User talk:Omnipaedista/Archive 4

Hatnote
That will serve the purpose, maybe an explanation that Al Rass is another way to pronounce Ar Rass. The L in "AL" becomes pronounced an R when followed by an R. The famous Ar Rass today is the one in Saudi, but the historic Ar Rass is the valley (Aras) valley region. Droveaxle (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As per MOS:DABENTRY: "A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links or have only one blue link on the entire page, because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." We should just have a hatnote in 'Ar Rass', not a dab page. 'Aras (river)' now has more information on the subject. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, That helps reduces the confusion. Droveaxle (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Norman Osborn
Seriously, that was all accurate information. I even added reference notes to indicate how the new Carnage Symbiote works with the Goblin Formula. All the edits I've made so far are relevant and yet all anyone ever does is call it vandalism.--75.168.100.83 (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that the information is accurate. However:


 * You keep creating a mess in your sincere effort to help. A mess created in good faith is still a mess. It can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor does not contribute in a constructive manner (e.g., in case an editor commits egregious grammar errors).
 * You keep inserting excessive information about trivial plot-related stuff. WP:FANCRUFT can also be considered disruptive.
 * --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

So you say but even when I trim it down you still treat it as exessive even when it's on the money. For starters, Osborn had no residual Goblin Formula in his blood. He re-injected it into himself after having carnage expunge Spider-Man's nanoactive cure. Plus I added ref's of when and what issues it happened in, since you keep asking for sources no one bothered to put in.--75.168.100.83 (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If a piece of information is (i) concise (WP:FANCRUFT), (ii) sourced (WP:V), and (iii) grammatically correct, it can stay. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
Hi Omni. Referring to this edit. I wonder, is there any other option for us to include two more events of major importance to the lede? Right now, the infobox lacks the Peace of Antalcidas and the Peloponnesian War. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Corinthian War (395–387 BC) is one of the 6 events mentioned in the template (only 6 events are allowed to be mentioned) and the Peace of Antalcidas (387 BC) is part of that war. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Aight, thanks for your reply. So we should leave Peloponnesian War out then? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most definitely. The article "Achaemenid Empire" is about the First Persian Empire (as opposed to the second and the third ones) and its involvement in international affairs which led to territorial changes affecting the Persians (such as the Corinthian War which resulted in Greeks losing control of Ionia and Aeolis to the Persians), not about Greek civil wars (such as the Peloponnesian War) in which the Persians had a relatively minor role, with their involvement leading to no territorial changes affecting them. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with you. Thanks for your time. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Refuting claim
Hello Omnipaedista. I was looking at the hermeneutics wiki page. I made some edits there a couple years ago. They have all been erased by now, and I don't care about that. However, I noticed in the history that you rv my alleged vandalism. I was so blown away by that because I never vandalized a single page on this site. So, I clicked on prev to see what was going on, and this came up: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermeneutics&diff=718798723&oldid=718649724

