User talk:Eptalon/Archive 15

Latest comment: 11 years ago by WhisperToMe in topic Meta talk page

The River


Sorry for taking up your time but I think all tv shows should be notable enough i added the imdb link if thats not enough then delete it and i won't recreate it. thank you for your time. --Crobau (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Then please re-create the article, and give it enough content so that we see it really is; we do have enough two or three-sentence stubs already. --Eptalon (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty certain that has already been done. (although the tag is still in place) (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply



Responded to your thread on AN with some details. Also letting you know that I've made 4 manual edits. Osiris (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Glitch or coincidence


Is something broken?

On Terrell Owens, the page was tagged by Hazard-SJ with A3 using twinkle. Later, Creol said on the talk page that the article didn't qualify under A4. I thought that was weird since nobody had mentioned notability. But then you said the same thing at I Got It, saying that A4 was cited as the reason for QD, when in fact it had been tagged with A3 (again, using twinkle). I saw them both as A3 (transwikied), but obviously you and Creol saw A4 (notability). I'm confused. Osiris (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I also saw A3 which is why I did some searching and ended up finding an exact match for I Got It on ENWP under a different name, so I deleted it per A3. I'd be interested to know if you saw it under A4 since I could probably take a look at the ParserFunctions of the QD template and fix it if necessary. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
AS to Owens, the guy has articles at several other wikipedias, so notability is not an issue; when you deleted I Got It, I was in the process of writing the RFD, and no, I have not checked whether it was an EnWP copypaste. As to the notability of the musical artist, don't ask me, I took hat creol said for granted; I have no reason to distrust him. --Eptalon (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm asking you which QD tag you saw on the pages. A3 or A4? Because on my screen, A4 was never added to either. This is why I'm confused as to why comments are being made about notability. Osiris (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
G3 Complete vandalism - which is obviously not an issue here. (A4: Notability is not an issue for Owens); I ruled out A3: Copypaste from another Wikipedia, see edit coment). We can always delet the article later if it isn't being worked on.--Eptalon (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
All Osiris is asking is if you saw {{qd|a3}} or {{qd|a4}} on the pages... -Orashmatash (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
 (change conflict)  No, no, it's okay—I wasn't questioning deleting/keeping. I was wondering whether the Template:QD was broken, since people were talking about A4 on two different pages that had never been tagged with A4. If it's broken, I guess we'll see it again. If not, good. :) Osiris (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Flag request


Hi Eptalon. Could you give me the flood flag please? Since my proposal on ST has become stale, I'm going the alternate route and adding navboxes to these city stub pages. About 300 pages today. Osiris (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) Osiris (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Paul Oswald Ahnert


I'm wondering why you removed the QD tag from this article. The article does not claim notability for him. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It does now :) --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
So I saw. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply



Am happy to be a member of wikipedia and also it is my first time to write to wikipedia may you please tell me how I can pass my exams without much sweating? It's Joecy from Arusha Tanzania

Hello. I'm sorry if this is not the right place to request it, but I request renaming my following accounts:

  • محمد الجداوي → Avocato
  • GedawyBot → AvocatoBot
  • Confirmation link: [1]
  • Reason: Privacy reasons

Thanks in advance.--M.Gedawy 15:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Article import


Hello Eptalon!

You're a bureaucrat. Could you import de:Sulawesi Tengah to User:Vogone/Sulawesi Tengah, please? That's, because I don't reach the conditions for a importer permission request. Greetings, Vogone (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Done - We don't have direct import from dewiki, so eptalon couldn't do it himself. -Barras talk 13:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Vogone (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Articles about teams at the Olympics


Eptalon -- Perhaps you may be willing to help me.

I want to add a non-infobox template in the upper right corner of every SEWP article about the 200+ teams which are competitors in the Olympic Games.

I would like to adapt something I found on a page of the German Wikipedia.

Please look at the template which is in the upper right corner at de:Liste der olympischen Medaillengewinner aus dem Vereinigten Königreich

The template is

Template:Olympiabilanz? = {{Olympiabilanz|Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|GBR}}?

I want to create a template which combines the Olympic rings icon + a national flag + an IOC country code.

