User talk:Omnis Scientia

This is Omnis Scientia's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Hi, have you seen Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford/archive1#Comments by UC? I have my own thoughts, but want to let you respond first. I can see that there is quite a lot to respond to. TSventon (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @TSventon. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I didn't know about it. Been a little busy in recent days so haven't been editing all that much.

So the comments by UC are quite long and since its very late - or early, depending on how you look at it - where I am, I'll respond in the morning. So if you want to respond/edit, go ahead. I will pick up from there. I'm free tomorrow as it were so I was thinking of focusing on updating the list anyways. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do you think about UC's latest comments? Can you respond in due course? TSventon (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon, thanks. I didn't check in for some time so I didn't know there were more comments there. Will definitely check them out and get back as soon as I can. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found Jane Perceval had not been linked to a Wikidata item while experimenting with petscan, so I investigated and linked it with an existing item. TSventon (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a slight correction to this article you created. Murphy didn't write for the World Telegram up to his death because the newspaper ceased publication in 1967 and he died in 1970. The NYT obituary only said 'He spent 50 years on The Eagle and went to The New York World‐Telegram and The Sun when The Eagle ceased publication in 1955.'

Also working in a location doesn't automatically make people from there. Sports team player pages for instance are never categorized 'People from Foo'. Please note this[1] notable people criteria.Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the corrections! And I will keep the second part in mind as well, going forward. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by OhHaiMark were:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of siblings of presidents of the United States instead.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at First family of the United States. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of siblings of presidents of the United States and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

OhHaiMark (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Omnis Scientia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! OhHaiMark (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317 Online events: New: Women writers & their works | Geofocus: Islands A - H Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) | Translation contest 2024 (Jul, Aug, Sep) Announcements from other communities August 30 is the tenth anniversary of WikiProject Women writers! Tip of the month: Try her pen name when searching for sources, and remember to add her to any of these that apply: List of pen names, List of literary initials, and Category:Pseudonymous women writers. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

List of Jewish American United States Cabinet members, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on your new volumnious see also .. but please do not replace the existing select list which has served an important purpose for many years, for those select ballplayers. It serves a different purpose - it is smaller, more given to scanning, highlights the more prominent, and has above and below it related lists. Feel free to not delete, but rather add to all the other players not on the select list. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:3DC5:789A:CB50:868 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list was specifically for Jewish MLB players. That list is for PROMINENT Jewish sportspeople. Mixing the two because you think a list which has people who don't even identify as Jewish is better than a featured list with references for each and a set criteria is not a good way to go about this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the select list from MLB players' pages as I had did before because your explanation is weak, at best. This is specifically for Jewish MLB players, gives the necessary highlights, and also the references. Adding this to "see also" is also in line with other lists of Puerto Rican MLB players or Canadian MLB players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it please. Now. You are deleting see alsos that have been in articles for years. Because you have a different personal preference. Yours is simply a cat on steroids. It is unreadable - for the reader who wants to glance at prominent ball players. Because it has dozens of non significant ball players. Use your see also for the 150+ ballplayers not in the long-there list. But stop deleting for personal poor choice preferences the existing are alsos. Which also allow people to easily see other prominent Jewish athletes easily. It is unhelpful. And not collaborative. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:B980:7A44:DA5:EC2D (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. I only removed see also from one baseball player who doesn't identify as Jewish.

And you don't have to be so combative. Just warning your right now not to engage in edit-warring because you prefer an unreferenced list with fewer people on it. Nobody else had a problem when these changes were initially implemented so its basically just you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a featured list with accessibility tools is not "inferior" to what you think is a "stronger" list. I'd argue that the unorganized list you are advocating for is the unreadable one because of the unorganized way its built and being unreferenced - I removed numerous people who weren't Jewish a while back - while the featured list highlights stars, is listed by alphabets, and in sortable tables, and each entry is referenced.

And what I did was in line with how "see also"s in baseball pages are ususally for which is for lists related to baseball. The actual reason that initial list was there in the first place was because this particular one did not exist.