The edits you reverted were never made by me. I wasn't even familiar with the authors and material that was reverted. I double-checked the edits I had made in the hermeneutics page history just because I wanted to be sure that the page history reflected my memory. It did. I have no idea how the alleged vandalism got attributed to me, but I assure you that I would never do that. I did not do it. I am not sure how to end this, so I will just say thank you for listening to me, and I hope you have a good day. Take care. Urstadt (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The edits you reverted were never made by me. I wasn't even familiar with the authors and material that was reverted. I double-checked the edits I had made in the hermeneutics page history just because I wanted to be sure that the page history reflected my memory. It did. I have no idea how the alleged vandalism got attributed to me, but I assure you that I would never do that. I did not do it. I am not sure how to end this, so I will just say thank you for listening to me, and I hope you have a good day. Take care. Urstadt (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I am really sorry for the harsh word. It was certainly not vandalism what you added here, but it was not so appropriate either so I removed it. Hermeneutics may or may not be an ontological methodology (pre-Heideggerian hermeneutics had virtually nothing to do with ontology) and the American Heritage Dictionary writes "theory and methodology of interpretation," not philosophy of interpretation. Indeed, hermeneutics began as an approach to literary theory, not as a philosophy. Your edits were not vandalism, but did not reflect academic consensus either. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I completely respect your assertion that my comments were inadequate. I will use your feedback to improve as a contributor. I also really appreciate your apology regarding the word vandalism. That is not a reputation I want. Volatile, unlearned, trying, spirited.... I don't mind these because that reputation I have earned. But not vanadalizer. So, thank you very much for your faith in me. I also thank you for working this out with me. Urstadt (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ontological hermeneutics page
Since you're the most knowledgeable contributor to the Hermeneutics page, care to weigh in on the Ontological hermeneutics page to verify that it's a hoax and escalate it deletion? Urstadt (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was indeed hoax-like and it has already been deleted. The phrase is used in a psychological setting only in Hermeneutics and psychological theory (1988), p. xiv without any precise definition. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So very sad. Urstadt (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Jacques-Louis Lions, Pierre-Louis Lions
It is terribly frustrating when I find French pronunciations of people's names, which have sometimes stayed on Wikipedia for years, where it appears the person who inserted the pronunciation was merely guessing. This seems to have been the case here. The pronunciation of this surname is [ljɔ̃ːs]. The pronunciation you gave was a plausible one, which makes the error all the harder to spot.


 * Sorry about that—fixed it now. However, I was not merely guessing. I know that Forvo is not a very reliable source and I stopped consulting it 5 years ago. Let me assure you that in general I am quite careful with French pronunciations. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Re Demos, please before adding more templates or multiple links per entry, or red links (that are not used in any article), please familiarise yourself with WP:MOSDAB. Regards Widefox ; talk 22:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are saying. Please provide an edit diff showing what I did and a quote from the MOS. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:MOSDAB ? Widefox ; talk 10:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been enforcing this policy for several years. Edit diffs show that I enforced it to Demos as well. MOS says: "Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line." --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you really should read it again, for starters it's a guideline not a policy, and none of the examples or any other dab I know have IPAs, and this  has no article and has two links per the entry (the first being the wrong article too). That's just a mess, and so it appears MOSDAB isn't what you think it is. You haven't convinced me you know what you're doing wrong with those edits, or even that you realise now.  Widefox ; talk 13:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just added a pronunciation to one page. You reverted it and that is OK. The burden is on you to prove that I misunderstood something. Regarding the second edit diff: I removed the second link, I did not add it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not insist on adding IPA transcriptions to dab pages. I just want to say that this common practice is not part of MOS as you falsely claimed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't add pronunciation to a dab again. It is not, as you incorrectly state, a common practice on dabs. Your understanding of the burden is also incorrect - all editors must justify their edits, and after reverted, up the the editor to justify. Yes, sorry you removed that second redlink, but still, the entry is invalid and incorrectly linked and has been removed not tweaked. Tip - next time your tempted to edit a dab, read the orange warning at the top instead of attempting to push your burden onto others who have to cleanup afterwards, even as you persist making bad edits as they do that. WP:LISTEN. Widefox ; talk 13:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not mean that adding an IPA transcription to dabs is common practice. I meant: this common practice of not adding IPA to dabs is not part of MOS as you falsely claimed. I am bothered with the fact that you make false claims; that does not mean I disagree with you or that I intend to start adding IPA to dab pages—I never said that I intend to do it again. I do not generally add IPA to dab pages, as you falsely implied and the burden to prove that I did it elsewhere or that I intend to do it elsewhere ("You haven't convinced me you know what you're doing wrong with those edits") is on you. I did it only once, and when reverted I did not oppose to reversion. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read MOSDAB? It doesn't matter what you think, or say I claim - MOSDAB is clear "transcluding templates are discouraged" MOS:DABICON. IPA is a template, yes? You added that template, yes? It's not for me to prove anything, but you to familiarise yourself with MOSDAB before editing dabs - it has an orange warning for a reason. You repeatedly left the duplicate entry (stripping the redlink) and the dab needed more cleanup due to your edits, the wrong direction from MOSDAB, yes? Mistakes are fine, you're not giving me the impression you won't repeat, which is why this is dragging on. I noticed you edited another dab today that had a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so you'll want to see how to format a dab for that - I fixed it after you edited it. When you say I have been enforcing this policy for several years., MOSDAB isn't what you think it is. Widefox ; talk 18:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected then. MOS:DABICON does discourage transcluding templates. I thought that you were referring to adding IPA to dab pages in general which is not explicitly discouraged. One can add an IPA transcription without including a template (like that: "UK: /ˈdɛmɒs/, US: /ˈdɛmoʊs/"). If you were referring to template transclusion, then you did prove that my edits violated MOS. My latest edit is not in violation of MOS, so I do not see why you mention it here. Enforcing the MOS on dab pages means I have been editing dab pages so that they reflect MOS:DABRL. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase: I am not interested in editing dab pages so that they reflect the "whole" WP:MOSDAB (in case others have violated it), I am only interested in not violating WP:MOSDAB myself and editing dab pages so that they reflect MOS:DABRL (a specific section of WP:MOSDAB). --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This will just go on as it's LISTEN - further, do not add IPA to dab pages in any form. OK? About red links, removing a redlink that has an incorrect blue link is not right, it's just a mess! Both were invalid links, the entry needing removing. If the redlink was valid, readers and editors would find the wrong topic, so no, that edit was not per MOS:DABRL as the blue was invalid as was the red. Widefox ; talk 19:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on that point as well. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

