User talk:Omnipaedista/Archive 3

References on family trees
Hi, I noticed your edit to Template:Coleridge family tree where I had added references, which removed the list of refs. Your edit summary said "references do not belong on navigation boxes" so can you suggest the best way to do this, because otherwise the articles on which the trees appear have "reference needed" tags (& therefore show up on the cleanup lists I'm trying to improve). Are you saying that because they are in a box Citing sources doesn't apply?&mdash; Rod talk 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Generally speaking it is a bad idea to include references in navigation boxes because navigation boxes are supposed to merely summarize the content of Wikipedia articles. (The same applies to dab pages.) Every piece of information on Wikipedia that is likely to be challenged should be sourced but the appropriate way to do that is to add citations to an article. You could create an article called Coleridge family and then move to it the citations that appear on the Template:Coleridge family tree; confer Keynes family and Template:John Maynard Keynes. See also Stand-alone lists and SUMMARY. —Omnipaedista (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I agree about true navboxes but family trees seem a bit different as they are making claims aboout dates of birth & death + relationships between individuals (could include BLPs). I have no particular interest in the Coleridge family but have been working on the Somerset cleanup list and Bristol cleanup list where several of these appear as "references needed" on the articles where they appear. Looking at Family trees it appears there are several alternative ways to present them but I would argue they should have references etc eg Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury where I added refs.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you add a section called "Coleridge family tree" to the article on Coleridge and move the citations there? In any case, footnotes should not appear below nav boxes per WP:APPENDIX. —Omnipaedista (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Family trees as I think this is a wider issue than just one article (or navbox) and someone may have already found the best way to tackle this.&mdash; Rod talk 15:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Template
You reverted multiple edits to Theosophy. Because your edit removed WP:TemplateData documentation (in addition to other things), it turned up in this log. Can you tell me what the problem was? (Ping me; my watchlist is hopeless.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing: I noticed that after User:Ratreya added TemplateData, articles that feature this template (e.g., Helena Blavatsky) appeared to have a line break at their beginning (right above the first sentence). I assumed that this problem was caused by bad code and decided to revert the latest changes in order to fix the formatting problem. I hope this is not an inherent problem with TemplateData. —Omnipaedista (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the problem was not getting the "noinclude" high enough (I believe it needs to be on same line as the last character that's actually in the template, not on the next one). I've created Template:Theosophy/doc to hold the TemplateData information; I prefer keeping it all on the /doc pages anyway, and that much is working correctly.  I'm not sure that the TemplateData correctly describes the template any longer, since I've not restored the changes to the template itself.  Would you do something for me?  Click here to edit the /doc page, and then click the "Manage TemplateData" button in the upper left.  Please add a plain-English description of the template (something that tells editors whether or not this is the template they're looking for), and add any working parameters, or remove any non-existent ones.  Then ping me and let me know how it went.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing: I inserted the description "This is a template summarizing some important aspects of the Theosophical Movement" using the TemplateData editor. I think all's fine. —Omnipaedista (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Omnipaedista: Can we reintroduce my changes to this template now that the "noinclude" root-cause was addressed? Ratreya (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course we can. WhatamIdoing has already restored your edits by copypasting them from to  and including the latter template in the former. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That didn't quite do it. My latest edit reintroduced the functionality. I did a few spot checks and everything looks good but please make sure the issue you were trying to fix has not resurfaced. Ratreya (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just checked it. All's fine! --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Paolo Virno
I reverted your edit because I don't think it's a superior title for that section. "Thought" could mean many things and it doesn't really make sense as a title in that context, so I changed it back to "Theories" as that's more clear in my opinion. If you think "Theories" isn't appropriate, maybe "Ideas"? The section itself is a bit confusing and not very cohesive, so perhaps it could be rewritten with a particular title in mind. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks! LibertyOrDeath (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! I changed it because that section title is standard in articles about intellectuals (cf. e.g. Karl Marx). "Ideas" could be used as well. In my opinion, "theories" is vague and inappropriate: theories are always theories about something. —Omnipaedista (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree "theories" is also vague, it just seemed less confusing relative to "thought". In the past I've seen mostly "Theories" or "Works" in articles about philosophers, except for when the title is something like "Thought(s) on...".  I see you've changed it to "Work", I agree that's a better title. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am glad we agree! --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

David Hilbert section name change
Hi, Omnipaedista -- On Dec. 15, you edited the section name Hilbert solves Gordan's Problem in David Hilbert to change Problem to problem, which may be entirely proper, but it raises some issues which you might want to know about. Thanks! Eleuther (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First, it broke a section-level redirect from Gordan's Problem to that section. I've fixed the redirect, but I thought I should give you a heads up about what happened.  Your project seems to be enforcing WP standards of various kinds, and the volume of edits suggests that you may be using a script of some kind.  If so, you may wish to update the script so that, if it changes a section title, it also fixes section-level redirects that are affected by the name change.  Just a suggestion ...
 * Second, why no edit summary? I mean, if the project is to enforce WP standards, then, well, um ...
 * Third, I'm not sure the change is really proper. For instance, in Constance Reid's book about Hilbert, the term is always spelled Gordan's Problem, i.e., it's treated as a proper noun.  The same in the MathWorld  article on the subject, etc.
 * Hi. I am aware of such problems and I try to check for redirects. The problem is that editors do not mind leaving commented out notes or anchor templates warning about redirects in the appropriate sections. Whenever I create a redirect page to a section, I always insert a commented out note to that section. Nope, I do not use a script of any kind and, personally, I am opposed to their use; I believe that everything has to be done manually to assure quality control. I almost always leave an edit summary except for the very rare cases when I am editing from a public PC--due to time limits. The change I made is proper for Wikipedia ("problem" is a common noun). Wikipedia has a different Manual of Style than other online projects. It is also a well known fact that academic publications follow styles (such as APA, MLA, and Chicago) that do not have specific rules for capitalization; Wikipedia however does have specific rules. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Someday maybe I will understand the significance of commented out notes. But for the moment, my point is this. It's good for WP to have standards, and yes, "problem" is a common noun. Gordan no doubt had many common problems, as we all do. But one particular problem, posed by Gordan, has become known in the mathematical literature as Gordan's Problem (proper noun, properly capitalized). I provided citations for this, and can provide more. WP's standards are fine and good, but they shouldn't be taken to override the normal usage in the subject domain. Right? (If you don't object, I will revert this particular change in a day or two.) Cheers Eleuther (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are some exceptions to the MoS. I can accept the argument that if the relevant literature predominantly favors a capitalized version of a common noun, Wikipedia could abide by it--although actually defining "predominantly" is not so easy. E.g., Nicod's axiom virtually never appears capitalized but Pascal's Wager, Loki's Wager, Gabriel's Horn, Oxford Movement, Austrian School frequently, if not predominantly, appear capitalized. Since you provided a source supporting the capitalization of Gordan's Problem, I have no objection to the reverting of my edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What is "notoc"?
I saw this added to Iain Pears. WCCasey (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See Template:NOTOC/doc. It stands for "no table of contents". It is usually placed in articles that are constituted solely (a) by a single block of text undivided by sections and (b) a few appendices. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What does it do? WCCasey (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The template/magic word "notoc" removes the table of contents of the wiki article. This is desirable in some cases for stylistic reasons. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the article is later expanded enough to have a toc, should the template be removed? WCCasey (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no strict rules; according to common practice, if a biographical article has at least one section of main text (e.g., "Life" or "Work"/"Career"), then it could/should have a ToC. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Places of birth
Hi: using the contemporary political status makes perfect sense, IMO. However, it raises the issue of what level of political entity to use. I noticed that you placed Heidelberg in the German Empire (Ebert) but Berlin in the Kingdom of Prussia (Luther). It would be more consistent to use the Empire for both...or the Grand Duchy of Baden for Heidelberg. :-) Drow69 (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no wikiwide guideline regarding this matter. Personally, I sometimes stop at the vassal-status/federal state-status, sometimes I give only the highest-level political entity, sometimes I include all levels. I just edited the articles you mentioned so that they feature precise ("all levels") geographic information. Omnipaedista (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this template to your page.

