User talk:Eptalon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Simple! I hope you are happy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Some helpful pages to start you off are Wikipedia:Useful, Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Policy.

If you want to meet and talk with other members, you can visit our version of the "village pump" at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Just remember that you should sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.

We have a special page that describes how to write Simple English articles. If you want some ideas of which pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- Netoholic @ 02:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Bot false positives[change source]

Your bot just made a ton of false positives - way too many for me to revert. May need to do an emergency shutdown temporarily. —Glendales 14:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I am working on the problem, and aware of it. Thsnks for noticing--Eptalon (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, why is that bot flagless and therefore flooding RC? —Glendales 14:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't flag it until you get the kinks worked out. That way we all can see the edits and possibly mistakes. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unflagged the bot (no bot flag yet); When the bot is in a state that it has run a few times, and no false positives have been found, I'll put the flagging issue up for discussoon at some board; probably Admin noticeboard, or Simple talk. --Eptalon (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Moheen Reeyad[change source]

I'm not sure why, but two responses to this RfD are not showing on the RfD page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why they don't show up on RfD, they do if you look at the individual RfD page. Tried clearing your browser's cache? --Eptalon (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access[change source]

You might want to revoke talk page access on that IP due to this. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We might consider it, if things don't improve; as per default, I don't see a reason to revoke it. I might revdel the few revisions though. --Eptalon (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Whatever you think necessary, I just thought I'd draw it to your attention since other personal attacks seem to have been revdel'd and you're the blocking admin. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Kamal hassan filmography[change source]

Can you explain the revert? I was just doing some general housekeeping/citation cleanup. Nunabas (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, was inadvertedly logged in on my mobile, and hit the wrong button. Sorry.--Eptalon (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fossil species and bones[change source]

Actually, there are very few fossil vertebrates with all the bones present in one specimen. That especially applies to hominins! Skull, teeth and femur are the top survivors amongst hominin fossils. Fortunately, they can tell one quite a lot. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD discussion page instructions[change source]

Hi Eptalon. I'm contacting you because you seem to be pretty active on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion and I've noticed what seems to be an error in the nomination instructions on that page. Under Discussed deletion, it says

  • It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|]] topic''.

I'm guessing that the second link (" [[Wikipedia:notable|]] ") should be a piped link, with (probably) the word "notable" or something similar after the vertical bar. It looks like it's been there since this edit way back in 2007. I'm hesitant about being bold on an instruction page, so I thought I'd get your opinion on it. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Dom Kaos: Actually, that link works the way it's shown. Try coding it on a page and see what it does. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Auntof6: Although it works as a link, I'm nevertheless fairly certain that it's a typo: I've been editing en.wikipedia for nearly ten years and I've never seen a wikilink which ends with a vertical bar. The more I look at it, the more I suspect that it should be " [[Wikipedia:notability|notable]] ". ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dom Kaos:It's not a typo. It's one of the things that the pipe trick does. It works because Wikipedia:notable redirects to Wikipedia:notability. Look at Help:Pipe trick for similar examples. However, if it really bothers you that much, then go ahead and change it --Auntof6 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 18:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Consummation[change source]

This page is not right: the word does not refer directly to sexual intercourse. It is a general term for the accomplishment of a particular line of effort or work. The explanation given is just one example of the concept in use. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for teling me. I have moved the page to consummation of marriage, with a redirect. This leaves us to describe the more general term at consummation, if we like. --Eptalon (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User: Vandalism Beetle[change source]

Hi Eptalon. Can you possibly take another look at this user please? (sorry I can't spell his name correctly, I don't have one of the letters in it) He's making a legal threat on his talk page to sue Wikipedia for damages if he's not unblocked. I believe the WMF normally globally ban for legal threats against the foundation. Many thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

DaneGeld is talking about Vandãlism Beetle (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I am actually surprised that you decided not to block this user indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Two edits, one "ordinary" vandalism, the other possibly antisemitic/revisionist. No history of vandalism. If he comes back after the block expires, there's plenty of time... --Eptalon (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 01:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback Request[change source]

