User talk:Osiris/April 2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 17

98.242.154.134

Hey Osiris, I know that 98.242.154.134 has been disruptive, but I can't seem to find the corresponding case page on EN. Can you point me to that so I can read more about the editor? Chenzw  Talk  15:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. The editor's name is AFROdr (talk ▪ changes), AllStarSun1 (talk ▪ changes) and/or DDatGuy1 (talk ▪ changes) - they're all suspected to be the same person. From what I can tell, they've used the following IP addresses locally:
There might be more. Was originally brought to my attention just over a month ago, but you'll see from their block logs that it's been a long-term thing here aswell. I saw you revert and warn, but I figured there's no point in you having to keep a constant eye on the page (it doesn't look like they take warnings very seriously). Osiris (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening here?

Please take a look at User talk:Gambo7#Emblem of the Holy See? --Jinki (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which question to ask first? --Jinki (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the editor changed the image because it was heraldry of the Vatican City, rather than of the pope. The Pope actually has nothing to do with the Vatican City. The head of the Vatican is the Sovereign of the Vatican City, which law requires to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church -- ex officio. But they're two entirely separate offices, and the office of Pope isn't directly connected with the Vatican City state. So it's a bit odd to see the coat of arms of the Vatican on a list of popes. Osiris (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
For all your recent work on Australia-related articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool! Thanks, Auntof6! Osiris (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

Wai, Pi! Yeah, I know about that one but it's pretty much dead unfortunately. There was also supposedly a bit of discussion about Aboriginal-language projects at wikiversity:LangCamp 2012, but there are a lot of hurdles to overcome. Osiris (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Osiris. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
Message added 07:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Pratyya (Hello!) 07:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll have a look at and reply in a moment, Pratyya. Osiris (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Hart

Andrea Hart is a clear cut QD|a6 and yet you marked it patrolled and moved on:

  • 22:58, April 6, 2013 Osiris (talk | changes) marked revision 4352342 of page Andrea Hart patrolled

In addition to the horrendously bad typing that needed to be tagged or fixed before the page was marked as acceptable, the amount of blatant lies in that article is staggering. The entire thing is a work of fiction, and its not even a good one.

  • She is has been married to 1 guy and 2 twitter accounts - Twitter is her spouse? (which is hidden in the infobox since Infobox musical artist (which she isn't listed as being in her long list of professions) is used instead of Infobox person)
  • Her website doesn't even have an extension.
  • Most of the movies don't exist (and those blue links are often to the wrong pages if a movie did exist)
  • Happy Feet was 2006, not 2007 (minor) and certainly not a TV movie (big) let alone the prose lists her as one character and the table lists her as a different one
  • TV episodes (when they exist) are in the wrong seasons (sneaky but still faked) and the characters listed are not on the cast lists.
  • She won the "Best Performance in a Movie (Comedy or Drama) - Young Actress Award" - an award category that does not exist. If it was a movie, it would have been "Best Performance in a Feature Film - Young Actress Age Ten or Younger" (she was 9), no "in a Movie" and the {Comedy or Drama) tag is for TV series. (side note: the only "Andrea" to get even a nom that year was Andrea Lewis for Ensemble with DeGrassi.
  • "Academy Award for Best Tv Series" ... I can't even comment on how wrong that is..
  • and the list goes on

My head hurts just trying to comprehend how much is wrong here. --Creol(talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted it. Thanks for letting me know. Osiris (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay to create this

Hi! it's me again. Will it be okay if I created User talk:Rebert as a memorial to Roger Ebert? The user page can be a redirect to the talk page. Please writer back. --TDKR Chicago (talk), 8 April 2013, 22:56 (UTC).

