User talk:Remsense

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{{em dash}}I'm just confused is all. Is there a reason you're waiting? If so, when are you planning to start? I'm gonna try to keep my schedule clear. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::@Remsense, [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/all-right-then-keep-your-secrets all right then, keep your secrets]. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 May 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Meadow with dandelion near Lindenmühle, Lindenholzhausen.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Looking forward! - My story today is about an opera singer born OTD in 1870. I have problems to say something as informative about Mirella Freni, as the DYK nom shows. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The Freni hook was improved while I wrote this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Tout est lumière. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Check out my talk: for a great woman's Johannes-Passion (listen!), our music in detail, and three people who recently died and are on the main page (where she isn't). My call for collaboration has the first "no", and the second - for the Easter Oratorio - seems inevitable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep deleting my contribution that John Tyler was the first US born president after the 1788 ratification of the constitution and the establishment of the federal government. It's an important information and milestone because prior to Tyler all the previous US presidents were born under the British monarchy. I seldom make anymore contributions to Wikipedia because it has become much more difficult to add information that is rejected by someone's personal opinion. Jamescooly (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's not important; it's pure trivia that shouldn't be parked at the very top of an article. Remsense ‥ 论 02:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-psychiatry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electroshock.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Emirate of Erzincan on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Fiume question on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Robert Brodribb Hammond on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Details Cannot Body Wants on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Tolkien and Edwardian adventure stories on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

You claimed undercited etc, if l cite more sources, will you not revert it. What l wrote is scholarly accepted by reliable scholars, not assyrian nationalists. Tatius9119 (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's for the reasons I gave in the edit summary. The addition doesn't fit in the article, which already says much of what you wrote in a clearer, less romanticized manner. Remsense ‥ 论 09:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::okay, thanks. I remade the text and added more sources....In the context of Syriac Christianity, identity was similarly multifaceted. Syriac priests and scholars, particularly in the early centuries of Christianity, often identified as Arameans due to the dominance of the Aramaic language in both everyday life and liturgy (Geoffrey Khan, The Syriac World, 2018). This identification, however, did not negate their Assyrian heritage. Much like how Arabic speakers today may identify as Arabs based on linguistic and cultural ties—regardless of ethnic background—Syriac Christians of Mesopotamia and Syria saw themselves as Arameans because of their use of Aramaic and shared cultural practices.

::Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306–373 CE), for instance, criticized the ancient Assyrians for their idolatry and violent imperialism, but his critiques were not meant to sever ties with the Assyrian past. Rather, Ephrem’s theological and poetic works contrasted Syriac Christian identity with the pagan past while retaining a connection to it (Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye, 1992).

::Thus, it is accurate to understand the Syriac Christians as Arameans in terms of their linguistic and cultural identity, and Assyrians in terms of their ancestral heritage. These two aspects of identity coexisted in the Syriac Christian tradition, reflecting the complex layers of cultural and religious affiliation in the ancient Near East (Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 2006).

::The Emergence of the Term "Suryoyo"

::Before the widespread use of the term "Suryoyo" (Syriac), Syriac-speaking Christians in the region likely identified as "Assuraye" (Assyrians), a reflection of the enduring legacy of the Assyrian Empire in biblical and cultural traditions (Wilhelm Baum & Dietmar W. Winkler, The Church of the East, 2003). The word "Suryoyo," derived from the Greek term "Syrios," became common during the Hellenistic and Roman periods and was adopted by Syriac-speaking Christians to denote their religious and linguistic identity. This term was used by both Arameans and Assyrians who shared common religious and cultural practices within the Syriac Christian tradition (Geoffrey Khan, The Syriac World, 2018).

::"Suryoyo" gradually came to represent a religious and linguistic identity, referring to those who followed the Syriac liturgical tradition and spoke Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. Over time, both Arameans and Assyrians embraced this term to express their shared spiritual and cultural heritage within Syriac Christianity (Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 2006). can l put this on the text... or some of it. It doesnt mention: Syriac Christian Identity and the Aramean/Assyrian Debate and The Emergence of the Term "Suryoyo" Tatius9119 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::can l put this on the text... or some of it. It doesnt mention: Syriac Christian Identity and the Aramean/Assyrian Debate and The Emergence of the Term "Suryoyo Tatius9119 (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::it took me days making this work, at least you could help me add some or all of this on the article. Tatius9119 (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::btw, l know its hard to erdit the assyria article due to vandalism etc. But some that revoke articles are assyrian nationalists, and they get more recognition. I am neutral. And this is scholarly accepted. Tatius9119 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::The first text outlines the general trajectory of Assyrian identity over time, while the second provides a more specific view on Syriac Christianity and the linguistic aspects of identity. The recurring themes are addressed in different contexts without being redundant. Dont you agree? Tatius9119 (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Just so you know, l will be waiting for your response. Take your time. regards Tatius Tatius9119 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you changed a bunch of element intros. I thought that WT:Elements had agreed on a standard form for the elements (perhaps to avoid constant discussion?). Did that change? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oh jeez, am I in trouble? I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines—while marked historical, I'm sure it has some impact on consensus. My intuition entirely from surface-level examination was the form I was changing to was going to be the standardized form if there was any (it was present in most of the periodic table before I touched anything). If you'd like me to undo any of my changes or make different ones I'd be happy to—I don't want to step on anyone's toes, my fits are motivated by wanting to preserve others' hard work if anything, in theory at least. Remsense ‥ 论 16:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::I was not involved in that consensus, I've just seen reverts related to it. I checked Lithium, Hydrogen, and Carbon, they all use your form. So Thanks, good work!

