User talk:Omnis Scientia

Speedy deletion nomination of Jew or Not Jew

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jew or Not Jew, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
• It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JewOrNotJew.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JewOrNotJew.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#Category:Cities in Sevastopol

Hi! Would you be able to quickly comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#Category:Cities in Sevastopol? I would really appreciate it :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing! Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Home of Peace Memorial Park.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Home of Peace Memorial Park.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Keir Starmer, edit revert with no justification

Hi there, you reverted my edit with no justification or comment on arguably one of the world's most high profile articles today. I justified at length the reason for the edit, the source and detail are repeated further down the section.

I'm not into edit warring so I'm not going to immediately revert but it's not really in good faith to go around reverting perfectly justified edits with no justification. If you had put forward even the briefest comment to justify it I could have attempted to understand. Otherwise it comes over as quite condescending. The fact that you have created a number of articles around the Jewish faith also makes me feel like you *could* be trying to overemphasise that Starmer's children are being raised Jewish when the article referenced does not explicitly support that. I'd appreciate a response so that we can resolve what you disagreed with, and why you feel that the content needs to be mentioned and referenced twice in one section. Mountaincirque^talk 19:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque, hello there. Well firstly, I wasn't the one who added that in, it was already there when I first came across the article on Starmer. I did read the article on Starmer where he did mention that his children were being raised in the faith of their mother, observed Shabbat, and attended synagogue. And he's mentioned this a few times and, a few days back, it became an election story as well. I think its clearly important to him and his family and I didn't think "this isn't important" was a good enough reason to remove it.

I'm not myself Jewish (my interest in it is mostly limited to Jewish sportspeople in the 20th century) so I approach the subject with sensitivity and take into account the feelings of the person themselves on the subject. Since its important to Starmer to the point he has mentioned it a number of times - one of the few personal things we actually know about him in fact - I felt it should remain in the section about his personal life.

I am sorry for not leaving an edit summary and explaining my reasons. I was in a bit of a rush and I just forgot to write one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just felt that the mention further down was enough. I think someone else has actually added another reference now for the fact that the children are raised in the Jewish faith. As the page is so high profile today I'm going to just leave it. All the best. Mountaincirque^talk 19:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

All the best to you as well. And thank you for hearing me out. Much appreciated. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)