Are you willing to work with me on this small project? --Horeki (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this is already good enough? Simpler might be better? --Horeki (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I sipmly copy-pasted the template from dewp; we might still need to fine-tune it. Note: Only stewards can truly transfer pages between wikis. So you'd better ask Barras or PeterSymonds if that's what you're after. I also leave the renaming up to you. --Eptalon (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply



Hey Eptalon. Have you got a few minutes to come online? Osiris (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply



Please check your e-mail :) Strike Eagle (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I replied, thanks for the info. --Eptalon (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
again 11:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure this further confirms my identity :) Srikar Kashyap 12:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Grounds for QD


Hi Eptalon, I am sure this page needs deleting User talk:Petkov.Pavel. It is a long essay about harsh treatment. But being a user page it may not be a QD. Or being a user page is it doing any harm? What do you think?Peterdownunder (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would think deleting is probably safe; it is a long blub of text that no one is going to read. Userpages are for presenting users in the context of the work they do/intend to do on this project. Anything unrelated can imo be deleted. Given the length of text it may also be taken from another website, in which case it qualifies as copyright violation. --Eptalon (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mitt Romney


Hello Eptalon I did'nt add the religion stuff into the Mitt Romney article, im not a religous person. So I did'nt add the religous stuff to the article, You're wrong dude. From (User:TDKR Chicago 101).



Thank you! I am having trouble with which words work best. I really appreciate your help with this! Tylas ♥✫ 19:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. Avoiding words with many different meanings is important. See Help:Translate English into Simple English and WP:HOW for more. Note however that both of them need revising. --Eptalon (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm an experienced editor on, not on simple. Could you give me your opinion on this version of the DID page? My preference is to revert to this version, but not if there are flaws in it that render it unusable. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply



Just so you know, Tylas has way more experience than I do. She began editing the English Wikipedia in 2006 and began editing the Dissociative identity disorder article in October 2011.

I began editing in November 2011 and didn't edit the Dissociative identity article until July 17, 2012.

She has made 1094 edits to the article on the English Wikipedia. I've made 135.

Also, Tylas has been editing here at Simple more than me. She has made 422 edits, 302 to the DID article here, while I've made 38, 24 to the DID article.

MathewTownsend (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

just for your information, Tylas withdrew from the Dispute resolution filed on en:wp by WLU, so it was closed in his favor. That is that the rules from medical articles on en:wp must be followed. I don't know what the rules here are for medical articles. So this ruling in en:wp may not pertain to Simple. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
AFAIK there are no rules for such articles; we never had any problems in this respect, so far. --Eptalon (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Necrotizing Fasciitis


I fixed the problem with the picture. The bad image list is case-sensitive and the article already existed on Necrotizing fasciitis, so I redirected the newer one. -Barras talk 17:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ernest Frederick I


I'm having a bit of an issue on the article about Ernest Frederick I that I hope you can help with. The en:wp article seems a direct translation from the German article but one part is proving difficult to understand what exactly they are talking about. I checked multiple translations of the German and they all come up with the same wording and it doesn't seem to help. I'm starting to think it is more an issue of cultural translation then linguistic translation and hope you can shed some light on the meaning.

Ebenso verkauft wurde 1723 das Amt Schalkau an das Herzogtum Sachsen-Meiningen.
The translations for it read as "The Office of Schalkau was also sold to the Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen in 1723.". My problem is in the term "Office of Schalkau". Modern Schalkau is a town in Sonneberg, and I'm assuming it was the same town in the 1700's, but the "office of" part I don't understand.. Petty much I'm wondering if there is an English language equivalent to the term or a link that can be used to make sense of it. --Creol(talk) 09:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
As I understand it, "Amt" refers to some kind of administrative division (made of several communes), see en:Amt (country subdivision)). Put things short: Schalkau has/had city rights sinc 1362, this includes the right to hold a market. The city most likely had "dominions"; if I look at the German webpage, there was a "Verwaltungsgemeinschaft" (administrative union with another village/town/whatever, called en:Bachfeld (pop. about 500 people). Talking about in EN/US terms, we are probably looking at something like a county, but of smaller size. --Eptalon (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the help. --Creol(talk) 03:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Whitney embedding theorem


