[i]t had all the right characteristics to fool the human brain into thinking, ‘That’s a language.’ So, they learned it. It wasn’t a language, but their brains filled in the holes of what was missing. That’s the kind of formula for this.” . So could you, please, clarify a little more? Thank you, Pcg111 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC).

I meant that both articles exist, as you know from linking to them, so it's unclear what an article that talks about one and then the other is doing other than a content fork. In general, unless there is a massive contention in a field that needs its own article, the dialogue is best placed on one of the aforementioned more specific articles. Remsense诉 08:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

P. D.: I had the idea of merging Monogenesis (linguistics) and Polygenesis (linguistics) into this article (I translated it from the Spanish Wikipedia). Pcg111 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have that idea, you should propose a merge request on one of the article talk pages, or perhaps on WikiProject Linguistics. Remsense诉 08:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Remsense, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Remsense. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)