See also logicism
Hi Omnipaedista,

as far as I know, there's no very clear rule as to what constitutes a good "see also"; my understanding is, it's sort of something you might want to know about if you're reading the article, but not so much that there's a good place to mention it. I suppose there are reasonable scenarios where someone reading about the Peano axioms might want to know about logicism, so I'm not necessarily saying the edit is wrong.

That said, can you explain why you thought the topic was connected enough to be worth mentioning? --Trovatore (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. A novel philosophical examination of the Peano axioms led to the very rise of a contemporary school of philosophy, called neo-logicism. I thought that a reader might want to know this bit of information. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

wp:MOS
Hi there, in case you hadn't seen my undo, just FYI, please see and. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Buddhism and rulership listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Buddhism and rulership. Since you had some involvement with the Buddhism and rulership redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on "notable ideas"
Greetings

I've noticed that you've removed a few "Notable Ideas" edits I've made in the pages of Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann and Julius Bahnsen. In m humble opinion, they should not have been removed and I have the intention of reintroducing them. However, before any official changes are made to a page, I would prefer to discuss them with the particular editor. Therefore, I would like to know of any complaints you might have and/or objections concerning the edits.

Starting with Hartmann, I had added the following ideas: 1) Synthesis between Hegel's rational Absolute as constituting essence & Schopenhauer's irrational Will as causing existence 2) Pessimistic Reinterpretation of the "Best Possible World"

Hartmann was following the model of Schelling but had, unlike Schelling, the complete philosophies of Hegel and Schopenhauer available to him. For this reason, his intention of a combination between them was aided by a clear path, a method in the face of Schelling's philosophy. Hartmann was one of the first, if not the first philosopher to dare make such an ambitious fusion of systems. For me, this is a key feature of his philosophy and the driving force behind his idea of the Unconscious, which is why I think it deserves a place next to the "notable idea" of the unconscious. Any sentence of his philosophy can be used as a source for this and asking for a source would be like asking for a source about the unconscious as a notable idea. Thus, if you insist on citing a source I would be able to, but I do not think it would be necessary in this particular case. What I describe is simply a notable feature about his philosophy.