Hi Admin, You may feel that i may be crazy by asking this request in early stage it’s been just 5 days i joined Simple English Wikipedia. But i’m one of the most active user here active more than 6-7 hours everyday. I’ve gained some knowledges of Simple English Wikipedia too. As per Rollback req i’m needed to be autoconfirmed so, i’m already that and i will do my best in future to fight aganist vandalism with full of my heart and respect to Simple English Wikipedia. I’ll be thankful to you if you would grant me this request. Simple english wiki is my home and i’m happy to be here and help the communtiy as i can. MTKASHTALK Contribs 21:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Usually, requests for permissions are processed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#Current_requests_for_rollback, rather than an administrator's talk page. It's a more open setting, so that other administrators can comment on a request, rather than here where they might not even notice the request was made. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding blocking of IP addresses[change source]

After seeing the block log of, I wondered why you blocked it as a vandalism only account. Is that a misclick, or can IP's be blocked with that reason in cases of repeated vandalism? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, I quick-deleted about 30 pages; most of them were from this IP. In addition: .0 in IPv4 addresses usually stands for "the network", and is not used for a single computer. Hosts range from .1 to .254; .255 is "broadcast" (or "all hosts"). So this is likely not one user, but several. Anyway, I unblocked the network. If I see vandalism from that range again, I may force them to use a username. --Eptalon (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Vermont: and i tagged QD for them they were totaly vandalising the community. When i saw one ip user page there were like 15-20 pages which were quickly deleted previously.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 00:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ayub Sultan Meo[change source]

Hello sir! I recently created this BLP [1]. It got deleted before I could contest the QD. I created it because I believe that it passes Notability_(Academics) (per criteria 6) and also there are many sources of the subject [2]. Kindly restore if possible. Thank you! Ma'az (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ma'az, and wlecome to our small wiki; as you requested, I have restored the page. Linke the two others you created about academics, seeing why the subject is notable is difficult for me. Simply being a professor at a university does not make you notable. This also means that a week from now, the article will be judged, prossibly by another admin. --Eptalon (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, nicely handled. Thank you! Happy editing. :) Ma'az (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

German universities[change source]

I find we lack pages on many important German universities. Because Germany was so important to the development of science, I think more is needed on our wiki. Just a thought. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

QD decline on Advance Auto Parts Clash[change source]

Hi. Could you explain why you have declined the QD on this article please? I've just tagged A3 on every single article made by the IP that created this one - they're all direct copy/paste from the English Wikipedia and all of them are complex. That is covered by QD policy, so why are they being declined please? DaneGeld (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the user should be given the chance to simplify; feel free to re-nominate/re-tag a day from now, if no simplification attempt is apparent. --Eptalon (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
So you're going to take the QD off all of the articles I tagged? Or just leave them until tomorrow? DaneGeld (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll leave the tagged ones; and I am going to delete the tagged ones if it is still an issue tomorrow. As I see it, this ip might get all contribs nuked, if there is no sign of simplifying. Of course, other admins might think differently. --Eptalon (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Further to your QD decline on the article above, and on another nominated by Psl631, I have raised an RFD in which you are mentioned. Your comments would be welcomed. I understand you're waiting, but there appears to be little let up in their creating articles and they are not simplifying anything, so I've nominated everything they've written for RFD. Thanks :) DaneGeld (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have just deleted 27 articles this user created, and will shortly close the RfD. I could agree with giving the user time to simplify articles, or at least to userfy them, but not when there are so many. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That RfD is closed now, so I'll comment here: Using copy/paste to "import" an article from EnWP is legitimate, and people sould be given time to simplify afterwards. This is not easy though; for a recent case see the item on Simple talk about Guantanamo detention camp. The article we have is around 50kb in size; I imported the enwp one into my user space here and cut down the 220kb to about 180kb. The general problem is though, that simplifying is a lot of work. In the case of the user: All the pages were about car racing. As with other sporting events, the event or venue is supported by a (usually large) company. If I remember correctly, we had a number of racing events up for deletion, a few weeks (months?) back, as they were seen as unencyclopedic ("phonebook"). --Eptalon (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me please be clear - this was nothing against you, Eptalon. If it'd been one article they'd imported and QD had been declined, I wouldn't have worried. It was the amount they were bringing in that picked my attention. One by one and simplifying as they went, not a problem, but it needs to be done in userspace. 20+ in a couple of hours was saying to me that they weren't going to bother. Too much and too fast. DaneGeld (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Re:Damietta[change source]