Hmm, I don't fully understand why you would want to do that. There is actually a user named Rebert, he/she just hasn't created their user page here yet. Osiris (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four color theorem

Hello Osiris, I have responded on my talk page; the DYK was supposed to be about the NYT refusing to publish (as some falsifications had taken over a decade). If you are mathematically inclined, look at this pdf (Robertson/Sanders/Seymour/Thomas, 1995): They mention the year 1976 on the first page. --Eptalon (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your wisdom

Hello again, I have down some more on Ancient Australia and have had a go at improving Dreamtime. I tried to establish that this is a very complex concept. Your input would be great.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. What you've written in Dreamtime is actually really good, in my opinion. Tjukurpa is an extremely difficult subject to write about in English and find accurate references for. I usually avoid it for a plethora of reasons, so I applaud you for trying to tackle it. The best sources to use are those that pertain to a particular language group (though I realise of course that's not very helpful when we're trying to describe the topic broadly). A lot of scholarly sources, especially anthropologists, tend to apply their own interpretations broadly. The pages on the Parks Australia website like you used are usually written by the local community and so are good resources for the cultures they belong to.
Since you used the term in the article, "Anangu" just means 'person' (or 'aboriginal person' these days). "Tjukurpa" is the word used in Pitjantjatjara, who will be the people the reference is referring to. It's also the word for it in Ngaanyatjarra, Ngaatjatjarra, Pintupi and Warlpiri, although there are differences in the sounding so I'm not sure about spellings. Translating it into English, though, is a bit awkward, and the words that have been chosen have a tendency to distract from the actual meanings... but I suppose we have to make the best of them. I think "Dreaming" is generally the preferred English these days; it's more flexible and a bit less confusing, so I wouldn't mind seeing the article renamed. Osiris (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, it was a bit of "fools rush in where angels fear to tread". I will go trawling through my reference collection for a few more examples. Photos are a bit of a problem too, so advice is very welcome. Which words to use always worries me. Do we use Australian Aborigine or Indigenous Australian (does it matter), the adjective "aboriginal" as applied to art or dance for example. Tribe I know you do not like, so what word should we use for family groups, the "tribe" - I am thinking here of the groups of 20-30 that lived and moved around together, I think language group or people is OK and the idea of a nation - like the Kulin nation in Victoria as a group of people with similar languages gathering for ceremony and trade. I suppose I am thinking of a "style guide" for the topic. I would be happy to see Dreamtime shifted to Dreaming. Dreaming does indicate the contemporary nature of the topic, whereas Dreamtime puts it all into the distant past.
Moiety and clan is the next area I want to explain, so get ready. --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Should we move it to Dreaming or something with a disambiguator at the end, such as Dreaming (spirituality)? I'm thinking about it conflicting with the verb form of Dream...
There are a few guides online that try to outline terminology, I'll have a look for some. I generally try to use the most accurate terms, which when speaking about the whole of Australia sometimes involves using a more vague term like "group" or "people" over "tribe" because the definition of "tribe" doesn't apply to all pre-colonial societies (though it is perfectly applicable to some). For family groups, "families" or "family groups" is okay - groups living together will have established how they're related to each other. "Mob" is used to refer to a group belonging to a particular place. Officially, "Aboriginal Australian" excludes "Torres Strait Islander" people, while "Indigenous Australian" is used to refer to both (even though they obviously mean the same thing liguistically). Some people take offense to the use of nouns (i.e., "Aborigines"/"Aboriginals"), so I try to use the adjective form when writing. But plenty of Aboriginal people use the term in everyday speech, myself included.
As for photos: I don't think you'll find any of actual ceremonies, but you might find some of dances and songs done as demonstrations. Other than that we're basically restricted to photos of places with stories, videos of people telling stories, and representations of stories in art (old rock art is probably the best because it won't be as encrypted). Osiris (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few PDFs on terminology: NSW Health, QLD Health and Flinders University -- I wouldn't take them too literally, though. Osiris (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan River

Why the map is without the Golan Hights ? . פארוק (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golan Heights

this map is wrong. the area that separating Israel and Syria is area that surrounded by volcanoes both sides of the borders. פארוק (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map is from the U.S. government. I don't know where the volcanoes are because it doesn't show topography. Israel might have a different perspective on where the borders lie, but that map shows them as they are recognised internationally. Why would we choose to show Israel's perspective over that of every other country? Osiris (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the Volcanos are not working many many years and they are on the borders. but most of the Golan Heights are in Israel. i don't know why this map is showing this lies. פארוק (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:173.22.154.81

Hello. I was wondering if we can block User:173.22.154.81 because he vandalized over 10 more paged since Rick Santorum. Please, I'm scared that he may do some other kind of harmful thing on another article. Please write back!!!!!!!!! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk), 13 April 2013, 4:18 (UTC).

