User talk:Osiris/February 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can you do something for me?
I noticed you welcomed me on my talk page recently. First of all, thanks for that. I was hoping someone would welcome me at some point. Secondly, just a small request: can you close the requests for deletion request I made? The article's been deleted, so there's no point of doing any discussion there anymore. I don't know if you can do a "non-admin closure" like you can on the English Wikipedia's articles for deletion project, so I'm requesting that you would do so. Lugia2453 (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. There's no problem with doing it yourself (although there is a lot of messing about with templates and moving things around). Have fun here, and thanks for your help with NewPages! :) Osiris (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Naturalism
Yes, but if we do not have an ambiguity, why move the page? When other, less used, types of naturalism emerge, then create a disambig page under the title "Naturalism (disambiguation)". That way the most common usage keeps the simple term as its title. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I did it that way first, but then reverted myself and put it back the way it was originally [1] [2]. It was mainly to restructure this new page (created yesterday) as a disambiguation page, because that's what it really was. So I moved "Naturalism (philosophy)" to "Naturalism" because I felt it was the primary topic, but then I noticed that all the other interwiki links had it the way we originally had it, so I reverted myself. Can you have a closer look and tell me whether you think Naturalism (philosophy) should be at Naturalism? Osiris (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I'll do that in the next day or so. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Osiris (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right, I can now say definitively that naturalism as a philosophy is the root meaning of the word, and precedes other uses by good margin. Source books on the presocratic philosophers say that the rejection of myths, and the promotion of naturalism and rationalism, were key to their many and varied ideas.
Another angle is provided by the use of the word in English. Shorter OED gives Natural: taking place or operating in accordance with the ordinary course of nature: 1433. Naturalism: A view of the world in which only the operation of natural (as opposed to spiritual or supernatural) laws and forces are assumed: 1750. Its use in literature and art: 1850.
Therefore, I think present page Naturalism (philosophy) should be moved back to "Naturalism", and present Naturalism should be moved to "Naturalism (disambiguation)". Which is what you thought in the first place. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right, I can now say definitively that naturalism as a philosophy is the root meaning of the word, and precedes other uses by good margin. Source books on the presocratic philosophers say that the rejection of myths, and the promotion of naturalism and rationalism, were key to their many and varied ideas.
- Thanks! Osiris (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I'll do that in the next day or so. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Noticed this on my watchlist and I would leave Naturalism as a disambiguation page. What word was used first doesn't make it primary topic. If there is even the slightest ambiguity and no clear primary topic than it should be the disambiguation page. Which is the case with this word. Not that it carries much weight but I know personally Naturalism to me meant the form of art not the philosophical meaning. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────────┘
It usually refers to the artistic form for me as well; but, then, coming from a painter, that probably counts even less. It's not really just the word, though. I figured that the school of thought is the root concept (artistic naturalism is obviously largely based around the philosophical principles of naturalism). But then, regardless of that, both the art and the literature look to be subjects that are quite distinct from the philosophy however rooted in it they may be. Thanks for doing the research, Mac. I don't know what the answer is, but I did manage to disambiguate incoming links both here and on enwiki and they were for all three topics. Perhaps it's therefore better left as a disambiguation page at least for now, if only to make sure everybody is being linked to the correct topic...? Osiris (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Template Request
I would like to request to use and bring over this template from the English Wikipedia, to use in the Super Bowl articles (ie: Super Bowl XXXVII) that are on this wiki. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to use it in an article, sure. I'll import it right now. Although most of our Super Bowl articles are tiny stubs; they could really use expanding to include this kind of summary data in prose. Osiris (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In reference to your changes here
I am Martin Musatov I grant the author the source code to report on Wikipedia freely. If you read the article text before you changed this you would have now seen this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.80.58 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
a <a href=3D"/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine" title=3D"Nondeterministic Turing machine" class=3D"mw- redirect">nondeterministic Turing machine</a>. A problem p in NP is also in NPC <a href=3D"/wiki/If_and_only_if" title=3D"If and only if">if and only if</a> every other problem in NP can be transformed into p in polynomial time. NP-complete can also be used as an adjective: problems in the class NP-complete are known as NP-complete problems.What follows is reduced source code:
std; // // typedef struct node // { // int nElem; // struct node
NP-complete problems are studied because the ability to quickly verify solutions to a problem (NP) seems to correlate with the ability to quickly solve that problem (<a href=3D"/wiki/P_(complexity)" title=3D"P (complexity)">P</a>). |
- Hi Martin. That's fine if you are the author. However, everything you publish on Wikipedia must be free to reproduce anywhere, by anyone, even commercially. You can not attach your own licensing restrictions. The condition "This page may not be reproduced or republished on another web page or web site unless done so by M. M. Musatov (with the exception of Wikipedia)" makes the content incompatible with Wikipedia's own licenses. So, unless you agree to re-release the material under a commercial copyleft license (CC-BY-SA or GDFL, indefinitely, then we cannot use it here. Also, what exactly is it? And how is it encyclopaedic? It doesn't include any explanation, nor does it compliment any of the existing descriptions... Osiris (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please see here for details about licensing of content on the wikis operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. You may also want to email simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org for more information. Please note that even if you allow your work to be made available under a compatible license, we are unable to accept said declaration over here because you are editing anonymously and we cannot verify your identity. Hence also the need for an email. Chenzw Talk 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Jinki
The username "Ansei" is now semi-retired. I formally set it aside in a manner which is consistent with Wikipedia policies.