::May I suggest that an edit summary like "Match Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines" would make it clear what your change did? Perhaps we should be adding an internal comment as well. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The form on that page is slightly different, is the thing. I'll just make a post on WT:ELEMENTS visibly stating I did it, and inviting anyone to hit me over the head with a mallet if they feel I unnecessarily disrupted things in the name of a fairly minor, possibly imagined, style convention. Remsense ‥ 论 16:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You have reverted my edit on Soul, but haven't really explained why. The reason why I made my edit was that the opening statements seemed to be based on the opinion of a single researcher and presenting that opinion as a universal consensus. Plus, it is unclear what "ordinary people" means – as a term it's as vague and subjective as it can possibly get. PRH (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:This Man... This Monster! on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Hi @Remsense, your changes to :Portugal have been disruptive per :WP:DISRUPT, in that particular case, I added important information that up until that point was misleading the reader, namely the fact that no treaty whatsoever has been reported to have been signed at Zamora in 1143, that does not run afoul of :WP:RGW since, even though is not well reported, and is extremely often and erroneously reported that there was a treaty, it's a well established fact that no such thing happened, it's only mentioned that there was a meeting between 4 and 5 of october 1143 at Zamora, and that Afonso I began refering to himself as king on the 5th, that fact lead to the misunderstanding that there was a treaty, which is false. This fact has been already cited in the article, yet you seem to have chosen to ignore it, also, your revert undid other additions that positively contributed to the article, again reinforcing :WP:DISRUPT. If there's a new revert on :Portugal without any reply by you on this topic, I'm afraid I'll have to make a report on this activityConsuela9890 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:You seem likely to deduce that each edit you care to make is well established by virtue of you wanting to make it, and not according to anything our site policies say. Please actually become familiar with said policies so you can stop trying to brute force your way through processes and concepts you have so far chosen not to understand. It is increasingly difficult to assume good faith when you are cavalierly blowing past the obvious directions given on pages like WP:Technical move requests. Remsense ‥ 论 18:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::It's not an assumption made by me, that conclusion was totally uncalled for. All me additions on :Portugal were made citing sources, that particular source also quotes bibliography which, in case there's a worry of the nature of it, supports it. Plus, we are talking about historical events, and an important one of that, that makes your case for the use of :WP:RGW very difficult to make, because of the amount of bibliography, some of which is cited on that said source, is considerable. I'm here explaining to you the reasons of my changes and I'm absolutly happy to talk about my record here on wiki when it pertains of wheter or not there should be an assumption of good behaviour. Please take care into reading the source I provided to support my modification to :Portugal before making any further mislead conclusions.Consuela9890 (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Someone's blog drawing original conclusions synthesized from other sources is original research, no matter whether those sources are themselves reliable. You would know that if you bothered looking at the policy you've been linked at all. Remsense ‥ 论 18:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Very well, so if I cite bibliography on the article instead of the blog will I still have the assurance that you won't reverse those additions? I'm willing to do that if I'm assured about thatConsuela9890 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you have an English-language reliable source that uses your preferred terminology, then that lets you start the discussion—you still don't get to cherrypick your preferred language, we're required to to weigh what aspects and terminology are most representative in our sources for each given topic. There are already multiple sources on Treaty of Zamora (not to mention the ones in Spanish and Portuguese) that use that term, so you have to demonstrate that those sources represent a minority position in the literature.. Remsense ‥ 论 18:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm an uninvolved administrator. I'm ready to start blocking when any of you resume your edit warring in live pagespace. You know what I don't see? A vigorous discussion about this disagreement on Talk:Portugal. I see Remsense warning Oos88, but I see no discussion on the merits of this disagreement. That's my recipe for fully protecting the page against anybody editing while you folks finally hash it out in talk. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not saying anything to recuse myself save that it should be somewhat evident from their talk so far that they do not engage in talk discussions—they have been flagged down multiple times by multiple editors and have so far refused. I had to throw my hands up and go to WP:RMUM to prevent a move war there, even though I have page mover. It's been completely nervewracking cleaning up after this person. I've already described the situation every way I know how, so if whatever pages are out of sorts in whatever way from now on I guess it's mostly not my fault. Remsense ‥ 论 19:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Very good then, I'll be adding those as soon as I'm available. I hope next time, we can have a discussion like this before we start undoing each other's contributions. Even though I'm certain I'm correct about the substance of Zamora, It was my mistake citing that particular source, a blog is not an acceptable source at all I'm appreciated for the clarification about thatConsuela9890 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The procedure is BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. BOLD, REVERT, REVERT, REVERT, REVERT, GET BLOCKED, is not the preference you guys would like. I've created a talk thread and I'm going around now warning everybody personally. Let's act in concert, not in disharmony. Learning something new via vigorous disagreement is why I log on every day. Please everyone stop the posturing and get to the merits. BusterD (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a true fact that when Abe posed with a plane with numbers 731. It drew angry wide condemnation from China and Korea. I see you constantly remove it in the article by saying people should not mention at all that Chinese and Korean people disliked that notion. That's not against WP:blp to say that his actions drew anger and why. I am willing to go to dispute resolution if you do engage me in talk or edit war with me. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not comfortable given I've already been a bit pigeonholed as if I intend on carrying water for Japanese nationalists. I want anything but, so I figure I've said my piece and others can figure it out on talk. Remsense ‥ 论 23:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry I probably should have reworded that better. I didn't mean to say you were doing Japanese war revisionism. My topic was on Abe doing historical revisionism on Japanese war crimes and that people were angry at bim. My issue with you is that you made it seem like only one person had issues after you kept removing thay other people besides one Korean politician had issues too. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Madri on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Please self-revert for the Further reading sections of articles within the area of Serbo-Croatian speakers. Ivan (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:This isn't a Serbo-Croatian encyclopedia. Even to readers of those articles, the vast majority can't make any use of the resource. Remsense ‥ 论 05:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Alright, what I'm trying to do is add links to resources with which to expand articles, mainly stubs. You could rename "Further reading" to "Bibliography". The only reason I kept them separate is so that I know the resources haven't been used yet. Ivan (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I really do not understand this argument when it gets proffered—I've just made clear that this resource is not useful, and I don't know how I'm meant to instead treat its inclusion as a stepping stone to further improvements. I've definitely made my point, though. Remsense ‥ 论 05:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I am not objecting to your reverts for the mountain ranges about which a vast literature already exists, but the linked articles are to what is often a rather large topical bibliography within a special edition of a mountaineering periodical. In the case of many of the smaller ranges and/or peaks, having such a bibliography on hand greatly speeds up the process of writing the articles, which I intend to do for the Dinarics and Julian Alps. All you have to do is delete the "Further reading" and alter "Bibliography" from a subheading to a heading if you object, logically enough, to non-English sources in "Further reading". Ivan (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Please Stop. I don't think you intended to revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klek_mountain%2C_Croatia&oldid=prev&diff=1284700338 this]. Ivan (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I didn't, apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 05:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Man ! Ive made some additions to the para where it said about 'primary' factor of new muslims but not about the conversions which although not an primary factor but has an huge trend in modern world . Ive spoken about it in talk page you can refer it for the sources and claims i have made . Expecting your reply . Thanks ItsTrueNow (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:You appear to have missed the explanation in the edit summary. Please read WP:LEAD for the long version. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC) {{tpw}}