The situation is similar with the "Best Possible World" reinterpretation. It is a notable idea of Leibniz, which Schopenhauer tried to invert. Hartmann was the one who accepted the entirety of Leibniz's idea, but reinterpreted it's endgoal as a best world. This is an impressive accomplishment, and a fascinating "thought experiment" if you will, and I am of the opinion that it deserves a mention in his "notable ideas" section. To my knowledge, no one before Hartmann had refashioned Leibniz's idea as he did.

Next I shall discuss Julius Bahnsen:

You've removed "The immanence of contradiction in reality and thought " as a notable idea and placed the "Realdialektik" in it's place. Philosophically, there is nothing wrong with this edit. However, I imagine that it would be easier for new researchers to grasp the previous explanation, than they would the vague and yet unknown notion of a so-called "realdialektik". Additionally, there is more to the realdialektik, but a viewer could conclude that it is a mere reinterpretation of Hegel's dialectic, which is not the case. The originality of the idea of Bahnsen was precisely his anti-hegelian observation, that thought and reality always contradict not only each other, but within themselves aswell (i.e. thought with thought, and reality in it's many aspects). This is tied with his notable idea about the multiplicity of the (schopenhauerian) will, which is a 19th century move to philosophical pluralism (which you have also removed as a school in Bahnsen's page). Years later, Philipp Mainlander would flirt with this idea, but it was an original notion of Bahnsen first and foremost. It is something Schopenhauer would never agree with, but it is an innovative idea worth mentioning, in my opinion. I have a similar concern with the notable idea of the "Heroic View on Tragic Pessimism". Again, years later Nietzsche would develop this idea in a modified form within the context of a modified pessimism (which would barely be recognizable as pessimism at that point). However, before Nietszche, Bahnsen was the original affirmative pessimist in the post-schopenhauerian pessimist tradition.

Thank you for taking the time for reviewing the edits and for reading my message. I do believe that the changes I have made and added would be helpful for new future researchers and have aimed to make them "user friendly" (if I may use the term in a non-IT context). For this reason, I find that your undoings in regard to philosophical schools and notable ideas were uncalled for and would like to discuss. Thank you for your understanding and thank you for editing the structural composition of some of my longer edits, so that they can be easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinveil (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Template:Infobox philosopher: "Entries in influences, influenced, and notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." I deleted them as per template documentation. Please read the documentation of an infobox before you use it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hartmann's idea about the synthesis between Hegel and Schopenhauer and his reinterpretation of the best possible world is clearly presented in the "Philosophy" section of his page (a section which was not edited by me). For further explanation on this, see the edit I made on Hartmann, where I placed Schelling as one of his influences and where I explained why.

Bahnsen's idea of the "Heroic View on Tragic Pessimism" is presented and explained in the "Bahnsen's interpretation of pessimism", on his page.

The idea about the multiplicity of the will is expounded in "Philosophical beginnings" and "Correspondence with Hartmann"

His particular idea about contradiction is stated again in the "Correspondence with Hartmann" section and in the "Realdialektik" section Sinveil


 * I did notice that these ideas were discussed in the main body of the text. However, you significantly paraphrased them when you added them to the infobox. When you add an idea to the infobox, it should be in a form reflecting how the actual academic literature refers to it (WP:SYNTH). The way you summarized these ideas seems to contradict the way they are presented in the body of the text. I will soon review the examples you gave here. Also do not capitalize ideas (MOS:CAPS). --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hans Kelsen's academic advisors
You have listed Hermann Cohen as an academic advisor. Do you have a source for this? He wasn't an advisor for the doctoral thesis (Métall biography, 8) and I don't think he mentions Cohen until after publishing the Hauptprobleme (Hauptprobleme, 2nd end, xvii). Wikiain (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right. Please see what I wrote here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I've clarified that.  I can't see a supervisor for either thesis in Métall's biography or in the theses (although the 2nd ed of Hauptprobleme lacks any preface, if there was one, to the 1st ed).  Going by the autobiographies, neither thesis seems to have had a supervisor (Doktorvater) as such. Wikiain (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the conclusion, indeed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've put it into a ref in the article. Wikiain (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Input welcome
At Articles for deletion/Descriptive knowledge. Also, thank you for all your recent cleanup work at philosophy articles. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 17:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect delete?
You deleted it when I was putting in a reference to where what is known as the Planck temperature first was introduced by Max Planck in 1899. Please look up the original 1899 document on page 479 to 480 yourself. The original is in German. I am not sure if also English translation exist, if so ut could naturally be on other pages in the English translation, but the original is in German. I am talking about the original German language document, and the page numbers printed on the pages, some electronic documents can have other page numbers, look at page numbers printed on original document. Please do not delete before checking source carefully. Also I mention this on the talk page off the Planck temperature. If you do not read German get someone knowledgable in German language to translate for you.