Buster Seven   Talk  19:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία ἑλληνιστί
Αγαπητέ Omnipaedista, απευθύνομαι εδώ καθώς εδώ φαίνεται να έχεις την πιο ενεργή παρουσία και δεν είμαι βέβαιος για το αν θα λάμβανες την ειδοποίηση από αλλού. Πρόσφατα ασχολήθηκα με την τεκμηρίωση της τρέχουσας πρότασης στο https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_Greek_4 και κατόπιν ξεκίνησα την λημματογραφία στο αντίστοιχο grc incubator καθώς και ολοκλήρωσα την μετάφραση του περιβάλλοντος σήμερα. Σκοπεύω να συνεχίσω να ασχολούμαι συστηματικά έως όταν γίνει η Οὐικιπαιδεία πραγματικότητα και περάσει τον σκόπελο της επιτροπής με τον ένα τρόπο ή τον άλλο. Ο σκοπός της επικοινωνίας μου με εσένα είναι:
 * το να δω αν προτίθεσαι να συμμετέχεις στο incubator, καθώς κατά το παρελθόν υπήρξες διαχειριστής του. Ελπίζω πως ναι, καθώς όπως γνωρίζεις χρειάζεται να έχει μια ελάχιστη κίνηση.
 * τις όποιες συμβουλές έχεις να μου δώσεις ως προς το test project ως κάποιος που έχει ασχοληθεί πολύ έως τώρα
 * τις όποιες συμβουλές έχεις να μου δώσεις ως προς την τρέχουσα πρόταση για δημιουργία του Wiki

Με εκτίμηση, Gts-tg (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Αγαπητέ Gts-tg, συγχαρητήρια για τις προσπάθειές σου. Δυστυχώς το μόνο εγχείρημα στο οποίο είμαι ενεργός πλέον είναι η αγγλική Wikipedia. Ο μόνος τρόπος για να ανοίξει το site grc.wikipedia είναι να αλλάξει η language proposal policy της Wikimedia. Προσπάθησα κάτι τέτοιο χωρίς επιτυχία το 2008—δες, , , , (τα δύο τελευταία είναι αιτήματα προς το SIL International). Όσον αφορά την πρόταση νο. 4 στο Meta, το μόνο αξιόλογο επιχείρημα είναι ότι η λόγια ελληνική είναι η επίσημη γλώσσα της κοινότητας του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως που αποτελεί μία από τις μεγαλύτερες αποστολικές έδρες (βλ. Category:Apostolic sees). Το ότι το ΟΠΚ δεν είναι κράτος είναι αδιάφορο (βλ. "A language is a dialect with an army and navy"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) Ευχαριστώ πολύ για τα παραπάνω, θα φανούν ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμα για προετοιμασία εάν και εφόσον απορριφθεί η πρόταση οπότε θα επιδιώξω σε βάθος χρόνου αλλαγή της πολιτικής της επιτροπής. Εάν τυχαίνει να έχεις υπόψη σου κάποια άλλα άτομα τα οποία θα μπορούσα να προσεγγίσω σχετικά με το θέμα θα ήταν επίσης χρήσιμο (προς το παρόν βλέπω τους παλιούς συνεισφέροντες στο ιστορικό και προσπαθώ να έρθω σε επαφή μαζί τους). Ευχαριστώ και πάλι, και καλό μήνα. Gts-tg (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Αγαπητέ Omnipaedista, χαιρετώ και πάλι. Η κατάσταση της πρότασης έχει μεταβληθεί αρκετά από την τελευταία επικοινωνία μας (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_Greek_4) με περισσότερα επιχειρήματα και περισσότερους υποστηρικτές. Εν ολίγοις σκοπεύω να επικοινωνήσω κάποια στιγμή σχετικά σύντομα με το LangCom στο mailing list τους και να τους ζητήσω να την επιθεωρήσουν. Πριν το κάνω αυτό όμως, θα ήθελα να σου ζητήσω εάν μπορείς να διαθέσεις ένα ελάχιστο χρόνο ώστε να η πρόταση να έχει και την δική σου τοποθέτηση. Αυτό 1ον γιατί αφιέρωσες κατά το παρελθόν πολύ χρόνο και άφησες αξιόλογο έργο πίσω στο incubator ως παρακαταθήκη, 2ον γιατί η κάθε επιπρόσθετη διατύπωση υπέρ αποτελεί ένα επιπλέον λιθαράκι στην επιτυχία της όλης προσπάθειας, και 3ον γιατί νομίζω πως η τρέχουσα πρόταση είναι η πλέον καλοδιατυπωμένη και πλήρης σε σχέση με αυτές που είχαν γίνει στο παρελθόν (πέρα από τα επιχειρήματα μέχρι και οι μεταφράσεις και το λογότυπο είναι έτοιμο). Οπότε εάν την απορρίψουν με βάσει κάποια υποπαράγραφο της πολιτικής, ας την απορρίψουν και κατόπιν θα ξεκινήσω την προσπάθεια για αλλαγή της πολιτικής, όσο καιρό και αν πάρει. Αν δεν την απορρίψουν, ε φυσικά αυτό είναι και το ζητούμενο. Ωστόσο αυτό που σκοπεύω είναι η όποια ενδεχόμενη απόρριψη να γίνει όσο πιο δύσκολα γίνεται εκ μέρους τους και να είναι οφθαλμοφανές πως κάτι δεν στέκει καθόλου καλά με τη λογική αυτή και σε σχέση με την συγκεκριμένη γλώσσα, κάτι που θα δώσει πολεμοφόδια για μελλοντική αλλαγή πολιτικής. Οπότε γράψε όσο πιο αναλυτικά μπορείς και θεωρείς χρήσιμο, και γράψε με την πίστη πως θα γίνει πραγματικότητα. Gts-tg (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Or (heraldry)
When you decapitalize the tincture "Or" it then is very hard to distinguish it from the conjunction "or". That is the whole reason that heraldic writers capitalize the tincture name. Despite your comment in the edit, I don't see the situation described at MOS:CAP. Namely, I don't see the situation discussed in which a technical word is normally capitalized in the literature where it appears for the sake of clarity. -- EncycloPetey 15:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The capitalization convention is neither endorsed by Wikipedia (see: WP:BLZ), nor frequently (if at all) found in the relevant literature (see, for example, Alfred William W. Morant's An Alphabetical Dictionary of Coats of Arms Belonging to Families ..., Volume 2, 1874, p. 702 and Bernard Burke's General Armory, 1864, p. 1007 and Debrett's Peerage, 1836, p. 487 which have "a fess or"). Disambiguation is achieved anyway by italicizing the word as per MOS:Ety. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of other considerations, WP:BLZ does not apply, as this issue pertains to the text of an article, and not to a blazon of arms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also provided citations to the relevant literature. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

