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)
- Can you have a look at the page product (mathematics)? An editor has added a great deal, and the question is: is this level of complexity suitable for this wiki? Thanks, Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- The language is not Simple. If someone takes action, then please move text that gets cut, to the talk page. Sju hav (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Recommendation to Oversight[change source]
Greetings, I'm not sure what the procedure is here on Simple for this but I recommend this edit be oversighted. Reguyla (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Evidently already done. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Reguyla:, Wikipedia:Oversight has info on how to request oversight. Such requests should be made not be made online (including linking to the offending edit as you did above) because it draws attention to the edit. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks I'll check that out. Normally I wouldn't have linked to it here but I am blocked on IRC and thought it was better to point it out than to leave it alone and have it potentially slip through the cracks. Reguyla (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Most of the time, there's also an oversight email box. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, if it comes up again I'll use the email. Reguyla (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
First female uni professors (scientists) and English-wiki article without independent sources[change source]
- Hi Eptalon,
- Although you and I seem to disagree about some generalities about articles about Lists of scientists,
- I would like you to know about an article in English where notabilty perhaps is not shown (and I have started an article that for now is mostly about her, at "Simple").
- Another problem about both versions (of articles) about that person,
- is that there seems to be no sources, where she is not one of the contributors: So no independent source!
- If there are any notable sources about the person being wiki-notable, then It would be okay to hear about that.
- However I am not convinced that she is notable, and therefore I am not going to use time searching for information about her.
- If you (or anyone) would like to see (more) "first female professors within science from ..." or "first female students that graduated from university from ...", as "red link scientists",
- then please let me know which person, which country/countries, and the sources. (And please put a note on my talk page, to check your talk page, if you have such information.) Regards! Sju hav (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Update: I have asked for a Speedy deletion of the article. Sju hav (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
List of scientists from the Americas[change source]
- I have started List of scientists from the Americas. Regards! Sju hav (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- "List of scientists from Middle and South America" was another name I initially considered might work. Sju hav (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I intended for the article to be about the American continent:
- List of scientists from the American continent.
- Looking "at the end", first:
- Do you think it is logical to have that article (without regard to the existence of the "... Americas ..." article)?
- Regards! Sju hav (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Sju hav:For Wikipedia purposes, there is no "American continent", so please avoid organizing things that way: the relevant continents are North America and South America. There are several ways of looking at what constitutes a continent, but that is how they are defined on Wikimedia projects. Also, if by "middle America" you mean "Central America", that is not a continent, either: it is part of North America. The term "middle America" has a different, non-geographical meaning. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- In part, I was referring to the terms that Eptalon used in a thread recently. (Sometimes one chooses terms, for quick explaining.) Sju hav (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Curious about your insight as the closing admin of the RFD about edits like this. Would you consider this content forking of a deleted article? Only (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Fiji scientists, Greenland scientists ...[change source]
List of scientists or List of scientists by nation - will any of those work? I have my doubts about a "List of scientists from Micronesia". (In part because I don't yet have any plans of putting an effort in an article which does not already have 4 "blue-link scientists".) Sju hav (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Sju hav: Excuse me for doing a tps reply again. Fiji is a country that we categorize in the continent of Oceania, so it could be in the "by country" category and/or the Oceania category (if there is one). Greenland is not a country: it is owned by Denmark, but is physically part of North America, so it could be included in the Denmark list (if there is one) and/or individually under North America and/or Europe. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Shortening names to: List of European scientist (and African and Asian articles)[change source]
- Which do you think is better at simple-wiki?
- Sju hav (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I started out with the "... by country" option, because I am used to that from English-wiki.
- I think the first alternative will be fine at Simple-wiki. Sju hav (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You think it was simple enough? Even sentences like, "In the ultimate analysis, all potential energy is gravitoelectric, while the electric potential energy is a temporary mask of the gravitoelectric potential energy."? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- It was a misclick on my mobile phone, I am about to sipmlify it... --Eptalon (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Cool. 😎 --Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
A core of notability and one added fact: If wikipedia can use it in its mainspace - fine![change source]
- I have now put one piece of new text, in mainspace; some might call it an article or stub or sub-stub.
- I took a core of notability and added year of birth.
- If Wikipedia can make any use of it - fine.
- Perhaps there will be a right time, for me to add another piece of text to main space;
- text that can be categorized as List of "articles etc." that I started, and showed the topic's notability, while hereby stating that the format (and content) of the topic, I do not intend to follow-up on; if Wikipedia can make any use of it - fine.