Thanks! EntropyFormula (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, please see WP:SYNTH. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciations
Thank you for adding IPA notations to articles, but I'd appreciate if you cited sources whenever available. Ideally a dictionary or a site like this, but even a link to a YouTube clip or podcast would be better than nothing. I had to correct at least one pronunciation you instated (I found that source by searching, just so you know). Nardog (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedbacκ. I have so far included sources only in controversial cases. I'll be more meticulous with sources from now on. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I regret to say I still think you're adding IPA notations a tad too liberally. I just cited and/or corrected your recent additions at such articles as Sirhan Sirhan, Theodor Herzl, Abdul, Frank Langella, Tintin (character), Hergé, Jean Piaget, Salma Hayek, Pierrot, Atom Egoyan, Mena Suvari, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alfonso Cuarón, Alan Brough, and Roger E. Mosley. I also want to see citations for the pronunciations at George Clayton Foulk and Dominic Sena. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for including pronunciations for these articles; I just value verifiability.

A few things to note:
 * [i] in Romance languages tends to retain the tense quality as /iː/ when borrowed into English, especially when stressed, as in Mesquita.
 * In English, full vowels inside a word are always stressed, unless adjacent (as in Langella) or occurring after the primary stress (as in Manitou), so /piəˈʒeɪ/ is not possible while /ˌpiːəˈʒeɪ/ and /pjəˈʒeɪ/ are.
 * The grapheme $\langleo\rangle$ rarely corresponds to /ɔː/ unless followed by $\langlel\rangle$ or $\langler\rangle$. There are some accents in which it corresponds to /ɔː/ in some parts of the US and England, especially before a fricative or velar, but that's alongside /ɒ/, not exclusively (lot–cloth split), and in such a case you'd need to list both and indicate the variety each notation is based on.
 * I think the relevant point of a YouTube video is better indicated directly in the URL than in a source comment, for the benefit of the readers and editors. You can do that by adding  to the URL.
 * Don't use a YouTube clip as a source unless it was clearly uploaded by its copyright holder, per WP:ELNEVER.

Again, it's not like I want you to stop adding pronunciations to articles. I just wish you were a bit more circumspect in doing so. Nardog (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Some of the entries you cited above were not wrong, they were non-diaphonemic. I only recently started inserting diaphonemic transcriptions (I used to insert either strictly British ones or strictly American ones depending on the topic) and sometimes I still insert non-diaphonemic ones out of inertia. Your remarks were helpful. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate IPA notations
Found yet other inaccurate IPA notations you instated: Jason Blum ( → ), Jacques Barzun ( → ). The latter was added right after I warned you about this above. In both cases the sources were not difficult to find and the pronunciations by the subjects themselves (or their immediate relatives) were pretty close to what one expects from the spelling, so one wonders how you decide to add these unsourced notations. If you are adding them just because you feel they are right, please stop. Or start citing. Nardog (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced pronunciations
For a third time, I strongly ask you to stop inserting unsourced pronunciations in articles. You have a history of adding inaccurate pronunciations. Next time won't be just a warning. Nardog (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, you are right. Won't happen again. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