... and four! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Adam Karl August von Eschenmayer into Non-philosophy. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I've never done that before and I do know the copypasting policy (I even reported another editor for doing that despite being warned about it). This time is the first time I did it. I should have attributed the change to the original contributors; I was simply carried away because it was essentially just a couple of sentences. Omnipaedista (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a bot report that is flagging these kinds of edits, User:EranBot/Copyright/rc. It's intended to pick up copyright violations, but these end up on the report as well. It would help if you could remember to do it each time in the future, so as to simplify and speed up assessing these reports. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetic psychology
Hi, I noticed your recent redirect at the top of the page of Behavioural Genetics. I don't think we need the redirect to display at the top of the page, given that the connection between Franz Brentano and Behavioral Genetics is not not entirely clear from the Brentano page, which does not mention Genetic Psychology. As a behavioral geneticist myself, I was intrigued to see the link to Franz Brentano, who I had never heard of as linked in any way to Behavioral Genetics and was disappointed that there was no information on the Brentano page about Behavior Genetics. The only connection I could find is a link on the Brentano page to Heterophenomenology, which appears to have nothing to do with behavioral genetics. Would it be better to include Franz Brentano under the "See Also" on the Behavioural Genetics page? Or to remove the redirect altogether? Vrie0006 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines "Genetic psychology" (as a term introduced by Franz Brentano) as follows: "Genetic psychology studies psychological phenomena from a third-person point of view. It involves the use of empirical experiments and thus satisfies the scientific standards we nowadays expect of an empirical science." In present-day jargon this is called heterophenomenology ("a term coined by Daniel Dennett to describe an explicitly third-person, scientific approach to the study of consciousness and other mental phenomena"). A Google Books search reveals that the term "Genetic psychology" in the context of the history of the philosophy of mind is much discussed in recent academic publications. WP:DLINKS says: "disambiguation links should be placed at the top of an article, where they are most visible. For alternatives that are related to the article but are not a source of ambiguity, the 'See also' section at the end of the article is more appropriate." Brentano's concept of genetic psychology is not an alternative to behavioural genetics; it is something very different from the actual topic of the behavioural genetics article. Thus, we need a hatnote to indicate an entirely different and notable use of the same term. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Many thanks for explaining the purpose of the hatnote. Vrie0006 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Omnipaedista (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works
Would you like to support the creation of and/join the proposed Wikiproject for Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Greek alphabet
ΓΓ was surely already pronounced as NG in ancient times, for instance in ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ?Ehrenkater (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. See my latest edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Modern Greek
Hi, I noticed this (and similar edits in some other articles if I remember correctly). Could I ask where you got that [ɲ] from? I can sort of imagine that some nasalization might spread from the preceding [m] onto the underlying /j/ segment, but it's not something I remember seeing mentioned as a prominent phenomenon in phonological treatments, and if it does occur, it would seem to be a rather minor effect of allophonic assimilation, so I'm not really convinced we should describe things at this level rather than giving the underlying phoneme (which surely remains /j/). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The standard realization of /mj/ is [mɲ] according to the authoritative Triantafyllidis Dictionary (see, e.g., ). --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should read the introduction to the Triantafyllidis Dictionary, but what exactly is meant by the "standard realization"? For example, the pronunciation of ντ in may words, say, ποντίκι, seems to be changing from [nd] to [d], but T only documents [nd]. --Macrakis (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion it is problematic that the TD only documents [nd], but this omission does not diminish the reliability of the TD. Moreover, the argument is somewhat irrelevant. It is well known there is free variation between [d] and [nd] in Greek, while there is no free variation between [mj] and [mɲ]. According to virtually every source, the sound cluster [mj] does not exist in Greek. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"I'm in love with Jacques Derrida"

 * Thank you very much! --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your careful work is much appreciated. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) I would have tried my hand at "flamebaiting", but I couldn't get the blighters in the fricken trap!

