User talk:Remsense

1804 Massacre Edits

Hi Remsense!

You reverted some of my edits, citing the source as unreliable and labeling the information as fluff. I understand how the content I added to the "Effects on American Society" section might be considered fluff, as I included it primarily to improve the coherence of the section, which I found difficult to read and interpret (an unfortunate common occurrence in the article). However, I believe the information I added under the "Haitian Revolution" section is essential. Upon my first read, it was surprising that the article makes no mention of Toussaint Louverture, given his significant role in the Haitian Revolution and his influence on the events leading up to the 1804 massacre. I strongly argue that he should have a place in either the background and/or Haitian Revolution sections. Regarding the source, english-heritage.org.uk, I acknowledge that I did not properly cite it, as I omitted the name of the author. However, I found the site trustworthy, as english-heritage.org.uk relies on contributions from historians, including Jennifer N. Heuer, who authored the page in question. Her work, especially for the site, primarily focuses on the French Revolution, slavery, and colonialism, making her a credible source on the topic. Nonetheless, I am still quite new to editing on Wikipedia and might not fully understand certain aspects, like determining source validity.

Purplexcloudz (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that it is all background or aftermath information. This indeed can be vital to understanding, but it must be weighed with the presentation of the actual events. Haitian Revolution is its own article, and we're writing an encyclopedia article, remember: essentially a summary of a summary of a shadow. There's much to learn, and if we accept 10k words as a benchmark, then we see that the background section on 1804 Haitian massacre is just under 1000 words, 10% of a maximal article. I tend to err on the side of parsimony, but I don't disagree that those specific additions could be woven in. Subjects like these are deeply important, and what I would impress is: given they're so important, try to get everything across as efficiently as possible given the medium we're working in. Thanks for reaching out, feel free to ask if you have further questions or whatever, and thanks for the good work on an important page. Remsense ‥ 论 08:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Tittha Sutta et al.

Hi Remsense,

You reverted some of the edits done by the IP user 50.236.206.18 (which, for full transparency: many of which are mine, as it is public WiFi network I sometimes connect to in Portland, Oregon). Some of these are more contentious (this is debatable, while I still feel that old-fashioned terms don't qualify as biblical errata -- though I don't care enough to argue about it.) Other ones were less contentious, so I'm wondering why you reverted these:

• The Tittha Sutta is not channeled literature by any stretch of imagination. By all accounts is one of many ancient oral sources eventually recorded in the Nikayas. Channeled texts aren't mentioned in the body, or in the sources, and certainly not in the text itself.
• This is not vandalism (even if, admittedly, the edit summary is rude.) It is random unverified personal gnosis without a source or any mention of such a concept on the linked pages -- hence "no one asked" i.e. no one asked for some random syncretic personal theology.

Do you assume removal of content, regardless of the content being removed or the rudeness of the edit, qualifies as vandalism? wound theology◈ 08:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Template question

Hi, I might be asking the wrong person for this question, but perhaps do you know why the template "Template:Lzh" seems to be using a Taiwanese font? For example, 有 is typically written as 月 which is also seen in historical texts such as in the Kangxi dictionary (inherited glyphs). But in the Taiwanese standard, they prefer to write it as ⺼ which is modern orthography (Traditional Chinese characters ≠ Literary Chinese characters). Another example would be 遣 where the radical ⻌ would be written as ⻍ according to the inherited glyphs, while the Taiwanese standard is ⻎. The template uses ⻎ instead of ⻍.

How would one change it so that the template would use fonts (such as I.Ming) that are based on the inherited glyphs rather than the Taiwanese Traditional characters fonts (which are based on handwriting and their own standard)? Lachy70 (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi there! Regarding this edit request, I’m curious—how did you access page 51 of the book when the preview only shows the first 22 pages? Did you use a paid library or another resource? I’d love to know! The AP (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I can say having clicked the link provided on that page that Google shows me a snapshot which says Page 64 "40,000 Europeans then in India were killed". Sometimes Google is weird and shows a brief snippet of every page that contains the search result, in this case the search result is 40,000. Other times Google Books links will just provide you a preview that you can browse through which has a limited number of pages. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverting the newbies

