Archives

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

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

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving article quality in March! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today Jörg Streli, an architect to whom you can listen (in German, though) and the Jahrhundertring, nominated for GA (both hidden on the main page) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to talk to you about the Wikipedia page of Xiamen. You rejected all my edits. The page remains unchanged. So I would like to explain it. Thanks.

First, since the successful application of Gulangyu Island (Kulangsu Island) for World Heritage, the Xiamen Municipal Government prefers to use "Kulangsu" instead of "Gulangyu" in English.

Second, Tongan dialect is used in Tong'an District, Xiang'an District, and some part of the Jimei District. Xinglin District (later merged into Jimei District) does not use Tongan dialect. Haicang District does not use Tongan dialect either. The mainland part of Xiamen City is composed of Jimei District, Haicang District, Xiang'an District, and Tong'an District, so I just modified it to "majority of the mainland part". I think this is more accurate.

Third, I added some words to try to make it more accurate and complete. For example, Xiamen dialect is used not only in the southwest of Xiamen Island, but also in Kulangsu Island.

I look forward to your reply. Please forgive me if my editing cause any trouble to you. Many thanks. TomChiew (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to change the form of terms used, it's best to start a move request to discern whether that form should be the article title, which usually means it's the form that should be used elsewhere. Remsense ‥ 论 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In response to your statement that American English allows for "towards" in addition to "toward," I wholeheartedly believe that as well. However, many reliable sources (including Merriam Webster, the foremost American dictionary, and Grammarly) state that the latter is generally preferred—even if not necessarily prescribed—so why is it that we are not to go with it?

Thanks, Solo4701 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere like Wikipedia, I would point immediately to the principle of WP:COMMONALITY as key to our survival: conventions like ENGVAR should be conceptualized as aiming to reduce the total possible surface area for confusion and dispute, not ever potentially making it even more fractal and granular, as potentially jutting up stumbling blocks where none actually need to be. Remsense ‥ 论 04:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking by the way—I appreciate the attention to detail, I really do. FWIW, I've started a discussion here if you want to chime in. Remsense ‥ 论 04:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I may provide input when I have more time and have reviewed the corresponding articles; my preconception is that we simply ought to ensure consistency in a regionally apposite manner (otherwise, how else?), a principle by which the Andrew Jackson article—among others—fails to abide. Solo4701 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is the tweaking of the wording going? 216.58.25.209 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely slipped my mind, thanks for your patience & for reminding me. Remsense ‥ 论 23:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps copyediting could be based off of the version I just reinstated. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Just wanted to say that I greatly appreciate your work on WP. :D Double sharp (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can be bad at taking compliments (apologies to others for previous barnstars I haven't shown adequate appreciation for, while I'm thinking about it) but I really do appreciate it. You're a particularly esteemed colleague to me, so I have to admit it's particularly validating. Remsense ‥ 论 18:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(o_O) That's quite some praise! Sorry for being just as awkward in my reaction. And yeah, we do seem to encounter each other a lot on WP, probably thanks to similar interests. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my problem. If I look at the article history I can see you went over the 3RR ([1],[2],[3],[4]) and, if I wanted to use administrator discretion I could have blocked you from editing the article as well. (To be clear, I'm not going to because that would not help the encyclopedia). More to the point, arguing over the linking of the word writing in the article is a rather silly and pointless thing to do. In your shoes, I would have probably reverted once, and if reverted back, walked away from the article (probably muttering "what a jerk") and done something else in the knowledge that if it was that serious an issue, somebody else would have dealt with it. I'm disappointed not so much that the other party got blocked (I don't agree with the blocking rationale of "not here to build an encyclopedia", it's more "incapable of getting on with others") but that it was over such a silly and pointless tidbit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was their choice to call me that, and I have no apologies about trying to prevent their edit summaries from appearing in peoples' watchlists, even if it wasn't perfectly effective. You already know how divergent we are per the acceptability of their conduct, so I'm not sure what else you want me to tell you: you're the admin and I accept your decisions, having already expressed my criticism of them. Remsense ‥ 论 20:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each to their own I guess. I just shrug this sort of thing off. I see EvergreenFir has now indeffed, and I remember at their RfA they got a little bit of slack from proudly displaying a series of insults hurled at them on their user page. I like that sort of thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I usually don't care if they insult me directly, but the use of racial slurs is different. That, plus the escalation is tone and IDHT pushed it to an indef. their UTRS request showed even further escalation. I may have been a bit overkill, but the racist stuff deserved a block imo. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, I'm just slightly perplexed at how it ... well, escalated so quickly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you figure it out, please let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 21:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What new claims? OutsidersInsight (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not my talk page, but instead Talk:Cambodian–Vietnamese War. Remsense ‥ 论 07:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Main Page thing. If I recall, CSDing the Main Page should have been disabled a long time ago, but apparently wasn't on TwinkleMobile. I had no actual intention to do so, as I was under the impression that it had been disabled. I apologize deeply for any trouble this caused you. I should know better, and I am truly sorry. I understand that my actions have consequences, and I take full responsibility for that. Again, I am deeply sorry for the idiotic decision I made. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it would be disabled. Just keep in mind we generally don't make silly things impossible for regular users. Remsense ‥ 论 11:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't protected by "GENSEX" (while woman yes). JacktheBrown (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I'm trying to save you from yourself here. You were told "broadly construed", and unfortunately it immediately made sense to me that you may not have fully internalized what that actually means. Remsense ‥ 论 12:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No user has ever understood what "broadly construed" really means; this was just an attempt to gradually remove me from the encyclopedia (it may happen soon on my own initiative). JacktheBrown (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jack. No one is out to get you. It is in some sense a vague definition, but at the same time if you get sanctioned because you thought a post on Talk:Man comparing the legal sex discrimination in different countries was somehow not covered—that would be completely on you, given it is not even disputable as "broadly construed", that's just blatantly the core of the topic (gender and sex). Again, I'm telling you all this because I don't want you to blatantly shoot yourself in the foot, but you have to work with me here. Remsense ‥ 论 12:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the topic ban, I made a mistake, just one, this one; to clarify. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