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Kudos
I just have to say, I haven't seen you around WikiProject Comic before, but your edits, care and meticulousness are great! I hope the Project sees lots more of your work! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words and support! I try to help as best as possible. You've also been doing some amazing work for the past few years. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation "Chow's Theorem"
You've been around WP considerably longer than I have and show a definite interest in mathematics, so I was wondering if you'd be willing to look through my recent efforts at disambiguating Chow's Theorem to check if I've been on the right track.

I'll admit that my mathematics background is not strong enough to recognize whether Chow's Theorem, Chow's Lemma, and the Chow-Rachevskii Theorem are all referring to the same underlying mathematical entity, just expressed in the slightly different mathematical languages of the diverse disciplines in which they are used.

Thanks.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to check it out now but will do so when I have more time! --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. I think I did them correctly, but just wanted to have someone knowledgeable take a look - eventually. Thanks.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you did them correctly. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  18:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes -> Citations
Hi -- can you tell me why you're changing "Footnotes" to "Citations"? Is there some requirement that this be done? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just took a look at WP:FNNR and it says "Editors can use any title they choose" for these sections. I'm not sure "Citations" is a very good choice; "Footnotes" seems more natural to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! Nope, it is not a strict requirement; rather common practice. We could discuss it. First of all, citations is a commonly used section title; see the article Analog Science Fiction and Fact —I have never edited it— or Oscar Wilde. As you can see in the Oscar Wilde article, 'footnotes' is reserved for 'explanatory footnotes,' while 'citations' for citation footnotes (btw, WP:FNNR calls the latter '_citation_ footnotes'). A good practice in Wikipedia is that sections should not bear confusingly similar titles: my rationale is that 'footnotes' and 'notes' are confusingly similar to each other; but I would not insist, if you disagree. However, reserving 'footnotes' for 'citation footnotes' seems to be at odds with common practice wikiwide. Apart form the naming, the ordering needs to be changed in several articles on fantasy pulp magazines: WP:APPENDIX dictates that 'explanatory footnotes' go below above 'citation footnotes.' --Omnipaedista (talk)
 * Well, I don't own any of the articles, of course, so you're free to make the change. Personally I think "Notes" for the explanatory material, "References" for the citations, and "Sources" for a list of the works cited, is a good choice, though I haven't been at all consistent about this in the articles I've worked on.  I'm surprised to see that explanatory footnotes go lower; that's not common practice in featured articles.  I'll have a look and might start a conversation on the talk page suggesting that we revisit that.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(outdent)My bad; I meant to write 'explanatory footnotes' go above 'citation footnotes.' (I was referring to this article.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Agreed. Please see Talk:Fantastic Novels. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's generally not very productive to make mass edits to things that are likely to be be decided on a case-by-case basis by the editors of the individual articles. Where the MoS leaves things up to the editors of an article to decide, as is the case with these section titles, you're going to get reverted some of the time.  And what if another editor comes along with a different set of preferred titles and mass-edits the same articles to their preferences?  In many cases this is going to be wasted effort on your part, and you might find you annoy some editors who've made careful decisions about the section titles, by consensus on the article talk pages.  If I were you I'd stick to making changes that are actually mandated by the MoS, and avoid changing things that are left to editor discretion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your advice is reasonable. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. The point is that I did provide a rationale in my edit summaries. I also was under the impression that you wouldn't mind me making those changes judging by the above discussion. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No inconvenience, and sorry if I sounded a bit minatory above; I just meant to make a suggestion. And you're quite right about the articles I've worked on -- since you're changing it to my own preference, of course I don't mind.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. I would like to note that my proposal is not about exercising any kind of misplaced consistency. It's a proposal towards less confusing conventions in a specific series of articles. Thanks for the feedback! --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Habesha etymology
Greetings! I notice that you are a member of WP:ETYMOLOGY. I recently sought some help from the WikiProject to sort out the convoluted etymology on Habesha people. However, the project seems a little stagnant at the moment. When you have the time, could you please have a look at the etymology there? Your knowledge in this area would be most valuable and appreciated. Kinds Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will check it out when I have some time for edits unrelated to my main area of study which is Indo-European etymologies. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevermind; I think we've figured it out. Thanks for your time. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for copy-editing
I hope everything is great with you :) Could you please take a look at the articles about Elin Rombo and Lena Sundström. Much appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Edited formatting"
Hi Omnipaedista, I'm just wondering what "edited formatting" means (edit summary of this edit). I checked the template doc, but couldn't find anything. Puzzled... - DVdm (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was a typo. I meant to enter "|2" so that a less space-consuming "two column references" layout appears. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Duh. I should have guessed . Thx. - DVdm (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Elin Rombo
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Lena Sundström
Gatoclass (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing, whether it's a river in Malawi, a Nigerian footballer, or a South African civil rights activist, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. For those of you who signed up to the North African contest, that will hopefully be held in the new year. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

B-Dienst
Hi Omnipaedista, that was excellent work, small but perfect, you did on B-Diesnt. I have these other articles on hand Gisbert Hasenjaeger, Wilhelm Tranow, Wilhelm Fenner, Walter Fricke, Peter Novopaschenny which all need additional copyedit. Scope creep (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have never edited this article! I'll have a look at the ones you mentioned. Cheers! --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 11:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ekpyrotic universe pronunciation
Hi Omnipaedista-

As you can see by my edits on the Ekpyrotic Universe page, I'm attempting to provide an understandable pronunciation of "ekpyrotic' without using the IPA. In this particular case, with this particularly difficult Greek word, I don't think the IPA will help our readers understand or pronounce the word. I've noticed in recorded interviews that whenever Professor Steinhardt says "ekpyrotic" (a word he coined, so it's not in any proper dictionary), people stumble when they try to repeat it -- even when they're trying to repeat what they just heard him say.

