User talk:Remsense#Re: "undiscussed, substantive change to site policy"

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Ambox warning blue.svg:Template:Culture of California/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:List of wars involving the Czech lands 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.

Just as a reminder: you're at WP:3RR at :Buddhism. You beat me with the third one, so no worries about eyes watching that page. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Mazel tov. Since I have you here, given the recent parallel discussion I did actually read Carrier (2014) cover to cover over the past few days. Curious if you ever did and what you thought—my feelings are mixed. Remsense ‥ 论 04:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::You read the whole book, in just a couple of days? - astonishing. I never did; I got hooked on the CmT by Earl Doherty, and rwad quite a lot of him; it was fascinating, and awakened a warm interest in Christian origins. But eventually, the 'mainstream' convinced couldn't be correct - too complicated, an historical origin is simply more realistic. And besides, or additionally, I also read Dunn and Hurtado; they're brilliant. For Dunngoes the sayings 'He's forgotten more than I will ever know'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, you have deleted all my contributions in Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib. Could you please explain why? Peoplic (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:For the same reasons explicitly given for your additions to other articles: you have largely repeated information already in the article, and cited your additions with a source from the 17th century, which is totally unacceptable. You've unfortunately spent a lot of time trying to cite it on every article possible. Remsense ‥ 论 10:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:huh what did you do 2600:480A:4A51:9300:2681:3AB3:C30B:F7A6 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

At WT:MOSNUM#Consider keeping romanizations in running text confirmation, you didn't ping participants Kusma, DeCausa, Herostratus and Seefooddiet. It's not obvious to me why you'd omit them. If perhaps you thought to only check that those expressing doubts wouldn't object, I'd suggest that the engagement of other editors in resolving the matter and finalising text might be valuable, that they might even have more to say by now, and that they do at least deserve the same courtesy. NebY (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oh, yes. I always feel like I'm annoying people pinging them, so I only pinged those who I saw as having some critique or concern. Bad habit I need to do away with. Remsense ‥ 论 13:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'll ping them myself shortly if you don't. I felt it would look better for you if all the pings came from you, that's all. NebY (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, sorry. I'll do that. Remsense ‥ 论 14:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you! NebY (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Remsense. What was the reason for removing the under construction template specifically for Constitution of Zambia and not for others? I understand that the excessive use of this template in certain scenarios can discourage edits being made (like "claiming" the page). I also understand that the template should be used exclusively for larger contributions. I don't have a lot of editing experience, but I am currently in the process of developing an understanding of how different templates work and I saw the page needed expanding and thus thought the template was needed to show this. Thank you for helping me out as a freshly-born editor. PoliglotoArtificial (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:As I said before, I wouldn't worry about it so much. It's actually more difficult to get in other editors' way than you might realize. Remsense ‥ 论 14:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Okay, thanks for helping me PoliglotoArtificial (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Remsense, may I ask why you delete entire edits only because you do not agree with the title or because you think it does not improve the quality of the article? I try to improve articles here on Wikipedia and I am convinced you share the same goal. However, I think instead of simply reverting edits, it is nicer to either address the points for improvement on the talk page or make the improvements yourself. Deleting everything is not helping the quality and disrespectful of the work other users put into it (always assuming the edits are not obvious cases of trolling, etc.).

Could you explain why you reverted my edit on the article about the Nile? To me it seems like the main reason is because of the title. Well, I think the section mainly discussed/discusses the water sharing dispute directly linked to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and issues closely related to it. Therefore, I decided to change the title after adding a couple sentences, to make it easier to find for other people. However if you disagree with this, I am happy to discuss any alternative title.

Jas24A (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would understand this if you were making additions on the margins, but you've basically rewritten the entire section, seemingly with an intent to change its POV to one more exclusively focused on conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia. That's why I'm asking you to post on Talk:Nile, so disagreements you may have about what the section is actually about can be sorted. Remsense ‥ 论 14:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::The section already was about the conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia and their respective allies in the region. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is just the most prominent and most relevant case where this dispute plays out. Therefore, I think I did not change the POV of the section but just made it more tangible and detailed.

::Anyhow, I will post on Talk:Nile to discuss the changes. If you have any suggestions (alternative title, structure, etc.), feel free to engage there. Jas24A (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:John Lynch (linguist) 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.

{{User QAIbox

| image = Yellow roses, Johannisberg.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

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

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

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

Please don't use the Unpipe script in navigational templates. See WP:DOFIXIT. Nardog (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you—I think I did come across this recently, so I apologize if I did this even more recently. Remsense ‥ 论 12:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Heya, I saw the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resurrection_of_Jesus&diff=next&oldid=1290404329 revert that you did on my edit], and I had a question.

First though, I recognize that:
1: "Violate" was probably the wrong word to use in my edit summary, instead I should have used something such as "because of" or similar.
2: WP:Weasel was the wrong WP: that was referenced in the edit summary; I was thinking of WP:Alleged.

In WP:Alleged, it says that {{tq|So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart.}} So, wouldn't the edit have been "correct" despite the incorrect edit summary?

Thanks in advance. 98.181.115.166 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Remsense,

I know you as an experienced editor. But as an experienced editor, one who is knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works, after reading over that RFC at Talk:Femosphere and the ANI discussion, it seems obvious to me that you were enjoying poking the bear, and by that I meant, Daft Elephant. They obviously were not handling the situation very well, in a number of ways including OWN but I think you were saying intentionally provocative statements to them to put them in their place. All newbies have a learning curve, sometimes it is a steep one, but I think once Daft Elephant had learned the ways that collaborative editing works, they had the potential to be a good contributor here. I'd just like to ask that if you come across another new editor, well-intentioned but on the verge of a frustration breakdown, please think twice about pushing them over the edge to where they self-implode and find themselves blocked. I'm actually surprised that their actions ended up in an indefinite block and even though I think they are 80% responsible for that by their actions and responses and 10% to an admin who didn't want to put up with any nonsense, 10% was due to you lighting a fuse that caused them to blow up.

Like I said, you are very experienced and knowledgeable, you have nothing to prove. Now, you can use that insight to help new editors or shut them down by pointing out their ignorance and mistakes and I hope you start choosing to use your talents to build up editors who are imperfect but trying to learn. I hope this message comes across well because I really think you can be a force for good instead of mistaking beginners for vandals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

why? please explain im trying to be neutral though 2600:480A:4A51:9300:7512:BF07:288B:B181 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svg:Template:History of China/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=Doug Weller talk 06:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not everything that isn't cited would be deleted though.

JamesEMonroe (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=1292848660] sorry but what is "dogmating"? And am I wrong in trying to adhere to WP:SD40? it's lio! | talk | work 12:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

: Remsense ‥ 论 12:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

:Oh and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&diff=prev&oldid=1292848601 this] as well - I wouldn't call an excerpt from the lede "totally useless". What about just removing "mechanism of evolution" since it's not in the first sentence? it's lio! | talk | work 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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