Hi! It looks like they've already been blocked now. Sorry for the late reply. If you want a quicker response on these kinds of things, you can make a report at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Regards, Osiris (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

The Admin's Barnstar
For this. Too bad that I live in an area outside their jurisdiction :P Chenzw  Talk  12:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, no problem! Those threats are always a good laugh. :P Osiris (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Roman Britain

I created the article that you erased yesterday. I took some section from an author, but I am willing to modify those excerpts. That's why I insert now only the sections I have created: OK? Sincerely. BD

Hi. What you wrote was a copyright violation, so I can't restore it. If you want a copy of it, I'll have to email it to you. It was also not in Simple English. Those two issues will need to be resolved before you decide to publish it again. Regards, Osiris (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. No problem. Hope it is OK now. BD
Thanks.BD

Marriages

Well since the beginning I'd have been writing the marriages part like this he is currently married to John Doe since 1978, but some user (I forgot the name) told me to write was married and if they are current then still write He was married to was ... since 1968 that's the example the user told me. So one of both of you should really say one thing or another because I'm getting a little confused. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk), 13 April 2013, 12:24 (UTC).

AC

Assumption College is my high school I'm studying at Grade 10. I read your Email already. yes, That church is very beautiful but today that church is close for Improvement about 2 years will be finish. Do you have a facebook? If you have can add me in this name. I need to have friends like you from Wikipedia. - Supanut Arunoprayote (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I no longer use facebook, sorry. Thanks for the news on the church, it was very pretty inside so I hope they keep it that way. Osiris (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I understand and welcome for that news. - Supanut Arunoprayote (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding rollback rights

Can you please tell me when exactly can I apply for the rollback rights? It would be a lot helpful in reverting edits which are vandalism. I already have the rollback rights in the English Wikipedia (verify). - Jayadevp13 (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yep, you can request it at WP:RFR. Osiris (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have requested it. If possible, please take a look. - Jayadevp13 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I probably won't answer it unless nobody else does. Since you haven't been a rollbacker for long on the English Wikipedia, they'll probably ask to see a bit more experience locally with anti-vandalism before they assign you the flag. Osiris (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Santorum

Hey. I'm just curious what was the content of the article that was so grossly to be viewed to the public? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk), 20 April 2013, 24:21 (UTC).

Oh, nothing interesting just some vandalism that contained untrue claims meant to insult the person. I just have to delete it so that Mr. Santorum doesn't sue us for hosting defamatory material. Osiris (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


THANK YOU

THANK YOU FOR TELLING ME ON CHANGING USERNAME, I MADE MY REQUEST. I WAS ANGRY AT OTHER USERS FOR IGNORING ME SO I GOT ANGRY AND I DIDNT GO ONLINE MUCH BUT IM BACK AND OK NOW . I FOUND YOURE A ADMINISTRATOR . HOW DO I BECOME ADMINISTRATOR? HouseMouse82 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i am an administrator now HouseMouse82 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I haven't paid much attention to categories in a long time. I can see, however, that the categories on Simple English may be growing without there being a consistent plan. (The categories for spiders on the English Wikipedia are messed up too.) The category under which an article on "Wolf spiders" falls should be "Spiders" unless you want to avoid the problem of where to put the Tarantula/Bird-eater group and their cousins. The category under which an article on Spider falls should not be "Spiders" but "Arachnids." An article on Arachnids should fall under the category "Chelicerata" or whatever the English expression should be. An article on "Chelicerata" should fall under the category "Arthropods. An article on "Arthropods" should fall under the category "Animals." An article on "Animals" should fall under the category "Living creatures."