I can see that you're a language expert, and one of the few here on Wikipedia who understands the IPA. To be honest, I can't understand the IPA pronunciation for "ekpyrotic" -- and I'm extremely familiar with Dr. Steinhardt's work, and know what "ekpyrotic" is supposed to sound like. So I'm appealing to you: please, in this particular case, please don't insist that we use the IPA to help the readers pronounce "ekpyrotic". It's difficult enough for non-experts to understand and pronounce without employing a super-sophisticated pronunciation technique, such as the IPA. Thank you. (Apologies for the fact that this is a duplication. I previously submitted this item without a subject line.) Sleepy Geek (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We can have both. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tartouffe
Hello Omnipaedista,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tartouffe for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not create the article. I just created a redirect page. I would like to see it deleted anyway. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Sons of Mosiah
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Sons of Mosiah &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Deaddebate (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the 5G page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=755715813 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F755715813%7C5G%5D%5D Ask for help])

"two article-sections should not bear similar titles"
I see you've changed this in several places (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vector_space&diff=prev&oldid=755920026, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximilian_I_of_Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=756385790 ), but there's an explicit style guideline that these are not standardized across Wikipedia, and up to the local article authors. See WP:FNNR; "Editors may use any section title that they choose." And "Citations" gets a special call-out as having problems in some contexts anyway. SnowFire (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not so much a matter of style (hence covered by the WP:FNNR rule quoted above) as it is a matter of clarity. WP:FNNR says that two possible article-sections are "explanatory footnotes" that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article and "citation footnotes" that connect specific material in the article with specific sources. Usually, you can tell which is which by glancing the contents. In the articles I recently edited it was not clear to someone glancing the contents which is which. In "Vector space", "explanatory footnotes" were called "Notes", while "citation footnotes" were called "Footnotes". In "Maximilian I of Mexico", "explanatory footnotes" were called "Endnotes", while "citation footnotes" were called "Footnotes". It was not clear which is which (which section contained "explanatory footnotes" and which section contained "citation footnotes"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, and that might make sense to you, but it's entirely possible it isn't clear to someone else. If I were in charge, I'd say that those articles should have a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section (for the explanations), a "References" section for the cites, and a "Bibliography" section for the list of books being used in the references, but I recognize that others might hate that, so I only stick to structures like that on articles I closely edit.  I guess I'm rambling here, but I'm just saying that I hope you don't go on a general "cleanup" around Wikipedia for this, because I think the benefit is very minor (these are all largely near-synonyms anyway), and the risk of offending local sensibilities outweighs that.  SnowFire (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your advice is reasonable. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM
It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history
You are invited to join the Indian military history work-group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is to exclusively deal with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. Ignore if you are already a member. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Indian defence services
You are requested to participate in the discussion of Wiki Loves Indian defence services on the talk page of WikiProject India. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Nader El-Bizri" article for your attention!
Dear Omnipaedista, based on your technical knowledge and your editorial care, I wanted to bring a matter to your attention: It seems that I caused some confusions around the Wikipedia entry "Nader El-Bizri" when I first un-did an edit by Edward321, and then contacted the Wikipedia NoticeBoard & Miscellaneous Queries about it without knowing that a casual editor like me should not do so! Tags were placed on the entry and even some suggested that it should be deleted altogether, or that it was copied from the website of a school in Lebanon even though this Wikipedia entry dates back to 2008, and it is clear that it was Mirrored by the school. This Wikipedia article received over 359 edits, including many by you, and it has numerous links across Wikipedia and to many reputable external websites as well. I am just bringing this to your attention since maybe my unintentional edits caused all of these editorial confusions or issues, and I do not want that my casual edits result in harm to the reputation of the actual living person that is covered by the article. I have been dismissed by the editors with usernames since I am not registered via Wikipedia and I casually edit here and there. I hope you do not mind me bringing this matter to your attention. I have understood now that as a casual editor I am not allowed to make edits unless I am fully registered with Wikipedia, or at least this is what has been conveyed to me through the talk pages. Thank you for your consideration of this matter2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:DCDF:6069:402F:B06 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Two-column reference listings
I see you've been switching a lot of articles to two-column format for references. I recommend looking at the list first. Two-column is very useful when there are lots of references whose text is shorter than half the screen width. When most references are over half the screen width in length two-column format really doesn't have any advantage, and in many cases is both harder to read and takes up more space. I reverted you at Geometrical optics, where the change to two columns increased the references list from five easy to read lines to six, on my screen.--Srleffler (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will keep that in mind. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated reflist column parameter
Hi Omnipaedista, I saw that you readded the column parameter to the reflist template which I had just removed a couple of hours before. You might not have been aware of it so far, but the column parameter of the reflist template is deprecated since some while because it causes the rendering of references to become almost unreadable on many setups with non-wide monitors, lower resolution displays or with larger fonts. We are therefore actively removing it from articles. Please don't add it again, and if you added it to other articles in the past, please remove it from them as well. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS. I should have read previous threads before posting... ;-) It is only now that I see that Srleffler has already opened a parallel thread... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not revert you on purpose. I just kept editing the article and I reverted you by accident, sorry. I was not aware of the fact that it has been deprecated. How about 'colwidth=30em'? --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I already assumed that. :-) Regarding 30em, personally I'm not a fan of it, as it is still too narrow for my display configuration, whereas 35em or 40em works fine. However, the majority of other editors appears to be fine with 30em already. In either case, they seem to be working on a smarter general solution which does not require any such parameters mid-term.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The egg of Columbus
Where does your last addition ("See also/*Egg of Columbus") connect to the topic of the page? Please, give me some hints. Carlotm (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just added a comment that clarifies the connection. Thanks! --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathematicism
You seem to have an anti-mathematical agenda on mathematicism while maybe neither being a formal mathematician (maybe hobbyist) nor having a traditional view in mathematical philosophy (Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Neopythagoreanism, Neoplatonism, Cartesianism perhaps of monist type, Leibnizianism) or what is now also called (after Mike Hockney) philosophical mathematics, or mathematics approaching the questions of philosophy. I created that article, and your recent reversion deleted 3/4 the modern writers on the subject, two of which (suggested by another editor) perhaps you hadn't taken effort to see. Please be more careful. Sure, page numbers are nice in citations, but they're not required, especially if virtually an entire book is about the topic of relevance. The main source on mathematicism is the dictionary, because it's a viewpoint rather than single school of thought, and it's relevant to list all writers on mathematicism, no matter what else they wrote or people's opinions on other things they wrote (which are not the topic.) Please be more careful in the future, and if you're not a Platonist mathematican, while your opinion may have some (debatable among the disagreeing) relevance on Wikipedia, it wouldn't among Platonist mathematicians. As I had said, on one edit on Mathematical universe hypothesis I'd be willing to lend certain mathematicians (Platonists, or perhaps similar smart scientists) Hockney's Kindle ebooks (it's only in that and other ebook formats, which are acceptable sources).--dchmelik (t|c) 11:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Our personal views are irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia; we are supposed to provide detailed citations to reliable sources. Please do not post here about this issue; the discussion is currently taking place here. Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No (that's about different article,) it's at Talk:Mathematicism. What I'm saying is you seem a highly opinionated editor, not necessarily because we disagree, but because you put more importance on editing for your viewpoint than seeing new citations (that someone else suggested on Talk:Mathematicism) that you may not even disagree with.--dchmelik (t|c) 11:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Chapters and page numbers are important (see WP:INTEGRITY); for example, you placed at least one citation in the wrong place and unless you provide the chapter/page numbers no one can verify your claims. Accepting Wikipedia policies is a prerequisite for all Wikipedia editors. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually what I cited there was the contemporary higher academic philosopher's definition of mathematicism in his source given on the talk page, not that he was calling Descartes mathematicist (which he basically also does, so the source is appropriate a second time, for that... thanks!) Philosophers already knew, since Descartes' time, Descartes was mathematicist in certain ways.--dchmelik (t|c) 12:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Famulus and Pliny
Hi, thanks for the see also link - given the curious nature of the connection, a brief mention in the text with citation would be far more interesting, if you're feeling strong enough for this small diversionary task! Many thanks in advance, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you are a beginner-level JavaScript programmer...
I found you listed at Category:User js-1 (probably because you posted the corresponding userbox on your user page), and thought you might be interested in improving your skills by getting involved with developing user scripts, hobnobbing with other JavaScript programmers, and organizing and improving JavaScript articles and support pages.