Hello, thanks for writing it! I don't live in this city, but only a few kilometres away so I know a lot about it :) About the image thing I guess I have one that is better here. As for the cheese, yes, It's kind of similar to the greece feta, with my regards MohamedTalk 09:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry...[change source]

... for the interruption on Maracaibo! I had already worked up a version. I'll stay off it now. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:The Lotto Genius[change source]

I'm pretty sure he or she is a vandalism only account. Maybe forever would be a solution.

Vandals tend to come back, and can be re-blocked when they re-offend. --Eptalon (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

VGA Question[change source]

Dear Eptalon, thank you so much for promoting Reagan as SEW newest VG Article! I had a question, is the article all ready to appear on the main page? I created Wikipedia:Very good articles/Ronald Reagan (and I know VGA appear on main page based on the date they were promoted so Reagan won't appear 'till another month) but just making sure all is in order for when the time comes for Reagan's article to make it's debut on the main page! Thank you! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello TDKRChicago101, yes that looks good. I don't think the appearing was automatic, but I will cross-check that. The summary looks good. Thanks for all the great work you do on this project. --Eptalon (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Mex war[change source]

Leave it alone for a few minutes. You can add more after I do my edit! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

We had a two line stub on it, so I decided to do a content translation. Page is all yours, I won't touch it until you say you are done. Please put up an inuse template though. --Eptalon (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I've finished. I had just written the text for the first two paras, and didn't want to lose it. Sorry for butting in! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

quick hello[change source]

So good to see you're still active here Eptalon, I often think back on good times I spent here with you Archer7, Creol and many more. Such a pleasure to see you still editing. Gwib -(talk)-

Yes, has been a long time. Will we see you come back, and edit here, now and then? --Eptalon (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking about finally finishing my Wikiproject, I would love to see every page ticked. I have a lot to catch up on though haha. Gwib -(talk)- 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Food cats[change source]

Hello Eptalon, according to enwiki Mortadella is quiet popular in Chile too so while trying to fill category:Chilean food I added that. So, while adding pages on those cats do we add based on country of origin or where food is popular or is there something else? I came to realization that the page here don't mention chile at all so that might be the reason but back to earlier question because due to popularity of some foods they are eaten in so many countries so that might cause the addition of many cats.-BRP ever 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As always, the article categories need to be related to the article. The article says Mortadella di Bologna needs to be made in the area around bologna. And then we have a category "Chilean foods"?... - So if you want to add that category, fix the article....--Eptalon (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I have added the few sentences from the EnWP verson, so the new category "Chilean food" is also possible.--Eptalon (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I will make sure that content and cats are related from next time and thanks for adding there.-BRP ever 08:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

thanks, Eptalon[change source]

thanks for deleting the purely disruptive material on my talk page, Eptalon. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

KY Cygni[change source]

I saw that you declined the QD in this, with the edit summary "No reason for QD: language looks simple, attrib template added". However, I QD'd it because there were indeed complex words (for example: derived, dubious, luminous, luminosity) and complex sentence structure. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

L O M G E R[change source]

L O M G E R (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

  • Can you help with reverting these vandalistic page moves? I'm sure there is an efficient way to do it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Korail templates[change source]

Hi. Is there a particular reason you deleted only one of the three templates in this request, or were the other two just overlooked? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I alsodleeted the other two noe; didn't see them at first...--Eptalon (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Right of wikipedia[change source]

Does we have right to spam someone ? I would really like to use some particular word to one guy ? MTKASHTALK Contribs 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

IRC[change source]

If you have a few moments, I have a message to relay via IRC. Thank you. Operator873talkconnect 21:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you send me a mail, so we can arrange a time? - I am in Europe (Central European (Summer) Time))...--Eptalon (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Religious democracy[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Religious democracy, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/Religious democracy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Created article[change source]

Hello, i thought of dropping a message on the article you just created Mendocino Complex Fire. I noticed in part it said, "the largest in US history" but they was no sources supporting that claim. I put a [source?] tag after the sentence as it is a current events. Also after Google searching I a CNBC article verifying the claim. I will update it shortly.

