User talk:Eptalon/Archive 17

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Deborahjay in topic In your virtual footsteps

Product (mathematics)

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)Reply

Recommendation to Oversight


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)Reply

(talk page stalker) Evidently already done. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
(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)Reply
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)Reply
Most of the time, there's also an oversight email box. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, if it comes up again I'll use the email. Reguyla (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

First female uni professors (scientists) and English-wiki article without independent sources

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)Reply
Update: I have asked for a Speedy deletion of the article. Sju hav (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

List of scientists from the Americas

I have started List of scientists from the Americas. Regards! Sju hav (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
"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)Reply
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)Reply

(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)Reply

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)Reply

Content forking?


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)Reply

Fiji scientists, Greenland scientists ...


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)Reply

(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)Reply

Shortening names to: List of European scientist (and African and Asian articles)

Which do you think is better at simple-wiki?
Sju hav (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

Potential energy


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)Reply

It was a misclick on my mobile phone, I am about to sipmlify it... --Eptalon (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Cool. 😎 --Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

A core of notability and one added fact: If wikipedia can use it in its mainspace - fine!

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)Reply

Just putting you on guard :)


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)Reply

When somebody is busy looking at A, then somebody is starting article B?

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)Reply

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)Reply

(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)Reply

List of scientists


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)Reply

The Rfd wasn't about that; there are two cases:
  1. There are at least 4 blue links to scientists, there is a separate list; eg. List of Egyptian scientists
  2. 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)Reply

Hugh Beaver


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)Reply

...from the Middle East

change 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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply

Bot false positives


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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

Moheen Reeyad


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)Reply

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)Reply

Talk page access


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

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)Reply
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)Reply

Kamal hassan filmography


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

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

Fossil species and bones


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)Reply

AfD discussion page instructions


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)Reply

(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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

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



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)Reply

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)Reply

User: Vandalism Beetle


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

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

Rollback Request


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)Reply

(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)Reply

Regarding blocking of IP addresses


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)Reply

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)Reply
  • @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

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

Ayub Sultan Meo


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)Reply

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)Reply
Yes, nicely handled. Thank you! Happy editing. :) Ma'az (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

German universities


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)Reply

QD decline on Advance Auto Parts Clash


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

(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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply



... 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)Reply

User:The Lotto Genius


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)Reply

VGA Question


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)Reply

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)Reply

Mex war


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

quick hello


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)Reply
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)Reply

Food cats


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

thanks, Eptalon


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

KY Cygni


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)Reply



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

Korail templates


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)Reply

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

Right of wikipedia


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)Reply



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

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)Reply

RfD nomination of Religious democracy


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)Reply

Created article


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)Reply

You've got mail!

Hello, Eptalon. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
Message added 10:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

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




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)Reply


Hello, Eptalon. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Operator873talkconnect 21:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

In your virtual footsteps


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)Reply

Return to the user page of "Eptalon/Archive 17".