We do all of that and more at the JavaScript WikiProject.

Scripts undergoing development, and the state of JavaScript on Wikipedia, are discussed on the talk page.

For an overview of JavaScript coverage on Wikipedia, see Draft:Outline of JavaScript and Index of JavaScript-related articles. For everything on user scripts, see User:The Transhumanist/Outline of scripts.

The WikiProject also organizes every resource it can find about JavaScript out there, such as articles, books, tutorials, etc. See our growing Reference library.

If you would like to join the JavaScript WikiProject, feel free to add your name to the participants list.

Hope to see you there! The Transhumanist 15:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right
Yes you're right about The Masque of Pandora. I misunderstood that it is a longer poem. I was only viewing one chapter -- on an authoritative web site, but just one chapter. Sorry. LaurentianShield (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it!No worries! --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ω-validity
Hi Omnipaedista. I tried to ping you at WT:WPM, but I am not sure whether it worked, because I got your username wrong the first time. No obligation obviously; I just wanted to let you know, given that it involves a redirect you created. --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Copyediting and Editorial Check
Hello Omnipaedista, would it be possible that you have a look at the "talk page" and related "biography of living people noticeboard" in connection with the article "Nader El-Bizri"? It seems that the discussions and editorial interventions require the input of someone who has knowledge of philosophy and the humanities, and this seems to fit your profile as wikipedia experienced editor. Some of the changes being made or decisions by certain editors may require guidance beyond simple copyediting and technical cleanups in terms of a conceptual knowledge of the material noted in the article and how to improve it. Thanks for your attention and editorial care as usual (AcademeEditorial (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)).

Please check what is taking place around the article "Nader El-Bizri" since this was proposed for deletion, but the reasons put forward touch upon statements that harm the reputation of the living person it covers. The ranking and merits of the work of a living person should be judged by their peers and not simply by random wikipedia users, especially if the deletion has not been requested by someone specializing in academia but by someone who has been covering businessmen and billionaires. Please check this serious matter since it lowers the integrity of wikipedia and causes actual harm to living people, especially if they are in the public domain and well known in their field. The article exists since 2008 and it received a thousand of edits, by multiple users, and visited by you and checked numerous times over the years. If you are unable to ckeck it, maybe suggest how to call for responsible and experienced editors to do. Thanks (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8170:FF93:C1C4:942C (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Ben Kamiat's place of birth
I had revised this to read as follows: "Benjamin Kamiat, a Jewish immigrant born in Lemberg, Austria-Hungary"

Previously, someone had insisted that he was born in "Austria."

You (Omnipaedista) took out the name of the empire in which Lemberg was located, saying as justification for this, "The contemporary political status of the city cannot be determined without knowing the person's date of birth."

First of all, if you are claiming that he was born after the end of World War I, when it became Poland, then the name Lemberg is also wrong. The name was changed to Lvov at that time. So taking out one without the other is meaningless. If it was Lemberg, then it was Austria-Hungary.

Second, he was born before the turn of the century, when it was most certainly Austria-Hungary. He emigrated to the United States before World War I broke out.

I know this because I am his nephew, Bruce Kamiat. He was my uncle. I knew him. This is my own family history. He was my father's oldest brother. My father was born in 1900.

If you are for some reason invested in preventing accurate information about his place of birth from appearing on the page, go ahead and take out Lemberg too, and go back to putting him in Austria. Put him wherever you want. After this final attempt to correct this, I give up.

Bruce Kamiat

P.S. See https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bgivenname%3Abenjamin~%20%2Bsurname%3Akamiat~ for a citation that shows Benjamin Kamiat to have been born in 1865.

BruceK10032 (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply here. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Uruguayan punk


The article Uruguayan punk has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Per Martin-Löf
Hi, regarding this edit. Why would you pronounce it with an f in English when it's pronounced with a v in Swedish? See for example Stavningsreformen 1906 or this episode of the type theory podcast (where Swedish type theorist Peter Dybjer says "Martin-Löf" multiple times). --Cic (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In the audio file you cited, Dybjer pronounces "Martin-Löf" (at 00:13:35) in Swedish, not English. We know that, because there is no [øː] sound in English. In British English, "Martin-Löf" is pronounced ( (with a silent "f", a pronunciation based on spelling). You can hear the eminent British philosopher of science James Ladyman pronounce it this way here (at 00:01:28). See . --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would make more sense if the "English" pronunciation (whatever that means) was as close to the correct (Swedish) pronunciation as possible rather than based on spelling, but maybe the latter is the norm... --Cic (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