IPA
Hi. Pardon my ignorance (I don't know how to read IPAs), but what's the point of having two IPAs for Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán in English and Spanish? Why don't we stick to the "right" way of pronouncing it, which would technically be in Spanish? MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 13:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds differ from language to language because each language has its own particular system of sounds. Some sound patterns of Spanish do not even exist in English and vice versa. This means that it is practically impossible for an English speaker to pronounce a Spanish word "correctly"; it is also practically impossible for a Spanish speaker to pronounce an English word "correctly". Since many German, Russian or Spanish sounds are not found in English, pronunciation approximations are extremely common. Knowing these approximations is not trivial. You cannot always "guess" what is the established approximation; you have to be told by a dictionary what is the established approximation. Usually, more than one English approximations exist for one foreign sound (especially vowels) and it is not predictable which one has been established by English speakers.


 * Examples: the German sound [øː] is usually rendered as [ɜː] in English (see Goethe), but the French sound [ø] is usually rendered [uː] (see Deleuze). The letter "a" in Stalin's name has two possible renderings in English /ɑː/ and /æ/; English speakers prefer the former one according to English-language dictionaries. The letter "a" in Franco's name has two possible renderings in English /ɑː/ and /æ/; English speakers prefer the latter one according to English-language dictionaries (presumably because there follows a velar consonant after "a") . The letter "a" in Morales' name has two possible renderings in English /ɑː/ and /æ/; English speakers prefer the latter one according to various well-known English-language YouTube channels. The letter "a" in Guzmán's name has two possible renderings in English /ɑː/ and /æ/; English speakers prefer the former one according to English-language news outlets. As you can see there is no consistent pattern here.


 * Wikipedia is descriptive; it focuses on the way a language is actually used by people. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks and a question
I have just become aware of your careful reviewing of my "Instrumental and value rationality" article, for which I thank you. I'm surprised not to find you on the talk page of that article, which is where I would expect such activity. There I have explained why I didn't refer to authors like Horkheimer and Adorno, and limited my positive examples to Rawls and Nozick. I feel that the fact the Economist also chose these two to exemplify the value rationality of which the journal approves confirms the logic of my choice.

I would love to hear your response to my reasoning.TBR-qed (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Horkheimer's concept of "instrumental reason" is a seminal concept in Continental philosophy and the main source of inspiration for Jürgen Habermas's concept of "communicative rationality" (another seminal concept in Continental circles). It is vital for the article to have a section on Horkheimer's ideas. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tell me whether or not my understanding of this statement, and also your request for sources for my double paradox statements, is correct. HORKHEIMER.  My intent in "Instrumental and value rationality" is to show representative current usage of this dualism.  Are you saying that I ought to identify sources of inspiration as well?  DOUBLE PARADOX.  I identify Rawls's claim that "justice as fairness" will produce an overlapping consensus, and assert that Nozick's position disproves that claim.  I assert that neither man convinced the other, and claim it demonstrates a failure of value rationality.  Are you asking me to quote someone who made these same points?  Or are you uncomfortable with me drawing these conclusions?  Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am asking you to quote someone who made these same points. You are not supposed to publish your original research on Wikipedia as per WP:NOR. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand NOR better now, and see your point. I don't consider my research to be original, but my conclusions are.  I shall review Gunlock and Sen to see if their criticisms make these points.  Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Omnipaedista, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AOmnipaedista added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm talk  22:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Rockhill
The article has been expanded and probably needs more RS, possibly from book reviews on JSTOR if you can find them. I am not very interested in this academic.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Closure on "Instrumentalism"
Since no new editor has responded to my RfC on instrumentalism, I must direct my defense against your charges to you. The topic is the meaning of the label “instrumentalism.”

You added Dewey as a proponent, suggesting you now recognize his major role in mid-20th century scholarly debates about that meaning. But identifying Dewey as a proponent of what your article identifies as instrumentalism is inaccurate and unusable. Dewey’s instrumentalism escapes the “guilt by association” practiced by Chakravartty and repeated in your article.