We have both done so lately, twice in my case to SeeYou722772 (talk · contribs)^[noping]. I noticed yours as well. They are a newbie, and they have a high percentage of reverts of their edits, not for lack of trying, afaict. Can you please always leave something in the edit summary to let them know why? I am afraid that we are driving away future editors. All of your reversion edits (and mine, I hope) deserved to be done, but in the spirt of BITE, we should let them know why and point them in the right direction. Thanks for all you do, Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

They're an LTA. Remsense ‥ 论 10:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; I didn't know that. Is there an WP:SPI? Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, sorry for the delay: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueDIAMOND20s Remsense ‥ 论 04:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

They drove me away from wiki editing. you like 's� - Washweans (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Star edit revert inquiry

Hi Remsense! I'm just wondering why did you remove my edit on Stars? Rynoip (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, it did not seem like an improvement to the sentence structure. Remsense ‥ 论 04:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Rynoip (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rynoip: When you leave an edit summary like fixed the sentence structure, then don't complain when that is the basis on which your edit is assessed. Try doing your edit again but this time write an edit summary that actually summarises the change. Then it can be assessed on its own merits. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hey JMF! I have took your advice and made the edit again with a edit summary that is vastly improved! Thanks for the advice. Rynoip (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Continued at your talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Non-constructive?

Hi there. I’m not sure how exactly this edit [1] is “non-constructive”. You might not like it, but that doesn’t make it non-constructive. I’m obviously not going to change it back because it’s an insignificant change, but labeling it “non-constructive” is a little ridiculous. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If it doesn't make the article better, it's not constructive. I can see why others would see the term as having some presumption of bad faith or tendentiousness, but that's not how I intended it, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 04:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

And who are you to say it doesn't improve the article? Your reversions are unconstructive. Nashhinton (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you undo my contributions to the Neurotransmitter page?

I have not added anything incorrect. And I have used legit sources. Moderator no. 22349 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Going over the diff again, most of what I saw as errors were neutral or improvements; this isn't my wheelhouse generally, apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 18:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I am checking it and going through it as I study. There is a lot of issues with the language and the grammar. So I thought I'd just improve it. Moderator no. 22349 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

why did you undo a response that was to a 2024 conversation under "it is from 2010"reasoning?

this UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 01:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Pure disruption, coming at the tail of an emerging pattern of likewise disruption. I see you're taking steps to learn from and move on from that though, and I'm happy to see and comport with that in kind.Remsense ‥ 论 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone wanted to contribute by translating the Article Everything,so I decided to help them....how is that pure distruption?I do not get it.... UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 19:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ever think your reversions are pure disruption? Nashhinton (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove my topic from talk on grue

My topic was relevant for making the article better because I pointed out that with the current definition the article does not even make sense. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

See the edit summary. Remsense ‥ 论 00:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And I didn't remove that comment (though I would have), and you would know who did and why if you checked the edit history for this page at any point. Remsense ‥ 论 00:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you gonna explain why you removed my topic on grue? TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

See the edit summary; it seemed like you were using the talk page as a discussion forum. If it wasn't just a discussion post, then it would be helpful to repost it with more specifics as to what it actually relates to in the article and what could be fixed, so others can actually make use of it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I recommend not doubling down on personal attacks made by now-banned users for no reason. Remsense ‥ 论 02:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

idc + i improved the comment i had made and its fine now so dont revert it TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm just warning you about what is expected of your conduct on here. If you don't care, good luck I guess. Remsense ‥ 论 02:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is not bad conduct nor an insult. Trolling refers to a specific internet behavior, and a troll is someone who engages in that behavior. Calling someone a troll amounts to nothing more than an opinion, pointing a flaw out, or the like. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If you genuinely believe that it is not an insult, you're going to have a bad time, as no one else would agree with your premises and will take it as such. I strongly suggest reading the linked policy. Remsense ‥ 论 02:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you are so sensitive and were insulted by that, I suppose it is only right that I apologize and remove my heartbreaking insult. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, I'm just letting you know what site policy says so you don't eventually get blocked over it. The sarcasm dripping from your reply here tells me you still don't care, so like I said: good luck! Remsense ‥ 论 02:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

ok TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on Theodosius I

You're edit warring with that IP on Theodosius I. Stop it. You know better. He's not vandalizing the page. I've warned him and now I'm warning you. The next revert on that page earns a block. Katie^talk 01:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I did all I meant to do in trying to make sure the article lead agrees with the body, and I desisted once I saw others were handling it. Thanks for taking care of it. Remsense ‥ 论 01:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Classical Definitions of Concepts