Hey Eptalon. I'm struggling to rescue this new article Whitney embedding theorem -- the original description given (see here) was tagged as confusing, and it looks as though the author almost gave up in the end trying to write it in simple terms. I can't comprehend any of what I'm reading about it online. I've stripped it down to the bare minimum, but I was wondering if you might be able to tackle it? Since you're the maths expert here. It's not urgent, I think it's saved from deletion for now, but I'm really out of my depth when it comes to that level of mathematics. Osiris (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply



Dear User:Eptalon hello and thanks for your guidance! Im trying to follow your guideline w r to the interwiki links, and am sorry if i miss any new article/s inadvertently. If I might bother you , please--am however still not entirely clear on how the 'interwiki' thing works? How does the Bot know which article/s to choose? I notice that the interwiki link when added to some articles is removed by a Bot--so what's the criteria? can I read up about all this in detail somewhere? Cant find much info. ThanksHamneto (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)HamnetoReply



Dear Eptalon, hello. I just wished to inform you that I have today removed a section from the article on Sufism , concerning one Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and left reasons for this on the article talk page. I would certainly value your input please, as I see from the article's talk history that you have been involved with this article's development before, too? ThanksHamneto (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)HamnetoReply

Pakistani with limited English skills


Dear User:Eptalon, regarding your note on my Talk Page and the matter of the Pakistani editor with limited English skills. I have now checked through most of the edits (basically graffiti) posted on several articles --mostly articles relating to the Punjab area/region of Pakistan and India-- and several points come to mind now: (a) all the graffiti is in Romanised Urdu/Hindi (almost the same) and basically says 'Long live Pakistan' and 'Long Live Punjab' and reiterates some sort of demand for a 'Khalistan' Sikh province (please see Khalistan movement) plus slogans addressed to the Sikh 'gurus' and (b) in view of the very limited and 'unchaste' or crude idiom, it isnt written by someone who is a true Urdu/Hindi speaker/user but could be a Punjabi person, using Urdu/Hindi. There is quite some likelihood that the person is of Pakistani origins although I feel it could also be a Punjabi Sikh with a grudge against India with regard to the Khalistan issue. Both the IP addresses you gave were traceable to the UK, to Oldham and Slough areas. Lots of people of (a)Pakistani and (b) Indian Sikh origins living in that general area/vicinity. Now, my main point is'Bold text' in view of my evaluation I dont see how this person or persons wish to help? I dont see any evidence of useful or positive edits, just sloganeering as indicated above. I also feel that this person or persons has been been blocked from making edits in the past, probably negative edits, and possibly also edits that have had language problems, and is just fulfilling an angry compulsion to post his/her slogans. I also feel that the concerned person might not necessarily be an adult, it is my personal evaluation that this its most likely the work of an adolescent/teenager. Now, I would please like your further instructions-- should I go ahead and leave messages for the user and try to discuss matters? How would you like me to proceed? I would be thankful for advice. Regs, Hamneto (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)HamnetoReply

Hallo, and thanks for everything! Im sorry I know you must be busy but what about this matter above, please? Do you still wish me to contact/talk to the user/s User talk: and/or User talk: ? Do you think that it would be useful? Let me know thanks Hamneto (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)HamnetoReply