Your article and footnotes associate instrumentalism with a raft of historical schools—anti-realist, empiricist, logical positivist, inductivist, verificationist, German idealist—all of which equivalencies Dewey would have rejected.

Chakravartty identifies “traditional” instrumentalists as denying reality to unobservables—anti realist. Dewey was not a traditional instrumentalist and was not anti-realist. Okasha discusses anti-realism but does not label anyone instrumentalist. Torretti shows Duhem was anti realist, but never in his book uses the name instrumentalism. Popper alone in your sources defined instrumentalism, as I did in my article.

Dewey accepted none of those labels. As Gouinlock explains in the reference you included, and as my article documented, Dewey did not deny “reality.” He argued that scientific theories—unconditional universal propositions derived from painstaking induction—are “real” in a different sense than conditional observations of their operations—generic, existential, empirical propositions. Formal logic recognizes the difference; many modern scholars ignore it.

If you grant Dewey’s significance as a “proponent of Instrumentalism,” then your charge that my documentation of that role is original research and a personal preference—violating WP:NOR and WP:OWN—requires argumentation. I lived through those debates, and document their continuing presence by quoting multiple scholars actually debating the modern meaning of instrumentalism.

For these reasons, I ask you to withdraw your charge that I violate NOR and OWN, and allow me to restore my article.TBR-qed (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see this response here. Please don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting as per WP:BRD. I suggest you start a proper RFC. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for continuing to offer me avenues to defend my instrumentalism article. But l think they avoid what I am coming to see as our basic differences over WP protocols.  You seem to feel forbidden to draw conclusions like calling a paradox a paradox, and I do not feel so forbidden.  A paradox is evidence of some error.


 * Your article has Chakravartty accusing physicists of being anti-realist instrumentalists, while admitting that physicists successfully theorize while ignoring their philosophical error. Thus instrumentalism is both legitimate and illegitimate—a paradox you neither name nor explain.  I identify the same paradox grounded in definitions of instrumentalism by Popper and Dewey, and describe and explain continued debate over the meaning of the label.  I conclude that this paradox makes the label meaningless and to be avoided—which practice I also document.


 * I observe the same paradox in articles “Instrumental value” and “instrumental rationality.” I conclude that those labels can be used legitimately if clearly distinguished from their contraries “intrinsic value” and “value-rationality,” used by Weber.  I report paradoxical usage of these labels by accredited scholars, highlighting their specific differences.


 * Please tell me if you find any of my reasons for deleting the original article persuasive, and specify your objections to my approach quoting scholars’ debates about a topic.Tbrphd (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The article I restored was not an article I wrote. It is a version of the article three editors have found better than yours. You are asking me to engage in original research here on my talk page. I am afraid I am not allowed to do that as per WP:NOTFORUM. I simply restored a version which is supported by reliable sources as per WP:NOR. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that your version is not WP:SYNTHESIS. If you want to add a new section about Dewey to the existing article, please feel welcome to do so. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

(outdent) Are you willing to mediate our differences over interpretation of some WP protocols, as exemplified in the "Instrumentalism" article?TBR-qed (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For the third time : (1) If you want to restore your article, please start a proper RFC; (2) If you want to add a new section about Dewey to the existing article, please feel welcome to do so.--Omnipaedista (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Other-directedness listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other-directedness. Since you had some involvement with the Other-directedness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Speculative Philosophy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Speculative Philosophy. Since you had some involvement with the Speculative Philosophy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on deleted T.S. Eliot "Jacob Epstein" sub-section
I have seen that you have made edits to the T.S. Eliot article before. I am interested in your comments on a recent change. A recent sub-section about the sculptor Jacob Epstein was made to the T.S. Eliot article. I deleted the addition and explained my reasons on the talk page.