::Oh sorry i'll correct the summary . Thanks for correcting me ! ItsTrueNow (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::Just now noticed sir . The previous reversion of edit said about lack of much source so I've edited with more reliable, authentic sources so in the edit summary i have mentioned that 'added context with reliable sources etc etc' . Isn't this summary enough sir ? ItsTrueNow (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Why not a more comprehensive biographical information but a superficial one instead ? Moreover, it used to be like the way I edited it to be. It used to include the titles of field marshal, author, and revolutionary statesman before it's been changed to its current form. All the titles are relevant and serve his persona better. Enigmationn (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:There's simply no need to overload the first sentence to the point of awkwardness. Remsense ‥ 论 21:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::There's no need to keep it incredibly short either then. Besides, get to the page of Che Guevara for example and you'll see the awkwardness. Enigmationn (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Remsense! I’m sorry if I am bothering you, but could you explain why you reverted my edit citing Jeffrey Tripp? He is a biblical scholar with the relevant phd from Loyola and a member of SBL, as I noted in my edit summary. The article I posted is even critical of Richard Bauckham, so I do not think he is an apologist.

Thank you Birjeta01 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you reverted my edits on the Speed of sound Wiki claiming it was generated by a Large language model. I wish to clarify that I did not do that, and a major part of my contributed text was just a revert. That text was written around two decades ago. I nevertheless checked for AI written content on my changes using QuillBot's AI Detector and it reported 0% AI. It would be great if you could tell me why you thought the text was AI generated. Aishik Nath (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Remsense! I needed your your help at wikt:pa:ਮੌਡਿਊਲ:ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰਡੱਬਾ. I'm unable to find the problem as I'm not a programmer and have no experience at all with Lua. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 10:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Why did you attempt to undo 170.55.94.210's topic inTalk:Augustine_of_Hippo#Height? As far as I can see, it served no purpose. {{User:Parting Shot/sig}} 02:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svg:Template:Tpj has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

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) 00:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello, Remsense,

I'm not sure why you are using WP:YOUNGATH as a deletion rationale for subjects who had adult careers playing or coaching in professional sports. YOUNGATH a deletion reason for athletes who primarily played sports in secondary school but not professionally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear Remsense,

Thank you for your interest in this article. You removed two images of an illuminated printed historical bible, (Vetus Testamentum, Brescia 1495) per Article is sufficiently illustrated; we do not need two large images of the same manuscript at the already cluttered top. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebrew_Bible&diff=1280297303&oldid=1280296436 diff]]) That's right, the top is cluttered indeed, however the remainder of the article is quite barren and can stand some illustration?

• Is it OK if i put the removed images over there, lower on the page?

I thought the photographed bible pages are gorgeous and worthwhile to show here.

Thank you, Hansmuller UBL (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Azov Brigade on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

The AfD hasn't been open for an hour yet, why would you close it? Schazjmd (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I thought the tool would give me a box to type in. If you think the SNOW close is inappropriate that's fine and up to you, but this has kneejerk bad faith written all over it. Remsense ‥ 论 13:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::When I saw it, you just closed as keep with no explanation, so it was unclear what you were doing. You've since amended the closure statement, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll be smarter about ensuring it doesn't do that for those onlooking in the future. Remsense ‥ 论 13:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, but that's an out of process AfD close. Amending it isn't enough; it needs to be reopened, because neither speedy keep criteria nor SNOW apply. I'll ask DRV for an admin to undo your close. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::SNOW applies plenty, and if your argument is genuinely that I used a tool that made me do it in two edits rather than one, you shouldn't be managing these processes, sorry. In order to avoid further hypocrisy on my part, I won't be throwing more hours into this pit, I hope everyone else who has to get involved knows how little is at stake for their contributions. Remsense ‥ 论 04:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of :Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hi Remsense! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of :Edward II of England several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at {{TALKPAGENAME:Edward II of England}}, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Warning both sides as I am not entirely sure who is at fault here.. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Preventing schoolchildren from damaging the encyclopedia isn't edit-warring, but thanks—if you actually believe your preferred change to be well-supported, you generally don't need to side with schoolchildren damaging the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::true lol... but IMO the portrait a few people put there looks more like it belongs, so IDK if that was vandalism per se. This needs to be discussed on the talk page I think, but people were not listening so I requested page protection. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 16:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It probably doesn't need it, as long as people who would be interested in the discussion wouldn't be boxed out—I just care about shunting these discussions to talk where they belong—obviously I care more about that with you, someone who's working in good faith, rather than letting school IPs waste our time. Remsense ‥ 论 16:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I have undone your non-admin closure of this AfD for the reasons described in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 24. Please do not disrupt the deletion process by closing discussions in a manner contrary to procedure, or you may be made subject to blocks or other sanctions. If you want to close AfDs, please make sure that you thoroughly understand applicable procedure and preferably apply for adminship first. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

why? 2600:480A:4A51:9300:E159:CFC5:9C65:79DD (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, the note under bust of Mark Antony hints that identification has no reliable basis. However if you don't open the note (which few users do), there is no indication in caption that identification is questionable. What do you think? Askelladd (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:To my eye, {{xt|traditionally identified}} suffices here—we wouldn't specify if that identification were equally accepted presently. Remsense ‥ 论 07:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::traditionally identified, in my opinion, implies that chance that the bust depicts him is more than 50%, when in fact chance is less than it, because initially identification was based on fact that all busts from the same era and two of them depict Octavian and Lepidus, which was eventually refuted. Askelladd (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, Remsense. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chinese philology, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately there was a conflict of edits in the article you were editing; could you restore your latest changes without affecting mine? Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I solved it, don't worry; {{done}}. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, on my user page I don't know how to make the userbox scrollable (on mobile devices, only the left half is visible), could you please help me? Thank you in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)