User talk:Omnipaedista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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


Hatnote[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Jodorowsky pronunciation[edit]

Jacques-Louis Lions, Pierre-Louis Lions[edit]

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 during the last 5 years. Let me assure you that I am quite careful with French pronunciations in general. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

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 [1][2] 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 [3], and this [4] 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 [5] 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[edit]

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#Wikilinks[edit]

Hi there, in case you hadn't seen my undo, just FYI, please see [6] and [7]. 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[edit]

Information.svg

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"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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