Also what you're doing is not collaborative. I undid your unilaterally decision to not "restore" but remove an MLB featured list in favor of less informative, more confusing preference. You did not consult me or anyone else. You decided for yourself that the featured list is "unreadable" and "inferior" and then came here to tell me I was wrong when I did what was basically routine and something which no other regular editor has an issue with. And I will do it again because you're engaging in disruptive editing and giving no reasons for it other than "this list is better". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a) I understand your pride in a see also you worked hard on. Congratulations on that. b) You assert in your revert - without any support - that your new list now "takes precedence" over the long-accepted, longstanding see also. There's simply no such rule. We don't make up rules, and assert them as fact. c) I support you being accurate, and either removing from articles and lists any text that is not supported by RS refs, or if you think it is likely accurate by tagging it and then removing it later if no ref is supplied.

d) Nobody had a problem for many years with the lists that you are willy nilly deleting. Just you have been deleting them. e) The lists are not coterminous for the reasons I already indicated. So it is not a question of which has more refs - though as I pointed out, since you can remove (or tag) any non-supported text, and you say you've already done that or done that largely so you are aware of that, so that's a non-issue. Certainly not reason for removal. f) Your list of 200 or so baseball players, including primarily those with limited appearances from many years ago, does not help much the reader who wants to see who the current and more prominent ballplayers. And who is interested in the related subject of Jewish sportspeople.

g) The actual reason that list was in the see also's was not - as you maintain - that your newly created list did not exist. You are making that up or guessing. The existing see alsos, there for years, are beneficial because of the reasons I stated. Your list is fine - but its basically the existing category on steroids. And does not have the benefits I pointed to. You really think a reader interested in Jewish baseball players who can look at the cat of 200 of them prefers to see your list of 200, rather than see the more prominent and current players, who are buried deep in your list? Why would that be? h) No other regular editor had a problem with the established list. For many, many years. In fact, none seemed to care enough to create the list that you created - while many editors added or culled or revised the other list. i) I have no problem with you adding your see also to other article that don't have the see also in the first place. Probably 150+ I imagine, correct?

j) I do have a problem with you willy nilly taking it upon yourself to delete the see alsos from the much smaller list of prominent and current players.

If you want to be collaborative, please consider the issues I've laid out. Thank you. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:45B5:3629:911E:2628 (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a) Its not a "see also", its a list. A "see also" section is not a requirement and can contain anything. b) I didn't make that list so I can "willy nilly delete" the other list which I didn't delete since it still exists, I just replaced it as routine. I made it because I was interested in this list and in what is a very complex topic (also there is no other ethnicity-specific complete list of ballplayers; nationality ones, yes, but no complete comprehensive list like this one).

c) I don't add or make stuff based on who will read about it. Frankly, I don't care if people don't care about the contents of this list; they are free not to read it. I'm sure a lot of people don't care about Jewish pro-wrestlers or whatever else, especially if its deep in a list of 700+ people (and who don't necessarily identify as Jewish but can just be of Jewish descent like Ralph Branca or Lou Boudreau), just as I'm sure there are people interested in Jewish MLB players rather than a category containing a mix of minor leaguers and major leaguers with no other info.

d) Again, I can edit as I please as long as I'm within the rules. I didn't remove the list for the reasons I gave. I gave the reasons above to counter your silly "inferior/superior" falsehoods so don't twist my words. e) Yes actually, given how it was piped/titled as "List of select Jewish MLB players", it was there because there was no alternative. f) You did not point out any "disadvantages" other than "I don't like this list and neither will anyone else"; and current players aren't "buried" they are listed alphabeticaly.

g) No other editor had a problem with that list anymore than they had with this one because there was no alternative -- and the editors in question are the regular baseball project editors, BTW. That list has been edited many times because its existed a lot longer. The featured list isn't even a year old and, thanks to the help I received at "WP:FL (featured lists)", it really can't be improved more other than by adding new players.

h) I will not be adding people with limited appearences to a list of prominent baseball people and I won't be implementing anything you've added given that you haven't actually suggested anything other make a case for why the list you preference is better which, frankly, it isn't in any way shape or form. Also, you've been nothing but rude and patronizing and I won't collaborate with someone like this, especially when they clearly don't know a thing about the topic they are arguing about.

Finally, i) your edits are disruptive and for no reason. Consider this an informal warning before a formal one. I will keep undoing your unneccessary removal of an MLB featured list from the page of a Jewish MLB player in place of a miscellenous, much longer, unorganized list. Now kindly stop harrassing me. Goodbye. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]