I just wanted to let you know it would be very helpful for us for to know considering how current the event is.

Regards MyPeople76 (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail![change source]

Hello, Eptalon. Check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 10:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by getting rid of the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Auntof6 (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Feedback[change source]


I am seeking feedback regarding the request for deletion of following article:

While researching the protocol/process for requesting feedback and reviews of deleted submissions, I noticed incidences of deleted pages being addressed with the dissenting editor to resolve issues and pages were restored to the Wikipedia site. In light of your initial recommendation that the article be deleted, I thought it prudent to notify you that the page was deleted by editor Auntof6 despite the initial noted concerns being addressed.

Initially, the subject's national recognition and the regional broadcasts of the subject's notability and significance in his community and beyond had not been effectively communicated in efforts to keep the submission concise. It was also not initially clear that the subject was not trained in the field of the notable impact which prompted the regional and national recognition.

Your recommendations for the improvement of the page/article were accurate in improving its presentation. Following the edits, it was anticipated that your acknowledgement of the corrections and any additional feedback you may have seen fit would have been communicated.

I believe your observations and the subsequent edits improved the submission and the editor who deleted the page may not have noticed those improvements prior to their deletion. Please advise regarding this matter as well as provide the process/steps to have the page restored.

Thank you in advance.

Bypgts15 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Email[change source]

Hello, Eptalon. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can take off this notice at any time by getting rid of the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Operator873talkconnect 21:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

In your virtual footsteps[change source]

This morning I briefly checked the New Change before starting a dauntingly busy day/weekend anticipating a houseful of guests (four, but it's a small house...). Initially noticing a newly created and misspelled page name (Euler's theorom) [sic] I was unsure I'd have much to do with this unfamiliar field. Then, seeing in a related Page history you'd left your mark, I gathered my wits and followed in your footsteps. Got to know a bit about this remarkably gifted mathematician, Leonhard Euler, expanded content on his and several related pages, and reaffirmed my dedication to what we do: improve existing pages. So here are season's greetings from your Simple-English-protegee (as I consider myself), and best wishes for many future co-laborations! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of handshake[change source]

Why did you remove the Handshake article? I can't even find the remnants of it -- or even the record of my making it on my own page. The company is significant; "More than 700 universities and 300,000 companies use Handshake, which has surpassed LinkedIn as the largest network for job-seeking college students in the U.S." (OZY) Kdammers (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking a the source on the deletion it looks like you didn't make a claim as to what made it notable. You just described it. On simple we require an article to actually make a claim of notability, like the one you just made on this talk page. I am more than willing to undelete it for you to continue working on to get a claim in there. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If you would like to work on it, the article text can be restored...--Eptalon (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Please restore (Why didn't i get a notice of speedy delete? Did I not write the articcle as signed in, or is there some other reason?)Kdammers (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverse Polish expansion[change source]

I have made some more edits to Postfix notation. I have added a simple explanation to how Postfix Notation works. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 06:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Why tax?[change source]

Only a passing thought, but governments and local authorities tax us because they can, and need to spend our money for sometimes dubious reasons. It is quite rare for taxation to be used to change behaviour. I mean, you don't tax income in order to change behaviour!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross, taxation is frequently used to change behavior. A recent example are taxes on sugary sodas in a few more liberal cities. Vermont (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Here where I live. Taxes are used to change behaviour all the time. Taxes on cigarettes are probably the biggest example. But we also just introduced carbon taxing as well to help encourage people to move to greener energy products. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's a question of degree. Tax on car petrol was raised high many years before there was any environmental concern, at least in the U.K. Knowledge of the effects of smoking was available by 1936, yet British governments did not act to raise tobacco prices for that reason until 50 years later. Of course, governments always claim they are doing things for the public benefit, and sometimes they do. But income tax was the Rubicon. Once government got that idea they have never stopped trying to raise new taxes. All for our own good, of course.
There's an interesting section in En wiki's en:Tax#Purposes and effects. Practically the whole page is 'citation needed', but I note this:
"The collection of a tax in order to spend it on a specified purpose, for example collecting a tax on alcohol to pay directly for alcoholism-rehabilitation centres, is called hypothecation. Finance ministers often dislike this practice, since it reduces their freedom of action. Some economic theorists regard hypothecation as intellectually dishonest since, in reality, money is fungible [i.e. can be spent on anything]. Furthermore, it often happens that taxes or excises initially levied to fund some specific government programs are then later diverted to the government general fund...." Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Patroller flagging of Penarc[change source]