The were several edits to the wikipedia article “Concept” which you reverted recently, stating that they did not improve the diction. Two were however edits which remedied a problem with central content in part of the article. On the talk page for this article I have opened a topic “Structure of Classical Definitions” where the problem is described. Please look at this topic so the problem can be discussed. User693147 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As one example, you added an odd stilted sentence But it may not be sufficient. to the article. Moreover, all of your additions were unsourced as far as I can tell, so whatever changes in meaning have been added should be sourced or removed. Remsense ‥ 论 07:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The additions only brought the text into agreement with a source which was already cited in the wikipedia article. It removed a discrepancy, rather than adding new content. Please look at the relevant pages of the book by Murphy. Murphy's book could be explicitly quoted in the wikipedia article. The other two reputable sources noted in this talk could also be inserted. User693147 (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

ECR

This looks like an edit request, which is allowed by ECR. Is there a reason you removed it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My understanding was edit requests are allowed, but of course in general some can't be answered except with "you needed consensus for this change first". If we answer that, it would seem pretty silly, since non-EC editors aren't allowed to engage in the consensus building process—or am I totally wrong about that logic? It seems odd to tell an editor "you need consensus for this, but you can't participate in establishing it". Remsense ‥ 论 20:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In that situation I normally explain that it will be visible for extended-confirmed editors to discuss. I know it's difficult to balance what might be most bitey, but I think leaving such a request and letting them know that EC editors can discuss it if they believe it has merit is the best choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah! See, I was interpreting leaving the post up as itself engaging in that process. Thanks for clearing this up, sorry about that. Remsense ‥ 论 20:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I know it's a minefield of rules and best practices. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

External links removal

Hi Remsense, you messaged me regarding external links you removed. I read the external links guide and the links I added should be kept because they fall under bullet 3 in this section Wikipedia:External links#What can normally be linked In instances where there was an official site, as indicated in bullet 1, the link was left in place. Nick rufa (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not an official site, it's a third-party portal to view some technical legal information. That's not necessary on an encyclopedia. What's more, the links do not work for me (I get a 403 Forbidden error), which seems to reinforce my point. Remsense ‥ 论 22:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Bullet three clearly indicates that this material fits the description of what an external link should be:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

The tech glitch is a tech glitch. Please revert my changes back on those updated pages. Nick rufa (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think this information is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. You wouldn't open the Britannica and expect to find technical minutiae like this. See WP:NOTDB. Remsense ‥ 论 22:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an External link to additional data. Nick rufa (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Reread what I said above. Remsense ‥ 论 22:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I just managed to open the site on my phone—and I'm tripling down. This website is clearly not an authoritative outlet for anything, has scraped whatever information is accurate from somewhere else, and is stuffed to the gills with ads and bullshit. Even if we did desire to include this information in an encyclopedia article (we don't), this is a completely unacceptable EL for it. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

okay, i can't argue your valid points on the ads, but the fact that data like this is important and should be included generally is accurate Nick rufa (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Your reversion is a disservice to learning. These pages are 501c3 non-profit organizations and the links are data relevant to that mission. Removing the links cannot be seen as helping anyone.

It is the perfect use for an external link as indicated precisely in bullet number three of what an External link should be. Nick rufa (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You've chosen to misread your own excerpt so deliberately that I'm not going to bother explaining the clear distinction between professional athlete statistics and the information you are insisting is appropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 22:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree, as I don't think it's wrong, the baseball stats was an example of a large amount of additional data, that would help the reader, yet not be included in the body, but as an External link. Nick rufa (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed them for spam. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"De facto"

I see that the word "de facto" is currently italicized in the infobox of the Yuan dynasty article. I thought you had approved this edit by User:Malik-Al-Hind earlier. I wonder why you think it should be italicized in the Yuan dynasty article but not in the Qing dynasty article? I do not think this should have anything to do with the differences between the two dynasties though. Thanks! --Wengier (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should be italicized anywhere—this is somewhere I'm trying to balance my opinion (which I do believe to be correct and most consistent with site guidelines, but understand no one else really wants to fight over at all) with that aforementioned reality. If it's italicized elsewhere, it's either because I didn't notice or didn't "test the issue" there.

I really do wish the MOS explicitly said it shouldn't be—barring that, I think there are genuine style benefits to having that be the case on an article-by-article basis, as long as it doesn't make anyone mad—it's just visually weird to read an article where "de facto" is italicized but "per se" or "e.g." are not.

(Anyone else reading this is free to jump in and tell me I'm being too particular about this still, though like I said I'm trying not to be pathological or disruptive about my preference here.) Remsense ‥ 论 04:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've probably mentioned this elsewhere, but I low-key hate the term de facto (which I do italicise, with {{lang}}, but do so here as a use–mention distinction). It seems to get sprinkled all over the place in a somewhat lazy fashion where regular English qualifiers – after a smol rewording – would work as well or better, like "in practice", "essentially", "acted as", "unratified", "in reality", "recognised as", "for all purposes", etc. ("Pretty much" is another parasynonym, disqualified on TONE.)

Moreover, it's often the case that the most educational way to explain a de facto thing is to leave the thing unqualified, and explain why it was not officially recognised as the thing it was de facto.

By definition the reason we have to use this term in the first place basically amounts to some missing paperwork, and I'm not sure why we choose to qualify historical realities with the caveat that no one bothered to tack on an evidently unnecessary seal of approval. Folly Mox (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

For example, at Qing dynasty § Reigns of the Yongzheng and Qianlong emperors, why did Yongzheng's Grand Council (Qing dynasty) eventually [grow] into the emperor's de facto cabinet for the rest of the dynasty? Did later emperors have an official cabinet in juxtaposition? (This is a genuine question: I'm fairly unfamiliar with Qing bureaucracy.) Couldn't this group be construed as the emperor's personal advisory committee?

At § Claiming the Mandate of Heaven, it should be obvious to any reader that if a compromise installed Hong Taiji's five-year-old son, Fulin, as the Shunzhi Emperor, with Dorgon as regent, then Dorgon exercised the imperial authority, and the explanatory coda and de facto leader of the Manchu nation is not necessary at all.

The de factorum at Yuan dynasty could be replaced with "in practice" with no change in meaning. Folly Mox (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I probably declined that incorrectly since it's now been over a quarter century since my most recent Latin class (and my Latin dictionary is all the way over there), but as a final off-topic reply to myself:

I'll note in passing that I perceive concerns over the consistency of individual terms being formatted in oblique or upright as one of Wikipedia's most trivial trivialities.

I'll confirm that my preference for native English terms is entirely inconsistent: although as stated I do hate de facto, I also regularly use prima facie, ceteris paribus, and other terms I find more convenient not to render in English.

I'll confess that I have never before used or encountered the term "parasynonym" before my first comment above, and found it by looking up 近義詞 at Wiktionary and clicking through some links. Folly Mox (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I lied about the finality. Because I couldn't help myself: I think it should be de factis. Sorry for the four notifications, Remsense. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Islamabad_Massacre

Hi, Remsense. I do agree with the "not sufficient content" as this article requires more info & citations but "Submission should be merged into an existing article" with Arrest_of_Imran_Khan is not ideal because that event happened in 9 May 2023. The indiscriminate killing of civilians by security forces in Islamabad happened on 26 Nov 2024 with at "least" confirmed deaths of 17 individuals as per the The Guardian newspaper. Event of this magnitude deserve its own page and we have many such examples on wikipedia. Perhaps the title can be changed to less charged language like "26th Nov Incident". Pls do share any suggestions you have. Ty. Wertk (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. I will undecline the draft. Thank you very much for reaching out. Remsense ‥ 论 08:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your diligence, patience, and hard work to limit the problems caused by the copyediting edit-a-thon. It is tough when groups of good-faith but not quite competent users do their best to improve Wikipedia and can't understand what the problems are. bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated! This is another incident where I feel I have a lot I can do better in the future, in any case. Maybe I should put myself on both "2RR" and "don't claim big lists before triple-checking them" New Years' Resolutions. Remsense ‥ 论 20:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Month Change

Hello,

In the list of minor planets, I changed the month from October to November 2024 (reason can be deduced from the calendar). For what reason may I inquire that the edit was removed.

