This is an archive of past discussions about Science. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This user → Remsense is preventing me from publishing an edit to the Science article claiming my post is unconstructive and that I’m being disruptive. After two attempts to add two words to the article this user started a talk page making their claim, but my attempt to understand their continued removal of my post have gone unanswered. If anyone is being disruptive it is Remsense. Justwanaedit (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The world is very clearly meant as "existence external to ourselves and subject to empirical observation in general", as opposed to "the planet Earth". That you are reading it to mean the narrower latter sense is a hang-up particular to you, as far as I can tell.
Another editor may come along and decide to change the prose because this exchange is even occurring to begin with—better safe than sorry, and all that. I would strongly object to this: just because one editor has decided to become deliberately confused about the plain meaning of a passage does not mean that passage is actually confusing. Remsense ‥ 论05:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Please, your inference that somehow I’m confused in my understanding of the world is only adding to your deliberate snide remark toward me initially and “hang-up” come on. The first sentence of the article ends prematurely because it infers the world is the limit of all science and my addition “and beyond” was meant to add clarity. Surely you don’t think “the world” includes other planets or someone should take it to mean all the universe. You may remember mom’s day-time soap opera “As the World Turns” perhaps they were confused too. Maybe we can agree instead of “world” it would be better to use “universe”. Just so those of us who are easily confused and get hung-up on the vague use of a word just might be able grasp the area of study. Justwanaedit (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry @ModernDaySlavery, but it does make sense. It is perfectly clear to me what the passage means as written, and echoing our dialogue about changes above, your edit clearly makes it worse. I'm fallible, but I have to be honest when I say that you not understanding what this passage means seems to be a you problem—hence "idiosyncratic"—and lends credence to my request that you please stop trying to tinker with it, and possibly also with other highly finessed passages within our most important broad-concept articles.
Such passages are, more often than not, already written the way they are for good reasons reflecting well-established language in our sources. Given you do not seem to be in the habit of actively cross-referencing the summaries provided in other authoritative secondary or tertiary sources, what we end up with are essentially expressions of your personal opinions regarding what aspects of these subjects are important or interesting. That's not productive, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论08:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Done 💜 melecie talk - 01:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: