User talk:Omnipaedista

If I left you a message on your talk page, please respond on your talk page. Comments which I find to be uncivil, flame baiting, or excessively rude may be deleted without response.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Hi Omnipaedista. I saw that you took an interest in the Sitel (now Foundever) and Sykes Enterprises pages. I disclosed a connection to Foundever and requested some tweaks here to the Sykes Enteprrises page. My request is to more clearly indicate in the Lead that it is now acquired and no longer in operation. Could I bother you to take a look and consider my request? DanSlavov (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will soon look into it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omnipaedista! I saw that you copied a section of the universals debate into the nominalism article. I am currently writing an essay which involves nominalism, in extension also around the question of open source knowledge production. I would be really curious why you make your edits, and in this specific case, why you chose to make an edit to the nominalism page and why you copied the section from the universal problem page? The tiniest hint/insight would be of great help! Thanks!

--Babybel36 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently edit philosophy articles because I have a keen interest in philosophy. I chose to edit the Nominalism page because I am particularly interested in medieval philosophy. I copied the history section from another page because I believe each philosophy article should have a history section. Nominalism did not have such a section before I edited it. I chose to copy the section from another article because I did not have time to write a history section from scratch at the time. The relevant section from Problem of universals is reasonably good so I copied parts of it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're removing cleanup tags with the edit summary of "obsolete". If you're doing it because they're old, please don't do that. If you haven't fixed the problem (for example, adding sources to an article that's been tagged as having unsourced content), just leave the tag there. Also, I think you've got some misunderstanding about notability. Notability, as a Wikipedia concept,

By "obsolete" I mostly meant that the problem had been addressed before my removal or that the problem had not been explained on the talk page (see

WP:ELPEREN. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Omnipaedista!

• The
  New Pages Patrol
  is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read
  project talk page
  with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider
  applying here
  .

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reversed Cabrilho birth year, from 1496-1497, back to the outdated 1498, quoting again Kelsey. In reference 5, from Wendy Kramer, Cabrilho declared to be 35 years old in early 1532. That will bring his birth year to 1496 or 1497, depending on which month he was born. Surely not though 1498, going back to Kelsey outdated estimates. Now we know better. Can you correct your erroneous editing please? If you want to refer to a source, replace 1 by 5. Thank you 104.220.108.138 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Done. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say "Thanks" for the input you made to the article, because the JSA collections really do need their own highlight.

Thanks for your kind words. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Omnipaedista, On 28 April 2018 you (I think) changed the name of a page from "Neurotree, Academic Family Tree" to "Neurotree". I am sorry I initially offended against whatever Wikipedia policy requires single-barrel page titles. But now I think it would have been better for the page title to have been "Academic Family Tree". Academic Family Tree (https://academictree.org) currently contains 72 trees from disciplines as diverse as history, public policy, literature, advertising, astronomy, geography, and mathematics for all of which it is difficult to see their connection to neuroscience. Can such a change be made to a page title without wreaking havoc with all the other articles with links to it? (I do not have the faintest idea.) Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I renamed it because a title should ideally be about one primary topic only. I support renaming the page to

Academic Family Tree. Renaming it is justified. It would be harmless as well. The only thing is that you and I cannot perform the move because we are not admins. This particular redirect happens to be performable only by an admin. You would need to apply for the move here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Will do. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

What exactly is there on

The main issue is that it is a tertiary source published more than a hundred years ago. Such sources are best to be avoided; they should be brought up to date to reflect subsequent history or scholarship (if any). --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is however contemporary to the situation for which it is a source - the use circa the 1920s of the term "Jewish Colony" to refer to the seed of what later grew and evolved into Jewish West Jerusalem as a community and a sprawling conurbation.  :: (Also it's a 1928 imprint so not quite 100 years yet.)

And another thing,

WP:RSPRIMARY states "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited". So, regardless of what the tertiary sources article says about general practice regarding such sources, WP's own policy is to allow them.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I am convinced then that the source may be kept. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did an editor by the name of Peter Zabriskie email you too after you removed his ancestors from the Zabriskie page? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be carfeul not to separate an information from its inline ref. like you did here. Thanks. Veverve (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually, I merely introduced a line break. The use of citations was problematic to begin with. Please see

WP:INTEGRITY: "Include a source to support the new information." When we present new information, we need to have a new citation (even if it is to the same source as in this case). Both sentences should have had a citation to begin with regardless of whether they are in the same paragraph or not. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I will not add a citation for each sentence, and this is not the practice and this would make WP needlessly more difficult to read. A ref. should be at the end of the paragraph, not at the end of each sentence. Veverve (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not common practice which is why