We are not a "meritocracy." We build consensus. You really crossed the line and your statement is so far gone from our policies that it is outright horribly inappropriate. You have no right to criticize anyone like that, let alone say things so contradictory to our core policies. The user clearly acted wrong. He did not notify. He abused rollback. And I have done far, far more work for the Wikis than he or you combined. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I find it comical that the user you should chose to push this on it the one user here I have had issues with for being too willing to be accepting of others.. too willing to give people the extra (5x+ extra) chance.. Of the admins here, Eptalon has the biggest heart and is the most forgiving. Long term editor or newly aquired en:banned, it doesn't matter, he sees the best in each editor (really.. it freaking irritating at times how much he sees the good side..)
You state Wikipedia is not a meritocracy, its a consensus.. you had (HAD) 20K edits on EN. It is ludicrous that someone with your experience in that in that environment could believe. People who are willing to do the work with others and generaly are not causing issues have always (and will always) had a hand up with the foundation and every wiki it runs. Meritocracy is not just based on what you do, but on how you do it. How you deal with others is as big of an effect as what you do. You should know this as well as any one given your time looking back on the reasoning given for your arbcom ban in 2009. To deny that we are a meritocracy is just being delusional. Was the user wrong? yes. Did he abuse roll back, lets argue that: He did use it in a way that does not follow guideline. Given. Guideline. Not policy, not rules. He should have done better and ,personally, he should have been told this. He was also dealing with a banned En: user (which our local policy is entirely grey about and past behavior from many previous en:banned editors has led our editors to be wary of the actions of) under less than ideal conditions. The fact that when it was brought to AN, the minor issue followed quickly only supports the feeling that he was right to push the way he did. It was a petty concern that could have been dealt with simply, but it lead to an AN report and this topic (as well as various other posts.. ) A simple note on the user talk, or probably better, the nearest admin (Osiris is freaking always here) would have been enough were this nothing more than a user making a mistake an overstepping his bounds (which is what happened). But no, this was taken to AN, it was paraded as large and loudly as possible. Personal opinion? This was looking to create drama. Drama isn't simple. Its a complex issue that belongs on English and has absolutely no place here. No amount of constructive edits are worth the amount of drama this brings.
(And lets face it, since you yourself brought up the case - you haven't done far more work then Eptalon. You have around 30K edits between en, wikiverse and meta, he has 38K locally as well as serving the community as admin, b'crat, CU and other flags for multiple years. An he never got blocked for arbcom violations)--Creol(talk) 06:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Creol, if you look in the past Eptalon has attacked me on the same grounds. There is no meritocracy. Every person is equal here. That includes random IPs. We go off of consensus. We do not give special weight to people merely for time served. If you want to talk about my ban, you would see that if Wikipedia operated on a meritocracy I would never have been banned. None of this is an excuse not to talk to people. We are supposed to work with others. We are not supposed to ignore them, refuse to notify them, and go behind their backs to try and get them banned. I have a problem with what Eptalon stated - I went to his talk page and made my opinion clear. That is how you are supposed to proceed. Did I revert Eptalon and label his statement vandalism? No. Do you see a difference in ways that we have to act? It is not about drama. It is about creating a working system that will effectively allow for Simple Wikipedia to be built. We cannot do that if we tell anyone that their contributions are worthless without due cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Also, Creol, number of edits do not account for quality of edits. I have 12 FAs, over 40 GAs, and over 200 DYK on en.wikipedia alone. I have many more featured credits and other editorial tokens here and there. I was rated the top content editor of Wikipedia the year I was banned. To say I haven't done far more is silly. No one has been able to reach my achievement yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hello Otava Rima. Adminstrators/Bureaucrats take decisions. Before taking these decisions, they listen to what the community has to say. Ultimately, it is them though who take the decisions, and often bear the grudge of the users whom they block, or the people who do not agree with them. In that sense, a user who is "more active" in this community, will probably have a greater influence when it comes to advising the decision-takers. Even though it is them deciding, Admins listen to everyone. -- If we go back to the meaning of the term, Wikipedia is not a meritocracy ("rule by the most talented"), but an aristocracy ("rule of the best"). It is not a "tyranny of the majority" (originally John Adams, 1788, popularized by Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835), but a "select few" (admins/crats) deciding. Even if I take large edits into account, the level of activity of MacDonald-ross (500 edits in 3 weeks), is not comparable to your less than 100 edits (34, if I counted correctly) this year. Presence also means discussing the changes made, and working with other people to improve the articles. As I pointed out, I last read you half a year ago, on a deletion discussion. This year you have been less active than last year. I don't consider myself particularly active, but the 75-odd edits you did in 2011, I did in four days. Yes, getting Arkalochori Axe to where it is now took 29 edits, 2 of which were done by bots; I did the rest. It was roughly half a day's work, and it is not my subject of predilection. And now, just imagine if those close to 50 edits spent on the admin noticeboard had gone into content-editing....--Eptalon (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
We do not grant instant access to adminship based on producing the most content. Quite the contrary, most admin don't produce the most content. We have consensus, and everyone gets a say in the adminship process and determining consensus. Most consensus doesn't deal with adminship, such as the hyphenation in a page. Consensus was ignored and that was followed by your statement of a meritocracy. That suggests to me that you were implying that the user was right to not discuss with Michael and to request a ban because he "produced more" and therefore he was "right." Do you not see why I would take offense? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I take issue with your statement that "consensus was ignored". Again, I point you to en:WP:RETAIN - that "an article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." While Macdonald-Ross was not right in claiming that the page move was vandalism, it was not right for Michael to make the page move in the first place either. The RETAIN section in the MOS exists as a guideline to deter the development of arguments such as this one and on AN, which serve to waste time without accomplishing anything positive. And let me make it clear again that at no point was any ban being discussed. Macdonald-Ross simply asked if a ban was needed, and that was answered in the negative by at least 2 other editors.[2][3] Chenzw  Talk  02:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
The English Manual of Style on Wikipedia is now the substitute for what we use here on Simple? I would think Simple would say that hyphens might be too complicated for beginning learners of English. We also haven't "established" an English variety here except for it to be Simple. Plus, that is a manual of style, not a policy, so it isn't binding. We always need consensus. Bold edits are encouraged, no? I have no problem with him being reverted, but there was no attempt at a discussion after the revert. Bold Revert Discuss was a hallmark of Wikipedia. By the way, merely mentioning the idea of a ban on an administrator board is discussing a ban. Your statement "at no point was any ban being discussed" is not right. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