Thanks,

Elios Peredhel Elios Peredhel (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no source cited that verifies this. It might be counterintuitive, but we can only set some figure as current to the most recent reliable source stating that figure. Remsense ‥ 论 02:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You've also Got No Authority to reset mine

You just have to know that you also take my change back at the talk Qwert0617 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You're not allowed to delete others' comments. If you have more comments, you're free to add them without also deleting mine. Remsense ‥ 论 12:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop.

You have reverted my edits of removing dead links, and I do not appreciate that, please set it back. Thanks! - washweans Washweans (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You reverted all my recent edits, just noticed. I was improving them... - washweans Washweans (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright I might report you.

I just realized you reverted ALL of my edits, even topics on the talk pages! If this continue, I might report you to mods. (THIS IS NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE.) -washweans Washweans (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

None were improvements, and were in fact introducing errors. There's no reason to expect you'd know that yet though (e.g. MOS:ORDER—though I would recommend taking the fact that you're new and new editors make mistakes in stride instead of blaming the person correcting them. Remsense ‥ 论 22:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

yeah but you deleted my topic on the stop talk page. Washweans (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

In your own words, it was useless. Remsense ‥ 论 01:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

dude... I was literally saying that the TEMPLATE was useless.. Washweans (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing tags

The tag suggested that something be done, but in about a year no one had done anything. This suggests that no one agrees with the tag. I don't know whether you intend to act on it yourself, but if not, the best thing is to delete it. (The guidelines on "undo" don't apply - this isn't an undo). Achar Sva (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly no time limit for the use of maintenance banners—if there were, a bot would prune them automatically. Your logic is a bit inscrutable—if maintenance needs to be done, then it needs to be done. Just because a banner is a year old doesn't mean it doesn't clearly still apply, and clearly serves as an aid for someone who decides to act on it. An editor taking that aforementioned step is always a stochastic event, and this sort of attitude towards the potential catalyst seems counterproductive at best to me. Banners are ugly, but ugly articles are uglier. Remsense ‥ 论 01:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to go to the article talk page and take a reading on how much interest there is in doing as you suggest (i.e., changing from table to prose). I suspect the answer will be that no one really cares. Achar Sva (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop it

I kindly request you to reconsider reverting the edits and sources I provided. I have ensured they are accurate, relevant, and properly referenced. Thank you! 223.223.137.195 (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to riff about nonsense in the edit summaries of otherwise completely unjustified edits and expect them to stay published. Cite your sources or stop touching the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Cambodia

Bordered by and borders to are not synonymous. Your version is inconsistent with other articles for countries when discussing their location relative to their neighbors. When you say Cambodia borders Thailand to the northwest, for example, it’s saying that Cambodia is northwest of Thailand. When you say Cambodia is bordered by Thailand to the northwest, it correctly puts Thailand to the northwest of Cambodia. Afheather (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conservatism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberalizing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Bot hace

With regard to diff, is this a bot hace? ;) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Unconstructive reverts

I have noticed your frequent reverts and removals of my contributions. I kindly ask you to reconsider this approach. Instead of simply reverting, it would be more productive to improve the content directly to demonstrate a better approach or engage in a detailed discussion with the involved editors about specific issues that need improvement. Collaboration works best when we exchange constructive feedback rather than issuing directives without clear reasoning. Additionally, based on your talk page, it seems I am not the first to raise concerns about your behaviour. Especially, do not remove long, well-sourced content simply because you do not like the spelling. It simply sounds funny. Free ori (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, the edit to Lu Muzhen was a mistake; sorry about that. Not sure there's much else at issue here, as I'm well aware how to resolve content disputes on Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 05:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It is difficult to consider this a simple mistake, given that I received three reverts from you in such a short period of time. Regarding the spelling issue, it is important to note that different regions and communities, such as the people of Hong Kong and Macau, have their own unique conventions for naming people and places. These local practices should be respected and taken into account when making edits. I encourage a more thoughtful approach to these regional differences in the future. Thanks. Free ori (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's fine: it was a simple mistake, as I edited an old revision instead of the live version by accident. Not sure why I'd bother engaging with you further if you're already assuming bad faith, though. You got three reverts in a short amount of time because I was scrolling through your contribution history. Frankly, as you are a new contributor making a lot of substantive additions to articles in a short period of time, I was checking to make sure you weren't plagiarizing your sources—this happens a lot, unfortunately. I'm grateful that I didn't find any of that, and appreciate your well-needed additions in general.

