User talk:Omnipaedista

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Quick one

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]

Comment

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]

I proposed to delete the redirect 'History of metaphysical naturalism'

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!

"History of metaphysical naturalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 (d c̄) 18:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

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]

Comment you left about 'semiotic arbitrariness'

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]