 (change conflict)  Consensus has been that we use policies and guidelines from EN in the event that no local alternative is available. And I want to remind you that although we say guidelines are not binding, the spirit of the particular guideline I quoted is that we should not be renaming articles between different varieties of English at a whim because it will cause exactly this kind of dispute, which do nothing but waste editorial resources. And I am not saying that Macdonald-Ross was not wrong either. Chenzw  Talk  02:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

A ban that should happen "because he 'produced more' and therefore he was 'right.'"? I don't think that ban was being discussed anywhere. And I emphasise that the earlier ban discussion (if you insist) was answered in the negative, and that the abuse of scripts and the ban discussion are two separate issues on AN. Chenzw  Talk  02:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
We have our own style guidelines. [4]. So right off the bat, we should not be quoting English.Wikipedia's. Then there is the idea that the "hyphen" vs "compound" is somehow different types of English. [5] The Wikipedia article suggests that it is "sometimes" hyphenated but that isn't an English variant between countries. It suggests that it is a stylistic choice that is in the minority. [6] The talk page lacks discussion about this point, suggesting that Simple has something that the larger community of Wikipedians seems unwilling to even acknowledge as the case. It would seem that the original user used his own version of things instead of the common version of things, and then proceeded to WP:OWN the article. And as to the other point - merely mentioning "ban" in the first statement is a discussion on banning. The word ban was used by just about everyone in that thread. It was not a "block" discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
"Blocking" is an administrative measure, used by admins to prevent users from editing for a certain time. There are no "block discussions"- a block is simply implemented. As to banning, personally, I don't see this as a ban discussion, just because a user mentioned the word "ban"; note also that I was one of the people who said that "in general" we don't ban users because they are banned elsewhere. Prima facie, that user acted in good faith, and violated a rule; a priori I cannot tell whether he knew that rule, so I cannot block him for that. Now assuming that another user who "fixed the problem" abused his powers is far-fetched. Besides, I don't think we gain much by discussing these case(s) any longer, as I wrote above: imagine how much was gained if all the edits we spend discussing go into content work. --Eptalon (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how you can say there are no block discussions, when administrator boards across the Wiki, including here, often have long discussions about the needs for a block or the appropriateness of a block. And if you don't see it as a ban discussion, then I think that is a problem, because many others in the thread did and there is an outside message board that is referred to that apparently describes it as such. I really don't understand how you could make either claim and I find that troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply



Hi Eptalon. I'm just letting you know that I undid this flag that you added to Clarkcj12 (talk · contribs). The user had some issues with copying and pasting articles recently, and I'm still seeing it when patrolling his pages. Luckily they're usually short enough for me to simplify them on the spot, but I still need to have his pages highlighted so that I get to them. He's also bringing over a lot of templates without fixing them, so it helps to have them highlighted until someone fixes the categories and documentations, etc. I hope this is okay, and sorry for the trouble. Osiris (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just to note I would have undone it too had Osiris not beat me to it. Remember that patroller is only for long time editors that we absolutely know they are making good edits. Something like this shouldn't be given out for people that have only been around a short time. That isn't even taking into account that he was blocked for his bad article creation. (ie copy pasting from en without fixing). -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Meta talk page


Please check your Meta talk page WhisperToMe (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Eptalon/Archive 15".