like i didnt edit anything 2600:480A:4A51:9300:1A68:854F:973F:FE4B (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Remsense

I've noticed an erase you've made on an article I've seen fit to be re-edited. Please explain why have you downgraded my level of editing and erased my work?

Kindly yours KOALANE J.J. JJ Koalane (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what edit summaries are for. Remsense ‥ 论 19:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting my edits for no reason I am not a spam, i just did read some articles by carrier and added them to wikipedia 45.247.121.81 (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, briefly mixing up Richard Carrier in my head with another author who isn't someone we want to link from encyclopedia articles. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 21:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you are a good person thank you 45.247.121.81 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are you? I see that you reverted my edits on the Nineveh article. You said that it was because no grammar mistakes were fixed. Can you be specific about what grammar mistakes I introduced? PotatoKugel (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, because I made another (ugh) mistake there. Remsense ‥ 论 01:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PotatoKugel (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realized "spelt" was valid in British English as soon as I committed the MOS edit. You beat me to the revert though! Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you very much for helping me get back and your suggestions have also helped me a lot. I intended to give you a barnstar but didn't know which one to choose, so I'm writing this thank you note instead. Respectfully. Min968 (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi!! i just wanted to clarify that my purpose for changing the infobox picture wasn't undertaken 100% independently or without consideration for other editors' involvement in the project. the main points of my reasoning can be found on the article's talk page, after a couple of weeks of waiting and receiving no objections i decided to change the picture. i admit this was maybe still a little too fast, but i didn't really see how the previous picture was at all illustrative of the restoration process in fact. but please raise any objections, i would rather establish a proper consensus about what to use in, and how to write, the article than impose my vision unilaterally. best wishes!--Plifal (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abdullah I.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

You have twice deleted an addition to the Christopher Columbus page. The addition was placed in the 'See also' section and linked to the directly relevant and internal "Origin Theories of Christopher Columbus". Please explain again your logic as the link in Wikipedia summarising the use of 'See also' fully supports the initial revision.

Truly, Teatree767 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you couldn't read the edit summary very directly pointing you to the reason, my reply here won't help. Remsense ‥ 论 13:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the edit summary but couldn't understand your logic. That is an unhelp response that prevents either inquiry or education. Would appear that you afraid to properly explain yourself. Teatree767 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first two sentences of the guideline section I linked you. Remsense ‥ 论 13:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the talk page in social psychology. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Social psychology#Merge proposal".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Senomo Drines (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute one can have over the contents of articles they have not read. I will not be engaging with this, which would seemingly require additional editors to spend time reading the articles in your stead. Remsense ‥ 论 13:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i noticed you righfully warned me a couple of days ago for an edit on the Barack Obama page, and i was wondering what your permission status is. is it admin, extended confirmed? or what?

