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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

---

I know you are probably aware of this by now, but this kind of edit has always been incorrect. Place of birth and death don't go inside the brackets. See biography standards. Thanks. Deb (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of this by now (WP:LEAD). Thanks anyway. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, made a mistake reverting here, I thought you were adding the quote marks around the term – which actually already existed on the article (you had just changed the bolding). My bad. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you noted, the history section has been removed from Metaphysical naturalism. (That was done in 2023 with edit comments saying it was a duplication of Naturalism (philosophy)#History.) A few pages still pointed to History of metaphysical naturalism; I changed these links to History of naturalism. I think we can remove the redirect History of metaphysical naturalism, so I WP:PRODed it. I hope that's OK. Happy editing! — Chrisahn (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine. Cheers!

The redirect History of metaphysical naturalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 28 § History of metaphysical naturalism until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the claim was in the source but on some other page, then please cite that other page as per WP:INTEGRITY and WP:V. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I actually have access to Parratt, The Court Chronicle, Vol. 1 (2005) and the abbreviation does not appear anywhere there but I'll leave it be. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I went to go link 'semiotic arbitrariness' (which is bolded) on Sign (semiotics) when I noticed you left a comment saying it was bold per WP:RPLA. In fact, I was very pleasantly astonished to see your comment because I had just been thinking to myself how objectionable a bolded link would be, whether I ought to not link it lest I wrongly de-emphasize the term, and so on.

I take your comment to mean that, at the time of your writing, there was an article somewhere out there with a link like semiotic arbitrariness (pointing to the Sign page).

However, since then, this link may have been changed to point to somewhere else instead of to Sign. For example, this section was added to Arbitrariness. There also exists a section on Arbitrariness on Course in General Linguistics. And now I'm questioning where I should link it to because I dislike that the Arbitrariness has the semiotics meaning split between a Philosophy section and Linguistics section.

Wondering if you could shed some light. It's been a while so you probably don't remember which article it was that may have been pointing to the page, though.  – Kilvin the Futz-y Enterovirus (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will review the case and get back to you soon. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Semiotic arbitrariness' (a primarily linguistic concept) should then link to 'Arbitrariness#Linguistics'. I just fixed that. Good catch! --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omnipaedista. Could you explain this removal at Yehezkel Chazom a little more? Do you consider Ynet unreliable? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! No, I do not consider Ynet unreliable. My concern is that a non-English source was used to support the use of a name not found in the English-speaking literature. The editor who inserted the name "South Cemetery" did not take it from the source as the source is not written in English. Maybe that editor meant "Southern Cemetery" or "Holon Cemetery". In any case, there is no reference to a "South Cemetery" in English-speaking literature. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting. Would it make sense to keep "buried in Holon" or would that be irrelevant information? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I actually just fixed it. "Holon Cemetery" is what that editor meant. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Thanks! Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Deligne motive has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 12 § Deligne motive until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary here [1], I urge you to be more judicious in your choice of words. There are ladies present! EEng 03:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There's an ongoing discussion about neutrality, tone, and sourcing on the Ryan Holiday article involving editors me and Vegantics. Given your experience with Stoicism, biographies, and Wikipedia guidelines, your perspective would be valuable. If you have a moment, please share your thoughts here. Thanks in advance for your help! IndyNotes (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you are interested in reviewing the article Koskotas scandal. I recently wrote it from scratch, but I am looking for some feedback so that for the article to be ready for GA submission. I submitted for a WP:PR a month ago but it was closed due to inactivity, i.e., there was not any interest, see here. If you are interested I could resubmit the article for PR.

I have a good access to libraries + JSTOR and other academic articles, so I am happy to share any parts of the sources if needed. However, I am sometime unsure with my writing skills since I am not the most experienced editor here in WP and an extra pair of eyes would always help. My motivation was that narrative of "Koskotas scandal" was always partially portrayed in literature or media, and I wanted to cover as many perspectives as possible including the bigger political picture/significance. So the current effort is a mosaic from different sources covering the topic.

Feel free to say no, I know that I am asking too much but it was worth a try. Either way, happy editing. A.Cython (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at it at some point! It is a very interesting topic—thank you for covering it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for any fixes you have made and for any future ones. There is no rush.

