User talk:Eptalon/Archive 8

Hi! I saw you use HotCat. I have that gadget enabled but I don't know how to use it. Can you explain please? Also, could you look here please? Thanks! SwirlBoy39 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed four references to cite news like you had said on the talk page. But can you do the book references. Plus what do you mean by "No space before ref tags"? I'm afraid I don't know how to do either. Cheers -- AmericanEagle 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly! How do you sleep at night. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AIV. Thanks! SwirlBoy39 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the reversion of your last 2 edits. I know that I could have gone through the article and erased them by hand, but that would've taken a while, so I decided to just revert to the version previous to the vandalism and put explicitly in the edit summary for you to redo your last 2 edits. Do you think I came to the correct conclusion? Cheers, Razorflame 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better revert now, than be sorry later. --Eptalon (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was thinking when I reverted it. It's not a big deal to have to redo a few constructive edits anyways... Cheers, Razorflame 16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hätte nicht gedacht, dass so rasch ein weiteres Argument geliefert würde, die Entstehung des Menschen außen vor zu lassen. Bis jetzt sind die Leute ja noch nicht allzu zahlreich, die die berühmten sieben Tage auf ein historisch fixiertes Datum festlegen wollen. --Cethegus (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vgl. dazu de:Neandertaler, de:Steinzeit. Meine Erachtens ist es irelevant ob die Lebewesen die diese "Tools" herstellten, noch Tiere, oder schon Menschen waren. Was unterscheidet denn den Mensch vom Tier? --Eptalon (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short summary from the English-speaking crowd:

The basic question was wether to include "hominids" (i.e. human-like apes, lie the Neandertal, or others like it) in World History. My arguent was that these "beings" (whatever you classify them as) were able to produce tools. Perhaps they had a simple religion. Artifacts like the Venus of Willendorf have been found. Except for the age of the figurine (about 25.000 years) we know nothing, neither who made it, nor what purpose it served. There are two options, either nclude it, and present it as part of "World History". This would raise its creators to the state of "human-like" (if they were not already). The alternative is to leave it out, on the basis that those "animals" who made it were "not human" - therefore it does not belong in world history (all this is also in Talk:World History

Cethegus wrote to me he would not have thought that a new argument for not including the development of the human race would be supplied so quickly (read: creationism/intelligent design)

my reply to that was that whoever crafted those figurines, spear-tips, etc. was able to create artwork. In my opinion it would therefore be unjustified to not mention that (at least very shortly) in the article. I do however agree with Cethegus completely that there are still many holes in the article. The main focus should therefore be to fix the redlinks that are there, to expand the sections (see article talk page) and to find andinclude references where possible.--Eptalon (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eptalon, Hi there

I was wondering if you could unprotect my talk page. You know, now that my block is over, i may be needing it.

Thanks IuseRosary? ^(talk) 19:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Þakka þú. Var nokkuð rangur með minn ritstýra? Ef svo , ÉG er hryggur.

oh, i am good at english also. yes, it is icelandic. you speak lot of languages! how manage you?

I learnt most of them at school; and no, I don't study languages - Learning languages is easier when you are young. ;) --Eptalon (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do look at the changes a user is making before welcoming them. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are you? Fine? I don't think it's for long period of time... --Novodarsky (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eptalon, at last an admin online! Okay, there's an issue brewing with sockpuppets, e.g. User:Novossarsky, User:Novozhmursky etc created within 4 minutes of each other and then going on vandalism sprees. I'm not 100% up to speed on simple wiki protocol but presumably there's a Checkuser somewhere here who can run a check on these accounts and block accordingly? There are most likely other accounts. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, as per the message above, User:Novodarsky... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not worth doing a checkuser - they're obviously the same person, and just vandals. Majorly (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My last ban (yesterday, of an IP address) banned all the Novo... for a week. I did this after doing a checkUser. --Eptalon (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for you to check out when you get the chance. I get the feeling the situation is fairly urgent given the user's edits. · Tygrrr... 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an indef block on User:Razorice, User:Razorlight, and User:Razorair please? They are all dopplegangers that I created. Cheers, Razorflame 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