IDK how to read (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Our policies and guidelines are community enforced, and administrators have a purely technical role of actually clicking some of the buttons. Remsense ‥ 论 17:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i know and i agnowlege that what i did was wrong, i just want to know how you warned me without admin. IDK how to read (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to apologize, it's enough that you are receptive to communications. There's a tool called Twinkle that allows editors to send these standardized messages. Happy editing. Remsense ‥ 论 17:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only up as I ant sleep, tomorrow. They are on my watchlist Doug Weller talk 22:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do ants sleep, anyway? Or do they sleep? EEng 07:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do, in micro-doses. CMD (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You get enough flak for reverts as-is, so how about a constructive idea instead: this revert was kinda correct, but not because it didn't have an edit summary – "Perestroika" is already mentioned earlier in the article, so it would be best to link it in the body and remove it from the See also per MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN. Toadspike [Talk] 15:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the change. Toadspike [Talk] 15:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Remsense. I am Madamrose1965, an (Redacted) editor with a passion in history ( not occupation but editing what is incorrect ). I have seen your complain against my disruptive editing, especially at Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius I. I understand that disruption is very annoying but I will also not refrain from declaring that it is my right to correct what is wrong, especially at pages regarding Eastern personalities and else. If u have any issue then go to wikipedia authorities and ask them to correct their laws. Because it is everyones right to have right information as a member of wikipedia authority tweeted in response to the current Turkish Presidents policies and undoubtedly it is. I am young and inexperienced if any mistake is done guide me as u may be experienced and older than me. Madamrose1965 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social psychology (sociology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Identity theory.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Remsense there is a name change discussion at Republic of Cuba (1902–1959), and I think you'd find it interesting. Give it a look, and leave a vote if you can. Mangokeylime (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a misclick or do you know something I don't? Or both. Polygnotus (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All (save for possibly Wimbledon) were over- or re-linking. Remsense ‥ 论 06:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An academic source and two primary sources from 1898 and 1939 of authors which worked with originals were cited. The originals are from the 6-13 centuries. User3810486 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of verifiability. There's very little utility in an exhaustive list for the average reader: if they want such a list, they would consult some source other than an encyclopedia article. Remsense ‥ 论 22:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could have made a drop down list instead of deleting the entire entry which took effort to complete. I intend on doing that please refrain from deleting verified and interesting information as you alone should not be judge of what the average reader needs. User3810486 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we generally do not allow collapsing such elements by default, cf. WP:NOHIDE. That serves to emphasize my point—if it's not worth showing to the general readership in full, it might not be worth including in a generalist encyclopedia article. Remsense ‥ 论 23:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the list is very relevant information otherwise why would they publish it in 1898 and try to sort it out in 1939? I will be adding information on the lists as the numbers range from approximately 170 to 320 (Latin, Greek, Coptic, Arabic, Armenian) lets see if that is to your liking and relevance. Regarding the list itself I urge you to think about it, it shows the presence of early Christianity in Asia Minor and Middle East, something which is no longer. User3810486 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think literally any list of any 200 individuals is vital information on an encyclopedia article. I know what you could maybe do: perhaps you could transfer this over to a page on Wikiversity as an educational resource, and then you could put a link to it in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 23:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably that is what I will do. I still strongly disagree with you, its not just "any list" and I assure you many people would be interested in who was present as much as they are interested in the process and the outcome. It is a wonder the lists survived in the first place. User3810486 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I really do—and I appreciate you engaging with me in good faith about it. Everyone's fallible, but part of what I've learned editing an encyclopedia is how best to serve readers that may only spend five, even two minutes skimming a given article. Remsense ‥ 论 23:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In similar cases (because it is not unusual), the problem has been resolved by creating a separate List of attendees of the First Council of Nicaea article. That's the beauty of a hypertext encyclopedia: people who want the detail can drill down to get it, those who don't need it (now) don't have to wade through that detail. wp:Think of the reader, the majority of whom are using mobile phones. So I suggest you create the list article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC) (talk page watcher)[reply]