I covered it because I was recently drawn back to WP to rewrite Andreas Papandreou (back in 2008 I joined WP to write about Eleftherios Venizelos... but soon after real life pulled me back for more than a decade) and in the process I realized there were several gaps in the English WP regarding the Greek decades after the civil war. I created several new articles to fill in the gaps (see my contributions on my user page). However, I find that it is not easy to write about these events, which still emotionally/politically linger among various editors; ancient history seems a safer bet. I must admit that sometimes I feel it was a mistake to dedicate the hours to write about these events. Anyhow, happy editing! A.Cython (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How are you? I have noticed that you say in your user page that you speak Ancient Greek and I was wondering whether you cold possibly help us revive the Ancient Greek Wikipedia at the Incubator. It would be great if you could lend us a helping hand. --Jon Gua (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit at Persian art may have been a bit bitey. Yes, citations without page numbers do make verification harder, but such citations can be marked with the {{full citation needed}} template to request the full information. And WP:INTEGRITY does not mention anything about citation page numbers; it merely requests that citations be placed as close as practical to the information they verify. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the heads up. I might have been a bit bitey, that's true. I just wanted to convey that adding large blocks of text with poor citations is not a good practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed that you have reverted my edit on the Wikipedia Page Help:IPA/Standard German. I have been living in Austria for almost my entire Life, am a native speaker of Austrian German, as well as a Carinthian dialect and would like to point out, that I have pretty much only heard r be pronounced guturally in Austrian German. Almost all Austrian dialects also share this pronunciation. I hope for a quick response, and to settle this dispute without a conflict. Thank you, Ugatp. Ugatp (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and for sharing your perspective as a native speaker. I completely believe your experience—in fact, in real-world terms, I have no reason to doubt it. However, on Wikipedia, we have to follow the policies of WP:Verifiability and avoid WP:Original research. That means even if something is true or widely observed, we still need a reliable, published source to support it. If you can find a linguistics source or academic reference that confirms the prevalence of the uvular r in Austrian German or its dialects, that would be very helpful. Looking forward to resolving this constructively. —Omnipaedista (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this 2015 source lists both the uvular trill and the alveolar trill. The source says, "In approximately the past 40 years, the pronunciation norm has changed from an alveolar to a uvular trill." But the template is frequently used to transcribe the names of people who died more than 50 years ago, so employing the uvular consonant might come across as anachronistic. More people need to chip in to sort this issue out. —Omnipaedista (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just moved this discussion to the respective talk page. —Omnipaedista (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is unbecoming of a long-term wikipedian to remove valid tags, with an insulting edit summary, too. The article clearly has only routine business public relations coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times articles are not "public relations" coverage. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it is not intended as an insult to point out that you added the tag without providing either an edit summary or a justification on the talk page (you only commented after my edit). I concede that the NYT articles are not in-depth, but they still provide a useful overview by a reliable secondary source. Omnipaedista (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mario Mieli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Remo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Instrumental and value rationality#Potential duplicate
Four years later, it is done!
Let me know if you have further thoughts Talk:Instrumental and value rationality#Merge Instrumental and value-rational action into Instrumental and value rationality Drew Stanley (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I won't revert you again, but I don't know if you saw this discussion. My understanding is that there are good reasons to use {{reflist}} if the parameters are needed, but they aren't in this case. See for example Ahecht's comments in that discussion and the replies to David Eppstein; I think it's at least harmless to stick with the underlying tag, if the template causes problems in some cases, and if the template's parameters aren't needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I might need your help. There is a dispute regrading changing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's birthplace from New York City to The Bronx. I think this is silly this is being brought up. But New York City is more broad and precise than just mentioning the borough. Regardless of my thoughts. I looked through the edit history and you also strongly opposed changing it to the Bronx. I reported that user that caused the disruption, the user is also an admin. I'm being careful and I stopped after that user reverted the edit again. I am reaching out to you regarding help to help resolve the issue.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect St. Basil's Church , Tirilye has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 23 § St. Basil's Church , Tirilye until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Omnipaedista. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 17 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a joyful Merry Christmas and a wonderful, happy 2026 ahead. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the kind wishes! Wishing you many more rewarding years ahead on our Wiki journey. All the best for 2026! --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Sam Webb (communist) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omnipaedista; I've noticed that there is a WP:FAC taking place for Rules of inference which might be related to your edits about Alfred North Whitehead and his Principia. Maybe you could glance at it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Mental activities has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 29 § Mental activities until a consensus is reached. Canadachick (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marsilius of Padua, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calvin was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omnipaedista,

You recently deleted a list of films on the page New French Extremity. This is not the first time a list has been deleted, so to avoid a circle of delete-revert, can you explain why you think it's inappropriate? Many articles on groups of films include lists of associated films or directors (see French New Wave or even elsewhere in the New French Extremity article) or so it's not clear what the difference is here. Is it just the table format?

I think it's important for the list of films to be included somewhere, so clarification of why you think this amounts to a WP:NOTCATALOG error, while other lists do not would be helpful. Ok2avenu (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added precise birth and death dates for this writer, but they're not supported by the matching citation. Do you have a reliable source for these dates? If so, please add it as a citation. Any information not supported by a reliable source is likely to be removed. pburka (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant citation has been added. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Brazilian Guyana has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 19 § Brazilian Guyana until a consensus is reached. ZNático (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferdinand Alquié, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartesian was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]