--M7 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eptalon, you deleted my user page per QD U1. Well, I hadn't asked for it to be deleted but I don't mind it being deleted. Yet the talk page hasn't been deleted. Could you please delete it too? Noreen's Fish (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no prob. Usually I take a blanked page in Userspace as requesting deletion. Nevertheless I hope you stay with us... --Eptalon (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and don't worry, I stay. I just thought it would be a better idea to change my account to my main Wikipedia username, so I won't need this one any longer. Cheers. Noreen's Fish (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look at the article. He is actually a United States Senator (former). Cheers, Razorflame 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please have another look at the article. I think it's quite clear now that Heinz is a notable addition. If you agree, we can go ahead and close the RfD. Thanks. · Tygrrr... 17:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to block this IP indefinitely? I really don't think that we should be blocking IP's indefinitely. I think that it would be better if you were to block this user for a year or 2 instead of indefinitely. Cheers, Razorflame 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above message and please explain as to the reason why you blocked this IP indefinitely. I do not believe that any Wikipedia should indefinitely block any IP address as the users that are behind the vandalism usually move on and new users come to use it. Cheers, Razorflame 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 18:35, 30 May 2008 Eptalon (Talk | changes | block) blocked 86.105.181.238 (Talk) with an expiry time of 24 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Adding nonsense/gibberish into pages: more reasonable block time, give this is an IP) (unblock)
2. 18:34, 30 May 2008 Eptalon (Talk | changes | block) unblocked 86.105.181.238 (Talk) ‎ (change block time.)
3. 17:02, 30 May 2008 Eptalon (Talk | changes | block) blocked 86.105.181.238 (Talk) with an expiry time of indefinite (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Bad behaviour/harassment) (unblock)

I'm sorry! I didn't see that in the block log. Cheers, Razorflame 23:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...can I wave the last section of Simple Talk at you? Thanks. Microchip 18:09, Friday, May 30 2008 Utc]] 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to fix bis alle Missverständnisse wir haben, dass RFCU wurde in einem MySpace-Kommentar von einem User verboten. ChristianMan fragte nach, was geschehen muss. AFAIK, war es nicht ein Antrag als solches noch nicht. --  Da Punk '95  talk  22:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about them, so I just tried to do what en:WP said. Thanks --  ✰AmericanEagle  22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a Christian, I don't know much out of the denominations of Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc. I thank you for explaining that to me, I haven't learned that much about that sort of topics in Christianity. Cheers --  ✰AmericanEagle  23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A StatusBot has now been implimented on this Wikipedia. Feel free to follow the instructions at User:SoxBot to set up your Status. Cheers, Razorflame 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For all of your work in World History, I hereby award you this barnstar! Razorflame 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one puts in the sentence ""Holocaust" and "Shoah" redirect here. For other uses, see Holocaust (disambiguation) and Shoah (disambiguation)." like in en:WP there should be no problem, even if it is as you rightly explained. --Cethegus (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eptalon, don't you agree with me that manuscript is a much harder word for a simple english user to understand? I think that document or documents is a much simpler word, but I don't understand the reason why you are changing Documents to Manuscripts. Maybe you can illuminate me a bit? Cheers, Razorflame 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last post was kind of rude and I did not appreciate it, especially coming from an administrator. Razorflame 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that recent delete, I feel were were both wrong. Doesn't it fall under G3? I don't think it is a test page because it is not saying (or along the lines of) "Can I really create a page here?". It is vandalism. What is your opinion to what I just said? SwirlBoy39 14:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Charles Spurgeon is ready to be proposed for VGA? I have done much work, such as getting rid of all these words for comprehension. It has length, references, other websites, very much information, interwiki links, categories, no templates (such as {{complex}}), images, etc. Do you think it is ready to be proposed? (not voted yet, I know) Thanks -- A^pE^t_SIG 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has indeed improved a lot; I cannot judge comprehensiveness, I will leave that to the community; The article is most certainly long enough. What I personally think (nothing to do with the criteria) is that the section Some events in Spurgeon's life and Some things S. wrote are only bulleted. For the writings, I'd propose to mention what you (or others) think are the most important 2-3 speeches (in prose, not bulleted), and banning the others to a see-also/Main article section. For the Events of Spurgeon's life (I personally) would prefer prose, rather than bullets.If it is too much, do as with the others, move to a different article, and only give a short overview. If we list the article at the PVGA page, we have three weeks to improve these things. Before you list it though, I would suggest, you ask another regular editor, to get a balanced view. Congratulations on your work nevertheless. --Eptalon (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We may want to take a look at consistancy of spelling when dealing with Category:Organizations. Given that Astronomical organisations, Christian organizations, International organizations, Professional boxing organisations, Youth organisations, Non-governmental organization and Non-profit organization can not figure out whether they want to use British or American spelling and only one (International) can even reasonably try to claim one usage over the other (British is the more international spelling variant of the two) but is actually using the other, this could realy go either way. I think the major determining factor would likely be ease of change. UK has 3 subcats and 0 articles, US has 2 subcats and 2 articles for reasonable close. The major change would be the articles in the subcats though - about 10 for UK, and 50 for US. Also the main article is US with UK redirected to it.