Hey there, saw you reverted my entry on List of Chinese inventions due to the source being weak, I've added it back with a stronger source. Please let me know if this should suffice. Aeviternity1 (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have cited a paper by a lawyer, so I'm not really sure why she would be a reliable source to characterize technical breakthroughs in genetic engineering. Really, it's mostly a bioethics paper. Your addition really seems a bit misplaced, if that makes sense. Why is this particular incident an "invention"? The closest element to an invention here is CRISPR, which was first disclosed by a team working out of UC Berkley in 2012. Remsense ‥ 论 23:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what you mean, these two citation would probably be best: https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2019/07000/genetically_modified_babies_and_a_first.23.aspx

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6813942/

But towards your greater point, as for its characterization as an "invention" or not, I think the case is strong that human germline engineering represents a landmark invention. It utilizes CRISPR technology for a novel purpose and applying CRISPR to humans is not a simple cut and paste of the processes used on other animals. From the mid 2010s onwards scientists have been developing human germline editing and their initially poor success rates transferring intended genetic material to embryos is testament to the challenges of adapting CRISPR to humans. In He Jiankui's case, he successfully (and highly unethically) combined CRISPR with assisted reproductive techniques to achieve heritable genetic modifications, though with mosaicism. If that doesn't seem significant on its own then perhaps the successful non-viable human embryo edits achieved by other teams in China in 2015 or 2017 should be chosen instead? But seeing as the development of human germline editing has almost entirely been by scientists based out of China, an entry of some sort seems warranted. I'm just unsure which milestone to pick. Aeviternity1 (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Penny for your thoughts? Aeviternity1 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea of what that could look like:

• Human germline engineering: In 2015, researchers led by Puping Liang used CRISPR/Cas9 to edit non‑viable human embryos—an early step that demonstrated the viability of HGE.^[1] This was followed by a more successful attempt in 2017 from another team in China.^[2] The field reached a controversial milestone with He Jiankui’s experiment, in which he produced the world’s first gene‐edited babies, igniting fierce ethical debates and calls for tighter regulations.^[3][4]

Let me know if you feel this entry addresses your concerns. Aeviternity1 (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will delete this after you get the chance to respond so the references don't gum up your talk space. Aeviternity1 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be making our own original deductions about what constitutes an invention. If reliable secondary sources characterize something as an invention, and as being invented in China, then it may be due for inclusion. Remsense ‥ 论 15:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question by pure curiosity. What is the advantage, for Wikipedia and for readers, of having a map of the Germanic peoples and Europe in 476 that does not show the Warnes, the Langobards, the Heruls and the Romance languages, rather than a map that shows them? How is having less information more interesting? Thank you! 2A01:CB1C:82C7:7700:7057:A386:DEB1:9E0A (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to the replacement of File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png with File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.jpg. Firstly, the obvious answer is that added information isn't free and depending on the article a reader may or may not find the added elements to be of little to no relevance. That's not why I undid the swaps, though—the issue is visible in the file name. It's not acceptable to render such a map as a JPEG, where particularly damaging lossy compression is introduced for no benefit. If you still have the source files, I recommend rendering and reuploading the newer version as a PNG, like the original. Remsense ‥ 论 14:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You violated the 3RR rule here:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282495007 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282494246 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282493783

Please take back your final revert. 2601:2C1:8500:7D50:458D:9DE2:A398:B63D (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reread WP:3RR, and then please read WP:ONUS and WP:OR. Remsense ‥ 论 19:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for edit warring. 2601:2C1:8500:7D50:458D:9DE2:A398:B63D (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste their time because you misread the policy. Remsense ‥ 论 19:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKILAWYERING. WP:3RR is not an explicit guideline every editor must follow. The whole point of the rule is meant to stop edit warring, not perpetuate it. Asking Remsense to take back their revert goes against the spirit of that policy. Senomo Drines (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this is the wrong way of looking at 3RR, IMO. Wikipedia:Edit warring is absolutely a policy page. 3RR makes totally clear that expected admin discretion for an edit warring block essentially drops to zero—if I violate 3RR and get blocked for it, that is entirely the fault of my own discretion and not the blocking admin's.

Given that the mechanism within intended to throw cold water on edit warring, any instance where editors stop reverting each other is a success. I ask others to self-revert depending on what article state seems best to work from in the ensuing discussion. Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Nowadays" because the very notion of "number theory" applied to Babylon is arguably an anachronism. Garald (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two points I can think of: the word nowadays is informal and encyclopedic in tone—and it is unnecessary to anchor the concept to the present; whatever qualifications are made should closely mirror what the source actually says. We all get frustrated while editing, but it's worth noting your edit summaries are particularly incivil, so I'm asking in the pending discussion that you please relax a bit. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]