This username is derived from Jinki (神亀), which was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. "year name") during the years from 724 through 729. The era name change was part of a pacification or peace-making ritual. The nengō Jinki means "sacred tortoise".--Jinki (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Catalyst for consensus-building
Osiris -- At Wikipedia:Simple talk#Racepacket's unblock request, I want to join your opinion here. I want to work with you in creating a consensus made up of the two of us.
Also, I want to learn from this small opportunity to work with you. Over the course of the coming year, I want to learn how to be an a more active catalyst for consensus-building. Will you please help me try to figure this out in 2013?
What can we do together? --Jinki (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, Jinki. I'm always happy to work with you and I usually end up learning something myself as part of the process.
- In the current discussion, I don't consider a single outburst of impropriety unforgivable. At the same time, however, I'm hesitant to see Racepacket unblocked without some restrictions on his content creation. But with that not being the reason for his block, it's difficult to demand such restrictions be conditional to his return. Considering, also, that I possess only a small sample of the facts behind his Arbitration case and his (supposedly continued) off-wiki harassment of another editor, and that I know nothing of his alleged contributions to Wikimedia (I know only that he was supposed to be a coordinator at Wikimania 2012), then I'm not inclined to argue for either cause.
- It doesn't look as though there is likely to be a consensus to unblock. Consensus-building seems to be much more difficult on this Wikipedia, given the smaller population. Learning to understand the alternative points of view and working to achieve a compromise solution is, in my opinion, the best method for achieving progress. And staying focused on the topic at hand keeps the process moving towards that goal; any distraction has the potential to derail it completely. Participants need to refrain from commenting on another editor (and any problems that they perceive with that editor's conduct, motives or judgement), unless that editor is the subject of discussion and then that discussion should only transpire in the correct venue. I hope that this year sees less cases of user-related problems and more cooperation. Osiris (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help simplifying the article on Nathaniel Wallich; your changes are very good. It's been a long time since I wrote something in Simple English and my language is Spanish. Thanks again. Jmarcano (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- No problem! It was already a well-written article anyway, I just thought I'd add a few suggestions. I'm pleased you consider the changes helpful.
Osiris (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Monthly Cleanup
Could you take a look at my recent change to Template:Monthly clean-up category/core. There was a problem with the old empty categories not appearing in the QD category due to them being hidden. My change forces it to not use {{Wikipedia category}} if it is empty and thereby blocking its hidden attribute.
This works perfect for old empty categories. The problem is the current category. If it gets empty, the QD isn't shown (correctly), but neither is the category blurb (nor the hidden attribute which actually is a non-issue as it really doesn't have to be hidden if no articles are in the category to see it in the first place).