Though, we're not "different regions and communities", we are the English Wikipedia, and we have a policy concerning naming conventions. They aren't optional. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 06:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I kindly suggest that you review the guidelines on WP:AGF, which state:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g., vandalism), nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism [...]

Admittedly, I am not a perfect editor, and occasional grammatical errors are inevitable, especially when working through tens of pages in multiple languages—or even hundreds of pages in a book. Mistakes are bound to happen. However, reverting edits are typically not a constructive approach, when you fail to address the real issue.

Regarding the spelling issue, changing "Sun Fo" (Cantonese) to "Sun Ke" (Pinyin) for the sake of consistency can be confusing, as it disregards established naming conventions tied to specific linguistic and cultural contexts. For other English spelling issues, I encourage you to provide assistance or flag them for attention.

I hope we can work towards better communication. Thank you for your understanding. Free ori (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, if you're not assuming good faith, then I have no interest or ability to "work towards better communication" with you. I will reiterate that you should abide by WP:NC in your edits. Remsense ‥ 论 06:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please, please take a moment to review the guideline on WP:AGF. It is somewhat ironic when someone does something unconstructive and then accuses those who critique their specific behaviour of violating the principle of AGF. This is not, fundamentally, how AGF is intended to work. For any specific issues regarding my edits, please do clarify. Thank you for your understanding. Free ori (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't engage in coherent content discussions with someone who's not assuming good faith in my actions, sorry. Not even sure why you're here given that is the case. Best of luck rectifying that. Remsense ‥ 论 06:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Me either. I have already gave my constructive suggestions. Best luck to you. Free ori (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd give constructive suggestions to someone you're assuming bad faith in. Remsense ‥ 论 07:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As I am recently writing about her, people still treated Jiang Qing well after she was put in jail. That makes two kinds of people. Free ori (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Self-professed jailer mindset isn't a flattering attribute for an editor to have. Remsense ‥ 论 07:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Still those advice. I kindly ask that we set aside personal egos and focus on discussing the specific issues at hand. Please remember that assuming good faith (WP:AGF) does not protect anyone from constructive criticism or justify defensiveness towards others' comments. The more one allows ego to dominate, the more likely they are to perceive others as attacking or restraining them, even when that is not the case. Free ori (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If you don't understand why an editor can't engage in constructive discussions with others who are assuming bad faith in them, then you need to figure that out. Remsense ‥ 论 07:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, as I currently feel that I am being subjected to assumptions of bad faith on your part. It seems as though you are trying to paint me as the "bad guy" and push me to reflect on myself, even though we currently have no active edit conflict. Free ori (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, quite the contrary. Like I said, I appreciate your recent contributions and would be better equipped to engage with your concerns if I were able to deal with someone not assuming bad faith in me. Remsense ‥ 论 07:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Phrases such as "self-professed jailer mindset," "someone who's not assuming good faith in my actions," and "not useful" come across as unnecessarily negative and unconstructive.

I want to reiterate that assuming good faith (WP:AGF) should not be used as a shield against constructive criticism. I would also appreciate more detailed explanations, especially when you assert that your perspective is correct.

For instance, you reverted my maps of Central and North China, describing them as "not useful." This appears to stem from a lack of understanding that these definitions were historically used during WWII. The current map creates confusion because it fails to reflect the historical context accurately. My previous work on the Chinese hyperinflation page brought this issue to light, highlighting the differences in administrative divisions at that time.

As I’ve mentioned before, I urge you to adopt a more thoughtful and informed approach to such differences and do not pretend to be a know-it-all. Thanks. Free ori (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You have literally professed yourself as having a mindset akin to that of Jiang Qing's jailers, and you have specifically stated repeatedly that you do not see my actions as being made in good faith. It's too bad that I repeated your own words back to you in slightly different terms you didn't like. Unless you're going to assume good faith in my actions, don't post anything else on my talk page. If you have outstanding issues, you'll have to take them to WP:ANI instead. Remsense ‥ 论 07:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)