WP:INTEGRITY says, "Include a source to support the new information." --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I flagged this redirect for deletion as blatant vandalism before noticing you created it. Does it have some justification? It appears to be a joke... Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sure there is a justification: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Idealism&oldid=859795092 used to discuss https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html . Then someone removed the discussion. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't have created a redirect on those grounds, but I'll leave it to you or whomever else to decide how to deal with it now. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Worst argument has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 7 § Worst argument until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. As I wrote there: David Stove's concept of "worst argument" is well-documented in the literature. Deleting the page is completely unjustified; the concept should be retargeted to its creator. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harry Donenfeld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York World's Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How are you? I have noticed that you say in your user page that you speak Ancient Greek and I was wondering whether you could possibly help us revive the Ancient Greek Wikipedia at the Incubator. It would be great if you could lend us a helping hand. Jon Gua (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have worked on the project for many years in the hopes that one day it would graduate from the Incubator. It eventually became clear that it wouldn't (dead-language projects are no longer allowed to graduate), and I retired from it for good. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where does it say that "dead-language projects are no longer allowed to graduate"? Jon Gua (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia language proposal policy requires that a language have living native communities to serve as the wiki's audience and editing community. Ancient-Greek-related requests do not meet the prerequisites for eligibility. There was an effort by some Wikimedians to prove otherwise but they failed because no evidence for a native community was ever procured. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, how about creating a wiki in Miraheze for instance? That was done by the Belize Creole community when they realised their wiki wouldn't be approved. Jon Gua (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea, I guess. I, myself, do not edit non-Wikimedia projects though. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any other Wikipedist, besides Anaxicrates, that has edited the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek before? And also, do you think that, if we gather enough people, would be possible to change their minds regarding the approval of a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek? Jon Gua (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The people who have recently edited the Main Page of the Ancient Greek project are certainly active (they are second-generation editors). The first-generation editors (the editors I have worked with) have all now retired. No, I don't think the native-speakers-only policy will ever change. Please note that the argument that Ancient-Greek-projects editors are many is quantitative, the argument that they are not native speakers is qualitative. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Jon Gua (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am sorry to bother you again but I was wondering whether you could possibly sign this (https://shorturl.at/hNQVY) petition in order to get the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek approved. Thank you so much for your help.

Jon Gua (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've just signed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jon Gua (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before you remove material, you are expected to look for a citation, only removing it if you can't find one. See

You entered the pronunciation without adding the source you had found. I do not think you are entitled to call other people lazy. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with

WP:AGF. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Please realize that most editors tag things that are not controversial and likely to be true. Regardless of your Wikilawyering, you could have found a citation or tagged it. I can assume good faith and at the same time find your methods lazy. Skyerise (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on the one who inserts the controversial claim. I had already requested for a source on the talk page 13 days prior to the removal but you simply ignored it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that the following talk page was never moved back along with the main page. Would you be willing to move it to its correct location (Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation) please? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023-2024_Israel-Gaza_War_on_Israel

David A (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I misread. It seems like @Ben Azura: moved the page back to its original position, and then you moved it back again, but I do not think that your move had been accepted in the associated talk page. David A (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out. David A (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please don't falsely accuse people of "please stop misrepresenting what the source says; the very source used here talks about a storyline and uses quot. marks for it; now you are violating both WP:INTEGRITY and MOS:MINORWORK". The source is in French, it uses a different manual of style (e.g. series names are not put in quotes or italics, but just as plain text: so their use of quotation marks, italics, whatever has no bearing at all on what we do. It also doesn't discuss "storylines", it calls "La flute a 6 trous" a "titre" and a "séries à suivre". See

]

If you are indeed violating WP:INTEGRITY, then it is not a false accusation. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but please see

Fram (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry to have violated WP:3RR, I did not mean to. But just to mention that you've violated it too on

Smurfs. Anyway, we started off on the wrong foot, let's avoid edit warring from now onwards. I am sure we both have the best of intentions. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I will througouhly respond on the talk pages of both

Smurfs and Bob de Groot within the day. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggestion for Archiving Your Talk Page

Hello Omnipaedista,

I hope this message finds you well. I've noticed that your Talk page has grown quite extensive, which is a testament to your active engagement on Wikipedia. However, I'd like to suggest considering archiving some of the older discussions.

Archiving can lead to several benefits, including:

• Better Organization: It makes it easier for you and others to navigate through current discussions without scrolling through a long history of past conversations.
• More Conducive Conversations: With a cleaner Talk page, it becomes simpler for other editors to engage in ongoing discussions and for you to manage responses.
• Improved User Experience: For users on older computers or slower networks, a shorter page can significantly enhance loading times and overall accessibility.

If you're unsure about how to archive your Talk page, you can find detailed instructions here. I'm also happy to assist if you need any help.

Thank you for considering this suggestion. Your contributions to Wikipedia are greatly valued, and I believe that archiving could make your Talk page even more effective as a tool for collaboration.

Best regards, skarz (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]