User talk:Osiris/August 2013

← Archive 20 |

Archive 21

| Archive 22 →

Questions about closing RfDs

Could you give me some input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion#Closing requests? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

K, done. Osiris (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops!

Thanks for this! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem! :) Osiris (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: My talk page

Hi Osiris,

I know it might not be very easy, but I decided to talk to you here. I undid most of it at this point, and is there a way to create WikiProjects and task forces, because if so, then I'd like to create some, but of course I need more contributors ;), but thanks for the message. WorldTraveller101 11:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, WorldTraveller101. Thank you for that. We don't have official WikiProjects here, but you can create one in your userspace if you like. I've never seen one really function successfully, but I haven't been here for very long. The problem of course is that we just don't have enough contributors to develop regular task forces. You're more than welcome to try, though. 11:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. We need more volunteers here and we could probably gain more editors with an editor retention program? I'll ponder on it. I'm going to busy, but I will think it through. It's a stretch, but such a program could succeed. I concur that there is a lack of successful WikiProjects, which is ashame, but I'll see what I can do. Best. WorldTraveller101 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Commodore Nutt

Hello! I know you made some comments on this article. After a week in hospital I finally got around to significantly altering the article. Vocabulary has been simplified, sentence structure has been simplified, things have been tightened up, and a few images have been entered. I wonder if you could take one last look at it? We're getting very near the closing date and I hope the article is GA ready. Thank you for taking your time and using your talent and insights to help on this! Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll read it through later today. Osiris (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

minhas contribuições estão boas/my contributions are good

olá eu sei um pouco de ingles espanhol e sou nativo portugues mais não intendo nada neste sistema if you do not speak Portuguese i just want to ask my contributions are good to know I'm working in Article Doki's Adventures. Matheus de Sousa Lopes (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, let me know if you need any help with anything (although unfortunately I won't be much help translating from Portuguese). Osiris (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Golan Hights

Hi. i just want to tell you, you can delet Pictures from anny website you want and Block articles. but History prove somthing different. Thank you. פארוק (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And you can write history without advocating or condemning it. You can describe both sides of a dispute without advocating one or the other. You can use pictures in their original form without manipulating them, and assign it to its source. When you use modified pictures it can no longer be assigned to that source. Osiris (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. but to Block Article and delet Pictrues to show only one side it is didn't fair. you can also show the both sides of the Map and decide to who you belonge. and Ariel University is still in Israel. פארוק (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't blocked any article, I don't even have the ability to do that. I suppose you could show both versions of the map, but it seems a bit excessive to me. One is the map in its original form as drawn by a U.S. government agency, while the other is the same map that's been slightly modified by a Wikipedia user so that the borders reflect a different point-of-view. Both versions contain exactly the same information, and having both of them on such a short article doesn't help the reader in the slightest. It is horribly outdated anyway, being from the 1980s. I recently uploaded a more recent map, but I have a feeling that you won't like that either since it is also from the U.S. Osiris (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The article in the English Wikipedia were Bloked afte i edit him. 70% area is in Israel and a 20% area in Syria. between Israel and Syria this is 10% UN area. פארוק (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It's semi-protected, is that what you mean? You shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia at all until your block is lifted. I don't know why you haven't understood that yet. Yes, yes, such and such place is in Israel – you've sent me dozens of these messages. What I am saying is: You can't just write that as though it were such a simple fact. This is why you're getting blocked on so many wikis. You have to write from a neutral perspective. Write that Israel says the place is in Israel (in the case of Ariel it actually doesn't, but we'll focus on the bigger picture here); and then also describe what other governments say; write that Israel controls the area, but that other countries say that it's part of Syria. And then back it all up with some good quality sources. Does that make sense? By writing simply "70% of the Golan Heights are in Israel" you're choosing a side. I have a feeling that you're well aware of that, but I'll continue to explain it to you every time. Osiris (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. פארוק (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Farouk, advocating on Wikipedia does not help your cause. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

StevenJ81, I know that like every other Israelis. פארוק (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela GA

Hey friend. I'm just wondering since Nelson Mandela is no longer a current event article it can be nominated for GA. I really want to make this article into a good article. Can you please write your suggestion into the article's talk page. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the book reference with online references. Thanks for the advice, but I don't know how to copy-edit. Can you show me an example? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the notification. Very much appreciated. He is considered notable on English Wikipedia because he won a medal. Ah well. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I hope something good comes out of the discussion, maybe a change in their policy. Osiris (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that will hopefully happen. I commented to say in English why they should be kept, and apparently the discussion looked like it was going that way. There are more sources for them, but I did not look. I was trying to create many stubs which only established notability. Unless there is a specific event or independent notability needs to be established, I am not spending much time adding that. (Having the stubs on Simple English Wikipedia is hugely helpful. I was able to use them to create stubs on English Wikipedia, and improve on them. I have also been adding some sources today on Simple English when I find them for other articles I am writing on English Wikipedia where no article currently exists.) --LauraHale (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I too thank you

For gifting me with the awesome Barnstar. Thanks for thinking of me and for the lovely comments. ツ Yes, I did indeed come to see what was up here because of that conversation. I stay because there is so much to be done here. I will continue to try my best to make a difference. In solidarity, Fylbecatulous talk 13:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! We need more contributors with that kind of attitude. Should you ever need any help with anything, I'm at your disposal. Osiris (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This is for clearing out the seemingly endless stream of QDs of test pages and vandalism pages almost 24/7. The vandalism here recently seems heavier than it's ever been, so thanks! TCN7JM 03:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TCN7JM! It's a team effort so you deserve this as much as I do! Osiris (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Top 100 Crime Novels

class="wikitable sortable centre"