Currently on Simple English Wolf spider falls under the category Spiders.
Currently on Simple English Tarantula falls under the category Spiders.
Looking at the category [[Category:Spiders]] I see neither "Wolf spider" nor "Tarantula," and it shows the article Spider as falling under the category "Spiders."
People can do as they please, but to me it would seem worthwhile to put Wolf spiders under "True spiders" or some such category (Currently there is the appropriate subcategory, Araneomorphae), and Tarantulas under "Primitive spiders" or whatever you want to call it (currently there is the appropriate subcategory, Mygalomorphae). Then there needs to be a third category for a few spiders that might be called "Archaic spiders (and currently there is the correct subcategory, Mesothelae)."

Looking at the bottom of Spider, I see that it lists categories as Arachnids|Spiders.

Looking at the bottom of Arachnid, I see that there is only the category Arachnid. It would make more sense to say that the Arachnids fall under the general category of Chelicerata, or else use the dual category scheme shown above and list Arthropods|Chelicerata.

Looking at "Chelicerata" I find the category is given as "Chelicerates" and wonder why the article follows the Scientific name but the category follows an English naming.

The same problem appears for Arthropods, which ought to be Animals|Arthropods.

One does not categorize horses by saying that they belong to the category of horses. "Horses are horses" doesn't help people understand much of anything.

Since our articles ought to easily carry over the Taxobox stuff from the English Wikipedia (except where theirs are not well done), wouldn't it make more sense to do what they do and follow the taxonomic information, making wolf spiders fall under the more general category of "true spiders," "true spiders" fall under "spiders," "spiders" fall under "arachnids," and so forth?

It seems that English Wikipedia is rather chaotic too, but at least they don't group tarantulas and wolf spiders in one category or "super-category."

I'm not sure who decides these things. My memory of the original setting up of the category system on the English Wikipedia was that somebody assumed "ownership" of the whole scheme and no discussion was welcome. My idea is that features like this should serve the needs of users, and that people who know that they are looking at spiders do not need to be told that they are looking at spiders, but that they are looking at creatures that fall into a larger meaningful group characterized by arm-like appendages instead of antennae. Patrick0Moran (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really my area of expertise, so I've asked for some input from some regular category maintainers. There are only 23 entries in Category:Spiders, so hopefully it'll be pretty easy to organise in a way that's both accurate and practical. I doubt that this particular tree has been pre-planned in any way. Osiris (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Patrick. Osiris asked me to take a look at this. I can see what you mean about this area needing work. I'll take a better look shortly. For now, I just want to comment that we do want to see things like "horse" in the category "horses". I see your point about it seeming unhelpful, but the entire category then gets categorized in the proper place. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the category tree should follow the taxonomy tree with some (minor) exceptions. The main exception is where there are not enough groupings or articles to warrant a particular step. This is shown with the Subphylum Chelicerata. As it only has 2 possible entries (spiders and horseshoe crabs), it does not meet the 3 entry requirement and would not normally be used; those two orders would be placed in the phylum (arthropods) instead. Naming is a bit trickier. If a common name is widely used, we tend to use that over the taxo name (animals, arthopods, arachnids, spiders; not Amimalia, Arthropoda, Arachnida, Araneae). This makes it easier for the user to understand what they are looking at. A user looking for spiders will most likely not look up Araneae to find them. As the the horse issue, Horse is the main article describing the category. Users interested in reading about horses usually take 1 of 2 paths: horse -> types of horses or type of horse -> horse -> other types. The category system handles both of these easily with Horse in the same category as all the horses (although there may be sub-cats involved). The other alternative is going to Spider, tacking back to Cat:Arachnids, going cat:spiders, then looking at spider articles. There is no reason for them to need to go to Arachnids as they are looking for more information on spiders. If they want more information above that level, then they can pick the next higher cat. This is the same as most other category types, ie. San Diego, California is in the cat for San Diego and that cat is in Cites in California. Most people looking at the cat for San Diego are looking for information on San Diego and things associated with it rather than other cites in California (although the cat tree handles that as well).--Creol(talk) 16:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the category entries that show Arachnids|Spiders are the clearest. I can't see any reason not to do it that way.Patrick0Moran (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Osiris/April_2013&oldid=4396088"