[χ]
Thanks, Omnipaedista, for fixing the bad phonetic transcription of "Nachlass", which wrongly used the symbol [χ]. However, I was puzzled by your edit summary, "[χ] is no longer used on Wikipedia". Would it not still be ok to use [χ] for languages like Dutch and Yiddish, which actually have a [χ] as part of their sound inventory? Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! (1) You might remember this. I initially changed the article on the grounds that /ax/ is usually realized as [aχ], not as [ax] in German (as per the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, 2007, p. 87); however this realization is not universal and the proposal to use [χ] in Standard German IPA transcriptions that was made on Wikipedia back in 2008 by another editor was not accepted. So I have to revert myself. (2) My edit summary was not accurate. I meant "[χ] is no longer used on Wikipedia for transcribing Standard German" (see Help:IPA/Standard German). --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Omnipaedista. I hadn't remembered it was you I was dealing with earlier!  It was really admirable of you to self-revert even though you disagree with the policy.  Opus33 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Objectivism
Hi Omnipaedista, I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name to the list of participants of WikiProject Objectivism, a WikiProject I recently revived. We could use more participants, and you seem appropriate for the project. Michipedian (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

SCOTUS
Your "correction" to Supreme Court of the United States and the law review article cited therein were certainly thought-provoking. It seems to me, however, that your edit is internally inconsistent. Under Article III, justices of the Supreme Court must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so there could be no Supreme Court until there were both a President and a Senate in existence. Under the theory articulated in the law review article you cite, therefore, Article III could not have taken effect prior to April 30, 1789. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. According to the first page of the paper, the United States Supreme Court decided in 1820 (Owings v. Speed) that "The present Constitution of the United States did not commence its operation until the first Wednesday in March 1789" and this is established doctrine. Now the paper goes on to criticize the decision of the SCOTUS, but this is not so relevant for the purposes of the infobox. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Template removal
Hello,

It looks like you may have prematurely removed some Library Resource box templates on some articles (I see some edits by you with the note "Removed Obsolete Template".) The template is not obsolete; the databases supporting it are being actively maintained, and a recent TfD proceeding ended with the decision to Keep. I'd appreciate these being restored if you could manage it. If any of them are not working properly (e.g. they're not searching appropriate terms in catalogs) I'm happy to help fix them. Thanks! JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the decision was 'keep' means that they are not obsolete, indeed. However, the decision to actually keep them should be taken on an article-by-article basis and actually no article is required to include the template. E.g., I am a member of the WikiProject Philosophy. Virtually no article which is part of that Project features the template and no one seems to complain about it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, feel free to revert me if you think the consensus is on your side. If I happen to disagree, I will either do nothing about it or just raise the issue in the respective talk-page. Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Glorification
Actually, simply as a point of information, I have many times seen "glorification" used by ROCOR. However, since it is a parochial term not understood by the general reader, I am quite happy with your edit and I'd love to see analogous edits in all articles using that esoteric term. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "glorification is a term used only by the Orthodox Church in America". I have already included citations here and here reflecting the use of the term by ROCOR. Thanks for the comment. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether you are an adminstrator...
Is with regards a bourgeoning conflict of interests on an article, you received a ping sonetime during the 14th.

23h112e (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC) 23h112e (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Prometheus
In your substantial edit of 19 Nov 2017, my edit of 8 June 2017 about the chemical element Promethium got deleted. I wonder whether this was an accident or a high-minded decision, because I thought I'd made an interesting cross-cultural addition.HuPi (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement because such trivial statements do not belong to the lead section. I just re-inserted the statement in the appropriate section. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India)
Greetings,

It is being planned to organize Wikigraphists Bootcamp in India, please fill out the survey form to help the organizers. Your responses will help organizers understand what level of demand there is for the event (how many people in your community think it is important that the event happens). At the end of the day, the participants will turn out to have knowledge to create drawings, illustrations, diagrams, maps, graphs, bar charts etc. and get to know to how to tune the images to meet the QI and FP criteria. For more information and link to survey form, please visit Talk:Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates for The School of Athens and The Parnassus
Thanks for supplying the J&P quote at The School of Athens and other edits. But now the dates given for The School of Athens and The Parnassus, at Raphael Rooms (and elsewhere) seem inconsistent. Paul August &#9742; 13:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for editing the Raphael Rooms article accordingly. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. What about the dates? Paul August &#9742; 22:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just fixed them. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 04:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Cádiz
Could you please fix reference "pgou", which to Cádiz? I normally fix these myself when they show up on this list but in this case I'm not sure what the correct parameters are. It looks like it in the article but commented out, against established_date in the infobox. I don't know if that helps. Mortee (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thank you! Mortee (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Supporting Indian Wikipedia Program resource distribution
In 2017 - 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India chapter (WMIN) and user groups will pilot a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program (Code name: Project Tiger) will:
 * (a) Support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and
 * (b) Sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

The objective of the program is to provide laptops and internet stipends for existing editors who need support to contribute more actively. 50 basic model Acer Chromebooks and Internet stipends for 100 contributors are available for distribution. Provided resources are the sole property of the beneficiaries and should be used for the betterment of the movement.

If you're an active Wikimedian, and interested to receive support from this project, please apply. It will take around 10 minutes of your time, and will ask descriptive questions about your contribution to Indic Wikimedia projects.


 * Apply at: Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program#Apply for support
 * Last date for submitting applications is 11th February 2018, 11:59 IST.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Names in Greek for Roman Emperors
Is it really necessary to put in the names in Greek for Roman Emperors before the language actually changed to Greek? E.g. Theodosius II and Jovian (emperor)? Not to mention that something like "Θεοδόσιος Βʹ" might not be historically accurate for Theodosius II (did they really do numbering?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The issues you raise are very legitimate ones and I will reply in a while. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) All persons listed in the List of Byzantine emperors are important to Medieval Greek history, and their names are commonly cited in Medieval Greek works. If Constantine the Great and Julian (emperor) feature the names of their subjects in Medieval Greek, why not Jovian (emperor)? (2) Retrospective use of regnal numbers is quite common in article about Greek rulers. If Constans II features a regnal number, then why not Constans? --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good arguments. (1) This is absolutely true, I would argue however that since Greek was not an official language on the level of Latin until Heraclius, it does feel strange to single it out among the vast array of secondary languages in the Roman Empire, especially at times when both the Western and Eastern Roman Empires were very much intact. I will not press the point however as it is not really vitally important whether their names are presented in another language. (2) Yes they are and I agree with you. I would argue that none of the "Byzantine" emperors should use a regnal numbers in the "greek" versions of their names as they are presented as contemporary names (the latin versions present the full names, but the greek present a modern retroactive version that only features a singled out one). I think Constans II is a good example of this, in Latin his full and contemporary name is listed: Heraclius Constantinus Augustus, but the greek one presents "Kōnstas II", Constans is a name he did not even use himself. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moral antirepresentationalism
Hello, Omnipaedista. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Moral antirepresentationalism, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Pam D  08:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add info about moral antirepresentationalism to that article, but never got the chance. Please delete the redirect. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Studium provinciale listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Studium provinciale. Since you had some involvement with the Studium provinciale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just fixed it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Moral antirepresentationalism listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moral antirepresentationalism. Since you had some involvement with the Moral antirepresentationalism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  22:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Project Tiger Writing Contest
In 2017 – 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India Chapter (WMIN) and user groups from India, are piloting a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program will (a) support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and (b) sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