Hi. Do you understand why the sort functionality is not working there?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Varlaam. It is working for me. You have it disabled on two columns (title and author) with class="unsortable" Osiris (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Igor Janev

Hi Osiris, why your Wiki has removed art. on Igor Janev, RM diplomat. Not prominent enough or something else? See [1]. sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.34.138 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The wiki decided that he was not notable enough. To be honest, though, I might have had an easier time believing he was notable were it not for the persistent attempts to get his name and opinions pushed onto Wikipedia articles. The time and effort could be better spent by building up a proper list of reliable sources about him. Osiris (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Commodore Nutt

Hi! The article above is currently at VGA. It requires at least 6 votes to move forward. I'm not asking you to vote "yes", but simply to vote. This article recently passed to GA, and I'm hoping it will pass to VGA. My "head" is still in the subject which, if the article need improvements to get it to VGA, will make it much easier to focus on these improvements. The requirements for VGA tell us that: "Within one week of being listed under the voting section, 80% of named editors must agree that the article is indeed very good. There is a required minimum of 6 named voters." The article has been on the page for three days, it has one vote, and time is running out. Would you, could you, vote? Thank you, Osiris! Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I was going to comment anyway, but I'm a bit busy with work at the moment. I'll make a mental note to review it on Saturday if that still suits you. I can't imagine there'd be all that much to say. You can go ahead and ignore that "within one week" rule; it's no longer the consensus after a big discussion last year, time limits are not so strict now. Osiris (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Osiris! I look forward to your comments! Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Do you edit regular Wiki? Shiningroad (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes. Not often, though. :) Let me know if you need any help with anything. Osiris (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oldest religion

I think that there's clearly no other older religion than Hinduism, in fact you can't find any which would be older, you may need to simply look at these sources,[2],

Thank you for your question(s), IP. But please be sure to sign your posts at the end of your comment like this: ~~~~ or ~~~~ ~~~~~. ~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 07:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure 122.170.61.104 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! If we're talking about "major" religions, then I definitely agree. If we're just speaking generally, however, then I think it's a lot less clear-cut if you consider some of the "traditional" religions still practised. Australian Aboriginal religion, for example, is a lot older, and you can find several sources that state it's the oldest.. Just from a quick Google Books search:

So that's why I felt it was a good idea to include the caveat "major". Osiris (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, aborgines aren't the oldest, because there's no basis of that belief at all, it's not Religion at first, second thing is that "Boeckl 2007" is a self publisher. A lot of books are directly stating that hinduism is oldest, one book is "Let's Know Hinduism: The Oldest Religion of Infinite Adaptability and Diversity, By R. C. Dogra, Urmila Dogra" Many of the Hinduism's traces are even 70,000 year old, but i would better mention this book source[3], , and the book "Shining Ones" By Philip Gardiner, after mentioning that Shaminism and Bon-po religion dates back to 50,000 BC, he adds "Hinduism is probably the oldest religion on the planet", Page 98. Thus it really makes it the oldest religion. In fact, it's also noted that human transferred himself from India to australia, in books like "Exploring the Hindu Mind: Cultural Reflections and Symbolisms" p. 8, "The Indian Empire: Its People, History, and Products" by W. W. Hunter, etc.122.170.26.152 (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean it's not a religion? I'm sure that depends on how you define religion. A lot of people say Buddhism isn't a religion, but a lot of people disagree... I don't know what human migration through India has to do with religion; it certainly doesn't mean that the ancestors of Australians were Hindus... So there are "a lot of books" stating that Hinduism is the oldest, and there are other books that state Australian Aboriginal religion is the oldest. We don't ignore either opinion. We can write that Hinduism is considered the oldest major religion, and that while some say it is the oldest surviving of all religions, others say that Australian Aboriginal religion is older. Osiris (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Religion in the sense, that if it's followed with any basis? Buddhism is clearly a religion, since they have their own scriptures. And which is the oldest estimate?[4] Considering 45,000 is for Aboriginal, and 1.7 million is for Hinduism, if you go by it's actual term, which is "Vedic", because by saying "oldest major religion" one would go like.. "then what is oldest", when it's obvious. 122.170.26.152 (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by basis? It's an oral tradition, the presence of scriptures doesn't define a religion – you're making up your own definitions there. 1.7 million??? That's not possible. Homo sapiens didn't exist back then, and their evolutionary ancestors were still in Africa. Osiris (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree about buddhism, but they categorize buddhists as whoever 'converts' to it, similar to every other religion. Actually, some human skeletons in Chad, have been found, that dates 7 million years ago, so it can be argued, but that's whole different story. 122.170.26.152 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the Sahelanthropus skeletons found in 2002, not humans. Homo ergaster was the stage of human evolution 1.7 million years ago. Osiris (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyways! For now i have removed that whole, and just added "ancient", for now. You can have a watch on that page, so that there won't be any vandalism regarding any of it's content. 122.170.26.152 (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I will keep an eye on it for you. Osiris (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! 122.170.26.152 (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)