Here is what was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._S._Eliot&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=877562978&oldid=877549994

Some have mentioned on the talk page that the Epstein material should be put back. Would you please look at the changes and make your opinion known on the Eliot talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:T._S._Eliot#Jacob_Epstein

WikiParker (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Haag–Ruelle scattering theory listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haag–Ruelle scattering theory. Since you had some involvement with the Haag–Ruelle scattering theory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tea2min (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Roger Bacon has been nominated for discussion
Category:Roger Bacon, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- wooden superman  12:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The formalist vs substantivist debate listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The formalist vs substantivist debate. Since you had some involvement with the The formalist vs substantivist debate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 00:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ... six years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

China response
Sorry I keep.breaking the paragraph can you fix it again? JayDurham (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject India
 WikiProject India

'Namaste'', Omnipaedista. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.'''  Subscribe

Newsletter discussion

Contribute

Subscribe/Unsubscribe

Archive

Sent by on behalf of WikiProject India. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Elgar Howarth
Hello! On 26 February 2014 you placed a "BLP unsourced" tag on the article Elgar Howarth. Can you please have another look at the article and indicate which statements, if any, still require further sourcing, or remove the tag if you are happy with its current sourcing? Thanks! --92.40.127.58 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Velleity
Thank you for editing this article. Sorry to bother you, but I saw that you removed a reference as being not notable. Is the source, the writer, or the concept of "conation" not notable? I suspect, based on this red link, the latter. Just asking to be sure. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The source was a personal website, not a peer-reviewed article or book. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A proposal to resolve our differences
I take your criticism seriously, and trust your good will.

You appear to have doubted my method of analysis from your first contact with it, perhaps because I rely on original sources for documentation, rather than the WP-preferred secondary sources. You call my posts “essays” because you interpret them as my interpretation of primary sources which, I grant, is a danger. My intent has been to report original sources with minimum interpretation AFTER TRYING TO REFRAME THE TERMS OF DEBATE PRECISELY AND CONSISTENTLY.

I think I have perfected this approach and would like you to test me. My latest post—Situational logic—mostly quotes 2 volumes in which 4 philosophers confronted one another directly: Dewey v. Russell in The Philosophy of John Dewey, and Popper v. Skolimowski in The Philosophy of Karl Popper. I think this method presents all positions clearly, impartially, and properly for an encyclopedia.

PROPOSAL: Please read this latest post and tell me whether or not you find this method legitimate for WP. If I do not hear a strong denial from you within 3 days, I will restore my Fact-value distinction and Instrumentalism posts, and hope that you will continue to critique the content of my posts while accepting the method.TBR-qed (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:SYNTH. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology section name
Hi OP- I was looking at WikiProject_Linguistics/Etymology, thinking I might find guidance regarding the naming of article etymology sections. I recognized your name there from the many articles on which we have both worked. Could you tell me if you think I'm correct in my sense that WP prefers naming such sections "Etymology", as opposed to "Name"? I don't think there's anything terrible about the latter, but I strive for consistency here and have the impression we prefer the former. I made this assertion on a talk page (Talk:Lingones), and am wondering how "right" I am. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Eric talk 16:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, you are correct that WP prefers naming such sections "Etymology", as opposed to "Name." I've been editing such sections since 2008. I strive for consistency as well, so wherever I see an etymology section under the title "Name" I rename it to "Etymology." --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Eric talk 13:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much, Tom! --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if the disruptive IP comes back
Please let me know if this IP (or same person under another IP or account) comes back. I had gotten NinjaRobotPirate to block them for 24 hours, and the IP didn't come back after that. The ANI thread is now archived here. Crossroads -talk- 03:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This editor seems to be the same as 121.179.131.132. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edits
Hey Omnipaedista, When I put as my edit summary "unexplained removing of referenced content", I meant the referenced content that was changed from the body of the article by an ip. Sorry for removing your edits. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's OK, no worries! --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Taino: A Novel
Thank you for the edits in taino a novel. I hope someday the story of Guaiken will become non fiction. Californianscholar (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)