Not that I'm trying to step on your toes in any way, but was the patroller flagging appropriate here? I've been taking a look at some of their more recent articles (see this for example) and I don't exactly see a clear understanding of the proper formatting we use here (nor an understanding of the English language). Could you perhaps clarify? Hiàn (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed patroller/rollback permissions pending your response here. Their last article creation is not something indicative of experience in article creation. Further, they've been inactive for 9 years. Vermont (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Typos[change source]

Hi, Eptalon. Could I ask you to fix the typos in your recent post at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Categories for women by occupation. I would have fixed them myself, but I wasn't sure what one or two of them should be.

Are you using a mobile device to post here? If so, I can sympathize about the typos; I get a lot of them when using my tablet. Just in this message to you, I had to fix over a dozen!

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I fixed the ones I saw, please go ahead and fix the ones you see. --Eptalon (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a comment, I've found that the iOS autocorrect doesn't work for me while editing from my iPhone on the Simple English Wikipedia. It works on metawiki, Commons, and a few other projects, although oddly not here. Vermont (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Clownfish[change source]

Ambox deletion.png
The page you wrote, Clownfish, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Examknowtalk 18:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I clicked the wrong button. Please disregard above message --Examknowtalk 18:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

categories for women by occupation[change source]

In the recent rfd you closed it was mentioned that "women X" categories should be renamed to "female X". should that be honored? Computer Fizz (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We haven't reached a consensus, so the default is to keep the current status. Also note, I am not a native English speaker, so I can't tell you what is offensive; male prostitute/female prostitute, vs whore/callboy. I have opened a discussion on Simple Talk, I think it would be wise to wait for the result of the discussion, unless you want to do the work multiple times. --Eptalon (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Maya (software)[change source]

Hi Eptalon, could you please check the edits of the IP ( on the said page? The edits are unsourced and I searched some wikis to see if they were mentioned, but to no avail. Thank you. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Wikipedia:Simple Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram on the English Wikipedia[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Wikipedia:Simple Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram on the English Wikipedia, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Wikipedia:Simple Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram on the English Wikipedia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

deletion of article[change source]

Hi Eptalon, I submitted the Carol Wilder article and has been rejected and deleted but the url still work with a link to the discussion:

Is it possible to delete the whole thing? Thank you. HelloNYC (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In general, we keep old discussoons for deletion. There has been the case that articles get recreated, or nominated several times. --Eptalon (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Southern Miss Golden Eagles[change source]

please dont just delete the article. give it some time to grow. (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Simple Wikipedia. I have restored the page, it would be great if you could add 1-2 sentences more, when you find the time.--Eptalon (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

J-Pimp, Joél Filsaime, D-Ploy Records, etc[change source]

Please see my recent "vote" on the issue. The article needs removed before the closing date, and the editors need blocked. Quakewoody (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[change source]

RMaung (WMF) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[change source]

RMaung (WMF) 19:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

RfD's[change source]

Hey Eptalon! I've got a question about RfD policy, specifically closing. Are administrators permitted to close RfD's about discussions they nominated/!voted in? I noticed this, and as I had been under the impression we couldn't, wanted to ask. Best, Vermont (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Vermont: My understandng is also that we shouldn't. That being said, I think I've done the same thing once or twice, because I don't always remember that I nominated or voted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there's a clear policy; my impression was that if possible, we avoid closing our own nominations, and we should be very careful about closing nominations where we voted. That being said, we all know this wiki is small, and keeping up the high mmoral standards is not always possible. In short: yes, you can close your own nominations, if need be, but be careful to look at what consesus says; simply implementing your proposal ('delete'), or your vote will probably bite you in the long run. Adminship is also about being credible. There's a reason people are admnins, and not it is not hat collecting. --Eptalon (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont:No, admin's are not supposed to close any discussion, Rfd or otherwise that they have commented in. If it happened by mistake I am sure no one would be upset. But we have more than enough admins that you should never have to close one you were involved in. It is especially true of one you nominated yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
What about the unban discussion for pbp89? Basically every active admin has commented on that. Computer Fizz (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you...[change source]