- Regards! --Sju hav (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Just putting you on guard :)[change source]
Hi Eptalon. Yesterday, 13th September, you deleted the article Santos bro. There was another article where this name was spelled "Santhosh" but I can't remember the editor's name. I just want to make you aware of a new account in the User creation log, User:Santhosh msb. I have a feeling the article is going to resurface. Thanks for your attention to this! DaneGeld (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
When somebody is busy looking at A, then somebody is starting article B?[change source]
- There are some pages, that some, might want somebody to start.
- I will try to start one of those pages, at a time.
- However, I prefer not to be directly involved in cluttering up the broad category Scientists.
- (Perhaps I can "put the scientist", in category "People", while wikipedia might be clarifying if "category:Scientists from ...",
- can "have only one or two persons".)
- I might at times, "during those articles", be sloppy with wikification, or have some categorizing that is sub-standard.
- If one can sort of look the other way, for a while (in regard to those articles), then that might contribute to my ability to start those articles,
- (at times when I otherwise would have been prevented from starting such stubs-with-all-the-bells-and-whistles.
- Regards! Sju hav (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Sju Hav, this is a wiki. It is perfeclty fine to start an article with few details: "Josef Mengele was a German doctor. He was born in 1911, and died in 1979." (see en:Josef Mengele if you don't know who he was), add to add details later. Articles and Categories can be changed easily, and no one is going to hold it against you that you used a category that looks unfit, or that you gradually improved/extended the article in question. And as always: If you find 3-4 of them to build a new category, then please do. --Eptalon (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Sju hav: And please don't worry that you'd be "cluttering" Category:Scientists. If a person is a scientist, it's better to put the article there instead of in [:Category:People]]. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I thought List of scientists was just supposed to point to the continent and country pages? Asking you because you closed the request for deletion. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- The Rfd wasn't about that; there are two cases:
- There are at least 4 blue links to scientists, there is a separate list; eg. List of Egyptian scientists
- There are not 4 blue links per country; look like this.
- Whether we want the red links in the list or on the talk page is not something I decided. --Eptalon (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Eptalon. I just wanted to let you know that I restored this article that you deleted. It might not have been the best language, but the story and the names seem to be true. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
...as in List of scientists from the Middle East, which you created, expanded, and edited - all without ever including Israel. Fortunately the simplewiki has a Category:Israeli scientists with a good dozen pages at present. So, dear Eptalon - what were you thinking? N.B. your several comments on my User talk page go back over 10 (!) years. Believe me, yours was the last name I'd have thought to find in these present circumstances. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Deborahjay,The idea of the originally five pages of scientists were to group those countries where we did not have 4 blue linked entries. see for example List of Turkish scientists, and List of Egyptian scientists to see two lists of scientists, with at least four entries. List of scientists from Africa is an exaple of a list where there are less than four blue links per country. And yes, I am probably the longest-serving editor of Simple English Wikipedia. --Eptalon (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Another thing to think about: Do we really want to keep and maintain a separate List page, if we have a Category that does exactly that? - Currently, there are 15 entries in the category. If a new one is created, adding the category is almost no effort, keeping the List page up to date is quite some effort. --Eptalon (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- In consideration of your points here, I've made a revision in keeping with the rest of the list page. I think this is a good solution; do you agree? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, i think that's a good solution; as I said, after 7-8 entries maintaining a list is an extra effort few people will take. --Eptalon (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Eptalon. I noticed this bot doing some work, so I took a look at its user page. I see that one of its listed tasks is "find pages with categories that do not exist on our wiki, and remove these inexistent categories". If the bot still does that, I'd like to ask you to have it stop doing it. I regularly watch Special:WantedCategories to check for redlinked cats. I often do remove those cats, but I do think its helpful for a person to see them so they can possibly change them to an existing cat or create a new cat. If redlinked cats are removed by a bot, we can lose the chance to do that. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, yes, I developed it, and I ran it a few times (debugging mostly). Instead of removing the categories, I could also add an extra category, such as "Pages with inexistent categories"?--Eptalon (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe (although I think the word is "nonexistent"). It would let us find the pages by name, in addition to finding them by redlinked category. On the other hand, having such a maintenance category might lead to people removing the category because 1) they don't want it on "their" article or 2) they do a fix that isn't the right fix. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, its's not the same as flammable and inflammable (form Latin: inflammare: to catch fire). The robot would add the category; it might also loop through the category, and remove it, if the problem was fixed. And no. there is little we can do about people removing the category; it might get re-added though. --Eptalon (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think the bot coding is still using "inexistent". Also, recreated the bot talk page as a redirect to here, which is usually what people do for bot talk pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Eptalon, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 14:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)}}
Thank you for blocking him, I'm happy I didn't need to bring my phone to work refreshing his contributions page. Happy editing! Adotchar| reply here 12:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)