User talk:Eptalon/Archive 18

Removal of handshake

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

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?

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

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

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

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. Examknow^talk 18:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I clicked the wrong button. Please disregard above message --Examknow^talk 18:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

categories for women by occupation

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)

Hi Eptalon, could you please check the edits of the IP (162.192.196.118) 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. 大诺史 (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

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

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: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Wilder

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

please dont just delete the article. give it some time to grow. 74.124.128.104 (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

Please see my recent "vote" on the issue. The article needs removed before the closing date, and the editors need blocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Prince-au-L%C3%A9og%C3%A2ne/Archive Quakewoody (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Eptalon/Archive 18,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Eptalon/Archive 18,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

RfD's

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...

... 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

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

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)