Phase (a) has been completed, during which active contributors were awarded laptops and internet stipends. Phase (b) will be a contest in which editors will come together and develop a writing contest focused on content gaps. Each month three individual prizes will be awarded to each community based on their contribution for the month. The prizes worth 3,000 INR, 2000 INR, and 1,000 INR, will be awarded to the top contributors for each month. The contest started at March 1, 2018, 0:00, and will end at May 31, 2018, 23:59 (IST). Useful links are as follows:


 * Sign up at: Project Tiger Writing Contest/Participants
 * List of the articles can be referred at: Project Tiger Writing Contest/Topics
 * Submit/report your articles/contributions at: https://tools.wmflabs.org/fountain/editathons/project-tiger-2018-en
 * For more details, rules, FAQ etc. kindly refer: Project Tiger Writing Contest

Looking forward your participation, all the best. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) at 22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

Qin Shi Huang
I have undone your addition of IPAc-en to this page. That template is meant for use with English only. It should not be used for Chinese as it does not support all the sounds in Chinese, and even as an approximation of the Chinese there were errors in both of them. Generally there is no need to provide IPA for Chinese, as Pinyin supplies the same information in a more easily understood and common form – in most cases the Pinyin matches the article title, as it does in this article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to be the English pronunciation. Sorry about the typos in my original edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It still did not match Standard Chinese pronunciation. In a hidden comment you added it should be 'œ' which is perhaps closer but still only an approximation as the sound does not exist in English. Qin is not /ˈtʃɪn/, little like it. Mostly though, unless there’s a common English pronunciation distinct from the Chinese, there’s no need to include English IPA in the lead. Mandarin pronunciation can be read from the Pinyin. Other Romanisations are best handled by the infobox (which also includes the IPA for Manadarin, [tɕʰǐn ʂɨ̀ xwǎŋ]).-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are dead wrong. Wikipedia is rife with English IPA transcriptions of French, German, Italian, Japanese and Chinese proper names. As per common practice, a Wikipedia entry about a foreign entity may include either that entity's English pronunciation, or that entity's native/local pronunciation, or preferrably both. All these transcriptions are relevant and reliably sourced (Collins English Dictionary, Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language are common sources for the common English pronunciation of famous Chinese proper names). I will not insist in the case of Qin Shi Huang, because the source gives a transcription which is not consistent with Wikipedia standards (i.e., Help:IPA/English does not allow /œ/). But in other cases, there is no discrepancy between what the source give and Wikipedia standards. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with common practice, please open a thread here. Also note that Wikipedia just reports what reliable sources say; Wikipedia is not prescriptive. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see beat me to fixing that, but I agree with their removal. Zhuangzi (book) is not one which has a common English name or usage, and the reading was anyway wrong. These dictionaries you are using are not reliable sources articles on Chinese topics like this. Even if they were more accurate such does not belong in the first sentence, except in cases where there is a common English pronunciation distinct from the Chinese.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will not insist. Just to say that Collins English Dictionary, Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language are perfectly reliable for English language topics. That is all that matters, since we are talking about the English pronunciation of proper names that happen to be Chinese in origin. The English pronunciation of "Hilbert" is as per the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. I do not need a good source on German phonology to know that; I just need a good source on English phonology. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While it is true that Wikipedia is not prescriptive, in order for it to be descriptive there has to be sufficient material to actually describe. In the case of names like "Zhuangzi" and "Qin Shi Huang", they are so rare in English that there cannot be an established IPA to describe, and I would cast strong doubt upon any source that supposes to do so.  The example of Hilbert proves this point – "Hilbert" is a fairly common surname in Anglophone countries—I mean, it's a Germanic name (hild + berht) that survives in both English and German—and so it is perfectly natural for there to be an English approximation of the original German (even if it didn't already exist in English, which it does).  On the other hand, it would be nonsensical to draw the same analogy for "Zhuangzi" or "Qin Shi Huang".  I'm appalled that the editors of the Collins or Random House even allowed this to happen.  My suspicion is that the editors felt it necessary to provide IPA transcriptions of all terms in their dictionary, and so invented some in these cases.  You cannot be descriptive when there's nothing to describe, and so it's far better to just use the original.    White Whirlwind  咨   22:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Libertarian socialist flag
Hello. I'm "pipcallas". I agree with your judgment to remove the image/flag from Wikipedia's "Libertarian Socialism" category. This was at least the second time someone has added my design to a category. For what it's worth, I've never been a party to adding it to any category, because, as you write, the flag does indeed lack historical significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkanella (talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Habsburgs in Baden
You can read more here ---> If you want to downplay the Habsburgs, you can specify the interruptions between 1264-1415 (if not a few years later), but Baden & the Habsburg castle were lost in 1415, the last territory south of the river was in Swiss hands by the end of 1490s.

Branch of the Lenzburg (named themselves Count of Baden), Kyburgs replaced them, then Habsburgs were already around for two centuries but still not the dominant noble family, when the Kyburgs died out, the Habsburgs claimed their lands (across the Reuss river). This was around 1264, the Habsburgs obviously held parts of Baden prior to this date, but they didn't gain complete control until 1264. This was the beginning with the direct conflict with the populations that will eventually become (the Swiss). The Swiss had conflicts with the Habsburgs inside Swiss Baden until the 15th century. The Habsburgs had complete control until the end of the 13th century, then it was a period of turmoil. Droveaxle (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)