... for Duty to rescue: nice page! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but the page will probably need extending, like so many others...--Eptalon (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it needs simplification before extension. Vermont (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RfD Closures[change source]

Hey Eptalon. When it comes to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Yash gawli, although everyone there sided with deletion, you should not have closed the RfD. When you've participated in an RfD, especially when you're the person nominating it for deletion, it's not okay to be the person closing it. That requires closure by an independent administrator who had not participated beyond in an administrative capacity. I agree with your outcome, and thus am not undoing your actions, but please do not do that in the future. Thank you, and best regards, Vermont (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I re-read your comments above about this. We have more than enough administrators to handle any and all RfD's without needing to resort to administrators closing discussions they are involved in. We do not have a written policy about it here, but it is standard on nearly every Wikimedia project with a sizeable community to abide by some sort of involved administrators rule. So, for purposes of legitimacy and non-biased administrative actions, I request that you wait for other admins to review discussions you are involved in rather than closing them yourself. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Quadrilateral[change source]

Hey Eptalon. Just in regards to your QD of the page Quadrilateral. Quite a few pages link to it and there is a redirect to it. So I'm just wondering if you could double check the page's history to make sure the QD was good, and not the mistaken result of vandalism. It would seem odd that we wouldn't have had that page before now. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Corm[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Corm, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Corm and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Interstellarity (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

attack pages[change source]

this is an attack page and falls under the speedy deletion criteria. Why bother wasting editors time with a ridiculous afd? Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion, with comments; I'd therefore like to wait a little more about what other people say. We can still close the RfD early, in 2-3 days...--Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
In any other circumstance I would understand but this is a blatant attack page about living persons who are not even notable and should be deleted immediately. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
looking in google, I see SEWP first, which is a pretty clear indication on Notability, then the Reddit page. Also, look at the RfD - I haven't seen a 'keep' yet. If things stay as they are now, this can be closed early, in 2-3 days. --Eptalon (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
2-3 days? It should have been deleted already. Computer Fizz (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not see where the 'attack page' logic is. --Eptalon (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Did you bother to read any of the edit summaries? I'm not going to repeat them. Look at the history of the one you reverted and this. It's absolutely absurd. And I don't care what anyone sees on google, the fact that it's simple only should tell you it's not notable but I'm not here to argue that. This is against policy and requires speedy deletion as it's an outright attack page and violates every single policy. Praxidicae (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
That could be handled via Revision Delete, which leaves the question as to whether this is a valid redirect. Which in my opinion is not, but since another Admin is already reviewing this I will let them make that call. -- Enfcer (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The fact that absolutely no one here is capable of spotting very blatant and obvious vandalism is beyond concerning and feeds the trolls. It would be like me redirecting Encfer in mainspace because you pissed me off on a Facebook comment thread. I guess the policy on attack pages doesn't apply here. Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
all done...--Eptalon (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Shark! Shark!‎[change source]

Hello, this page and the rest I QD today as A3. I know the page creator is in good faith and tried some simplification. It was not till after the QD more of the texts are simplified. If you have the time, could you give more advices to the page creator on how to create simple pages, I think it's a valuable user but I just can't communicate well with them. Many thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail![change source]

Hello, Eptalon. Check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 23:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by getting rid of the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Sent you an e-mail with information related to a possible error in oversighting. Computer Fizz (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for noticuing, I think we got it right now...--Eptalon (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep I checked and it's good now. Thanks. Computer Fizz (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind I found another thing that needs to be suppressed, sending new e-mail. Computer Fizz (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
A third incident, i've found another thing that needs to be suppressed. Is there a more efficient way I can contact you than e-mail? Computer Fizz (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)