Idealy:
| State | QD | hidden | blurb | Status | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In use |
old | no | yes | yes | works |
| 2 | curent | no | yes | yes | works | |
| 3 | Empty | Old | yes | no | Doesn't matter | works |
| 4 | Current | no | yes | yes | only qd= no is working | |
Any help tweaking it to get #4 working would be appreciated. It functions relatively fine now so not a huge issue, but could lead to accidental QD's without the blurb when a current category gets emptied and someone notices it empty. --Creol(talk) 20:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I played around with it for a bit and all your boxes should be ticked now. How sure are you that the hidden attribute was the cause for the glitch in categorisation? I thought we came to the conclusion that it was due to a slow job queue...? I did a bit of testing and even with the hidden attribute removed, the old cat I emptied still failed to show up in the QD category (at least until I null-edited it). Osiris (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- While a slow job queue will always have some effect, maintenance cats I had cleared weeks ago were still failing to show. Once I toyed around with the hidden attribute (turning it off locally, hence a null edit) it popped up immediately. Null edits had had no effect on several of the other cats I cleared. Due to this, I moved to the template. Once the change was made there, by the time I looked at new changes again, 3-4 empty maintenance categories had been deleted. These had sat there for weeks in some case with no sign in the QD cat, but once the change was made, they flooded in. I just cleared up an article which was the only one in its cat (sources - December 2010). While the cat did not immediately show in the QD cat, about 20-30 minutes later is was there. This is a far cry from the 2-3 weeks (if ever) I was seeing before. Adding Hidden to the cat does not make it vanish, so it could just the attribute is somehow affecting its placement in the queue.. Even so, the change does seem to have certainly affected the systems response time if not its functionality.--Creol(talk) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent: if it's working reasonably well now, then that's definitely better than not showing up at all. Perhaps what you surmise about it affecting the placement is true, as that would be the only explanation I can think of for why it doesn't affect the English Wikipedia as well (which is using basically the same code). Thanks for the detective work! Osiris (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- While a slow job queue will always have some effect, maintenance cats I had cleared weeks ago were still failing to show. Once I toyed around with the hidden attribute (turning it off locally, hence a null edit) it popped up immediately. Null edits had had no effect on several of the other cats I cleared. Due to this, I moved to the template. Once the change was made there, by the time I looked at new changes again, 3-4 empty maintenance categories had been deleted. These had sat there for weeks in some case with no sign in the QD cat, but once the change was made, they flooded in. I just cleared up an article which was the only one in its cat (sources - December 2010). While the cat did not immediately show in the QD cat, about 20-30 minutes later is was there. This is a far cry from the 2-3 weeks (if ever) I was seeing before. Adding Hidden to the cat does not make it vanish, so it could just the attribute is somehow affecting its placement in the queue.. Even so, the change does seem to have certainly affected the systems response time if not its functionality.--Creol(talk) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Template documentation
Could you take a look at the entries in Category:Documentation subpages without corresponding pages? All link back to your userspace and most are docs for templates you deleted previously as unneeded. As such, they probably should go as well. (was going to just QD 4 of the 5 but thought you might have a reason to have kept them) --Creol(talk) 02:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- All done. Deleted three and made redirects for the other two that were being used. Thanks, Osiris (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Rollback
Thanks anyway, I know it will be very hard to trust me but rollback was very special to me and used it a lot (mostly Huggle:) ). KJ6MYQ (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Samaná English
The problem with that article is that it is completely false; just compare it with the English version (which is short but right) and you could see how different are they. I was going to ask to block the user that wrote that article because he/she does not cite any work in all his/her contributions and, when references are given, the content is changed. Sometimes CIA publications are used but the figures are completely different. He/she have been using different IPs and that user has been blocked in English. I do not understand why to work so much with completely untrue, and misleading, informations. If the Samaná English is to be kept, it could be copied from the English Wikipedia, with the needed simplifications. Jmarcano (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Picture of The day
Almost every wiki has a picture of the day. Why this wiki doesn't have? Can you help me to create the picture of the day in this wiki?--Pratyya (Hello!) 03:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Picture of the day? No, we don't have any local image files. They're all on Commons. And most of the ~800 WMF wikis do not have a picture of the day. Osiris (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Template {{Lang}}
Do you see any reason not to put the list of language codes in alphabetical order (by code, I'm thinking, rather than language)? I don't see that they're in a particular order right now. I know interwikis display in order by native name of the language, but I don't see that we need to follow that here. Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, it's just a switch so any ordering will be purely for the benefit of people editing that template. Which is fine I suppose, if you wanted to order them. Osiris (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 15:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Municipalities of Japan
You may have forgotten that you created Category:Municipalities in Japan by prefecture almost a year ago -- see User talk:Osiris/March 2012#Categories.
Now that you think about it, you may recall that you also created 47 sub-categories for each of the Prefectures of Japan. Over the past twelve months, we have populated these categories with three or more articles about Japanese cities, towns and villages. In fact, the initial set of article stubs was only completed this week. Thank you for the work which helped set this slow process in motion.
Looking back, I also want to thank you again you for using of a jargon verb here. In the past year, I have often thought about you and the verb "diffuse". In a variety of contexts, this concept helped me to think about how to move slowly with strategies and questions and guesses. --Jinki (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks Osiris for setting this up. Gotanda (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh... Any time! :) Although the praise really belongs to you two for filling them. Osiris (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Cave Johnson
Why did you replace the article about Portal 2's Cave Johnson (who has an English Wikipedia article) with one that is real? --Bsadowski1 14:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Aaah! It was a fictional character! That makes sense. I couldn't find any person of that description through the authority control databases, so I just rewrote the article. Osiris (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)