Thoughts?-- Creol(talk) 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a non-native speaker. I have passed one of the Cambridge Exams (Proficiency). Since they are about British English, the -z- variants were noted as plainly wrong (No idea whether they changed that in the meantime), so I personally spell these words with an s instead of a z. Apart form that, it might be a lost battle no matter what we chose to decide (Traveller vs. traveler). Personally, I do not want to get into a fight over spelling (as it distracts from the main purpose of trying to create an encyclopedia that is easier to understand than the English-language one. We also have the benefit of being a much smaller project than EnWP. Personally I would go with whatever variant is used more often. When people learn English, one of the Cambridge Exams is a popular choice (s); so is TOEFL (which is based on US-English) (z). If you look at the origin, most of these -ize/ise words are from French (where they are spelled with an 's') (Same thing for harbour/harbor type differences). On another note: are such easy changes not doable by a bot script? - I think non of our thirty-odd users will be outraged with seeing Organis/zation spelled one way or another. So do whatever you feel happy with, but please be consistent (as in all subcats spelled the same way). --Eptalon (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's weird. I've just realised that I spell organization, but organisations... Microchip 19:54, Friday, June 13 2008 Utc

This may be helpful. I'm not sure, but I think that I remember reading somewhere that Jimbo Wales preferred the use of American spelling. But then again, I may be wrong. I was always taught American spelling (organization, gray, story, etc.), so I would say in general US spelling is better, at least for categories. -- America ^†alk 20:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew the current ruling; try to be consistent where possible. Try to step on as few feet as possible. While we are at it: English is not only spoken in Great Britain and the U.S, but also in other states (Canada, South Africa, or India,..). In theory all Creol wanted is to get a consisten spelling of organisation/organisation(s) in these categories.--Eptalon (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I know. And I'm sorry if my message sounded wrong. Now that I read Creol's and my message, mine came off all wrong. And didn't have to do with her(his) question. Thanks -- America ^†alk 20:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		American Eagle's Barnstar of Excellence
		For all the hard work you do, and for all the knowledge that you have, even though it mostly goes unnoticed, I award you my Barnstar. -- America †alk 20:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how such a simple oppose got so out of hand. A time out is definately needed. -Djsasso (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one the time out was intended for. I was already trying to end the conflict and here you go, continuing to add flame to the fire. Razorflame 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you: This is my talk page. This edits only shows we all need the time out. So please stop attributing guilt (in the way I wrote in my comment on the RfA), do something else for that hour, come back with a clear head and continue with topical contributions. If you have absolutely no idea what to do, there is one VGA, and two GAs up for discussion, and Creol left a message on simple talk about a need for cleanup/NPOV checking to articles relating to Kashmir, mostly. --Eptalon (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, simplify? If so, I can do that. Cheers -- America ^†alk 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working at that... -- America ^†alk 23:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did do some, I'm not sure about how perfect it was. What is strange, I didn't know what it was before I started to read it. But the I realized I sing that song almost every week at a Home/Baptist church. Thanks -- America ^†alk 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I handled the recent vandalism edits correctly. I'm already experienced with reverting and deciding what vandalism is on other wikipedias, but I just wanted to make sure I'm doing it right here. -- RyanCross (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And what do you mean by "successful"? --RyanCross (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well-loved by the commmunity. The first among equals when it comes to assigning blame.--Eptalon (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I was wondering if users are allowed to copy content from other Wikipedias to here, as long as it is in Simple English. I've seen some users do that in my time here and I was wondering if that was allowed. Of course it has to be in Simple English. -- RyanCross (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I taught was supposed to happen. Thanks again. -- RyanCross (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently tagged [this for deletion. I just thought if you would like to delete it. I see no reason for the article to be kept. -- RyanCross (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It was done by somebody else. Thanks anyway. -- RyanCross (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... What?. Thanks -- America ^†alk 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for jumping in here, but I'd close that since the requester supported himself which I think is against that policy to. That editor is not even active so there's no way that can survive. -- RyanCross (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally look at is as a test edit, see Special:Contributions/Ich and Du--Eptalon (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, no experience here whatsoever. Should it be deleted or just closed as normal? -- RyanCross (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the editor is even here anymore. -- America ^†alk 01:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already closed early due to WP:SNOW. Cheers, Razorflame 02:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking through Special:Wantedpages and I noticed Wikipedia:Conservation status, a project space page, in that list. Can users like me create guidelines? Of course they have to be positive guidelines, maybe creating guidelines here form en-wikipedia but in a simpler version. Is that possible to do, users like me creating guidelines? -- RyanCross (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent support in my RFA which closed successfully with 26 supports and a lone oppose. I hope to serve the community to the best of my ability. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eptalon. I was wondering if you could review me at my editor review. I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Ryan†Cross (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have. Is there something you need help with? Oh, and no rush on you reviewing me. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares, it seems. I have no interest in being the primary/only contributor to 493 stubs; I disliked the species articles intensely over on en, to be quite honest. I would have been more enthused if there were others along for the ride. I suggest quick deleting unless smoeone here wants to maintain the articles. Cassandra 07:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I may be able to help if I could have some details on what to do and what's happening to it. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we will split the main list into smaller lists. Don't QD it yet, I have created the navigation template already. Chenzw  Talk  07:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) WP:RFD#List_of_Pokémon was the discussion debate. I said that I would try to recruit some users from the WikiProject over at English, but nobody responded except for A Link to the Past, who (like me) is more interested in game articles than the species ones. Eptalon closed it as keep with the option to quick-delete. Species articles require knowledge of the subject, which even for me is limited as I haven't read the magna or watched the show since Ash left the Kanto league (back in 2000). Cassandra 07:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was a pokemon fan. If I still remember this stuff, I could possibly help out here. So, I don't really get what we're supposed to accomplish here. Are we going to create 493 article, or are we going to expand the list? I'll read the RfD debate, but I would still like an answer to my question. -- RyanCross (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corrently working on extending Evolution to fit in my ideas of what it should look like; you are of course wlecome to help with any of it. --Eptalon (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Article building (mainly creating, cleaning up, and copyediting articles) is one of my main areas of editing. I'll see if I can help out in any way. Is there anything specifics I should know on what to improve in the article? -- RyanCross (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally use the talk pages of articles to talk about what to improve in them; At the moment, Evolution is mostly re-arranging things for readability (perhaps some simplifying), and creating/fixing the red links. Articles like tohse mentioned at PGA are mostly finding and including references, at least for Beethoven and Berlin Wall. --Eptalon (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I'll see what I can do in those areas. If I feel the need to discuss something about the article, I'll post a message on the article's talk page so everyone can pitch-in. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, when I get the chance I'll proof-read it. But I'm not the best at that, but will do. Cheers -- America ^†alk 18:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I cleaned-up the article you tagged here. I just wanted to let you know. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking, why did you delete the Pokemon articles with reason G6 and then restore them? There was also no sign of selective restoration. Chenzw  Talk  09:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted List of Pokemon, as announced on Simple talk. I am now writing an RFD for those 31 pokemon articles that are left; I only thought of this once I had deleted a few pokemons, therefore I restored them (fully, no selective restore).--Eptalon (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. Chenzw  Talk  09:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFD for the 31 pages left has been added --Eptalon (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all you hard work at keeping Evolution a VGA, I award you this Barnstar! -- America †alk 18:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eptalon. You nominated Ludwig van Beethoven for {{pgood}} over two weeks ago. Are you going to move it to the voting section or should I archive it? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you nominated Berlin Wall for {{pgood}} over two weeks ago. Are you going to move it to the voting section or should I archive it? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, Gothic architecture is also in the same position. Can you let me know what you'd like to do? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for that. So will you now move them to the voting section of WP:GA? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break from editing, I'll start again tomorrow. Thanks for helping me out! --Gwib ^-(talk)- 09:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eptalon. Just wondered how the mainpage articles are selected? Since we have two new VGAs, presumably they should enter rotation sooner rather than repeating a VGA that's already been featured? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted a while ago, but does not appeared to have been answered, so:

They are given a number (the order of promotion - eg 1st article is Article 1) and posted to Main Page/Article X. Then the coding selects the articles like this: {{:Main Page/Article {{#expr:({{CURRENTWEEK}}) mod 13 + 1}}}} i.e, takes current week number and converts to mod 13 and adds one to find the article number. (It is mod 13 because there are currently 13 articles, and the +1 is so it gets results from 1-13 instead of 0-12.) Does this help? - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is we have 52 weeks; 52 divides 2 and 4 evenly (sometimes there are 53, thats worse). We had 13 (and currently have 16, perhaps soon 17) articles. We should look for a truly random function)...--Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nearest to random you get on Wikipedia is when it is based on the current time. that would mean that the article would change every single time it was refreshed though. So it is no longer an 'article of the day/week'. Basing on the number of edits would change slower, but would still change hundreds of times a day. On other Wikipedias it is not random, but changes through them every day, and then starts again. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day number goes from 1 to 365 (or 366), and only changes once a day? --Eptalon (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that could be used, but you'd see the same articles very often (every few weeks). I think that is why they use the current week here, as opposed to enwiki. Both have advantages and disadvantages. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm rejigging some of the changes, which are too wordy or have lost the sense. It's mainly Gwib's edits I've had to fix. Amandajm (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your message! Yes, he was very important for a couple of reasons- his use of light and shade, and the great realism of his pictures. But even though he was imitated by a group of young Ducth painters who went to Rome and saw his work, he was then almost forgotten until the early 20t century. He is now regarded as one of the most important artists of his time. Amandajm (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kennedy/userbox Welcome to the project hehe. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 12:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I didn't really think protection was necessary. A one-off vandal who stopped as soon as she was warned doesn't really justify page protection in my opnion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Eptalon, I come from the Philosophy project on En. I have two suggestions related to your invitation; identify specific articles on Simple that are in need of attention and secondly, ask the editors of the En article Ordinary Language Philosophy to help out. Best of luck, Skomorokh (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One's waiting. --  Da Punk '95  talk  20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edit to the SPL article. (Here) What is the difference? I can't seem to see any difference between them? Maybe I'm blind though... :P ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

|2 in the {{reflist}} template. This makes the references appear in two columns: (see edit summary?) --Eptalon (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes I did see that, I just couldn't tell the difference... Maybe my monitor is too small. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 14:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I've noticed that on wide-screens (I think) and strange browsers it doesn't show anything. -- AmericanEagle (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what you would think of maybe having the en:Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church be the Simple English collaboration for August in the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. One other question. It seems to me that there aren't that many Very Good Articles here yet. Certainly, there aren't many relating to Christianity. Are there any that you think are close to that status? Also, I was wondering what you would think of maybe a joint project with the other Christianity Project, as is now mentioned at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Simple English wikipedia joint project. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our main problem (both with good and very good articles) is that we are basically between 30 and 50 (don't ask me the exact number, probably around 40 people) contributing (meaning: in the form of: Named editor, usually contributing several days a week). Making a good or a very good article is a lot of work; even from a decently-written normal article. The main difference between the categories:

• A VGA needs to be comprehensive; that means it cannot leave out facts that are usually part of the subject area
• A VGA is roughly double the size of a GA
• A good article can have some red-links left

As to size: Good articles turn out to be 10-12k (all included), VGAs tend to be 15-20k (all included, both are minimal sizes). If most of the article is made of a listing, that is usually a bad candidate. Also, references are important; articles where it is hard to find references are bad candidates. As an example, I had to drop Berlin Wall because of lack of references.

I see the following as candidates:

• History of Christianity looks promising; at nearly 40kb it could possibly be made into a VGA. Relatively few red-links, but definitely too few references. Also given the size, this might be longer term.
• Ten Commandments: The problem is that we need to get away from the listing-style - or try to make it less apparent. There are probably too few references, and two or three things need proving (the {{fact}} template). Too many red-links (mostly to different versions of the bible). Good article probably doable; upside: this is common with Judaism and Islam, so we might get a few editors there?
• Apostles' Creed (perhaps also Nicene Creed) - as good Article?
• Catharism - Lacks the Cathar teachings at the moment (If we add that, and how they were wrong, article site doubles; We are probably in for GA.

Articles like St. Peter's Basilica only touch Christianity marginally; they are about achitecture. These are just ideas. I am of course open to suggestions. In general, going for GA first, and then trying VGA is easier; the hardest VGA criterion is comprehensiveness.

As to the month proect; I am fine with that... --Eptalon (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bible projects. The Christianity newsletter only goes to members of that project, but that might be among the most important of the articles above. Give me a few days and I'll see what we can do. And you're right about the "translation" point. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think Ten Commandments is possible, as well as others. I'm very busy, though. I'll add it to my To-Do List and may work on it. -- American Eagle (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple point about Littlest Pet Shop's notability

• "Hasbro's Little Cash Cows". BusinessWeek.com. December 13, 2007. Since reintroducing Littlest Pet Shop in 2005, Hasbro has sold more than 60 million of the figures at roughly $4 a piece.
• "Hasbro profit rises, names new CEO". Forbes.com. February 11, 2008. ..its fourth-quarter sales rose 16 percent, driven by its core brands like Transformers, Littlest Pet Shop and Star Wars.

60 million units and a core brand of a major toy company.. sounds notable to me. The 2.44 million Ghits tends to also hint at it. Ghits aren't great indicators of notability, but when they are in the millions, there might be something there to consider. -- Creol(talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look notable; undeleted, and stubbed. --Eptalon (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got some bad information on that qd tagging. Likely the same person who tagged the one I just denied saying it doesn't claim notability when the article says the song is certified Gold by the RIAA, and then creates a redirect from the mainspace to his usertalk (R2).. -- Creol(talk)

Although it does say the article has to give reference of notability. mc8 07:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this analog problem. ONaNcle (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eptalon, I see you have been making quite a few edits on the Human article. I was just wondering if we exapnded it a bit do you think it would be worth putting it up for GA or even PGA? Cheers, The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 13:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is possible, yes. To be a candidate, we should look to get the article to around 15-16k (all included). Another issue: Look at Eusociality -that's what bees, and ans are. Humans, canines (wolves hunting together) are presocial. In general, Biologists see Eusociality as a higher degree of organisation; the only mammals known to be eusocial are two different kinds of mole rat from Africa. We need to be very careful when making statements.--Eptalon (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find quickly that we cannot say much in Simple English about Christianity without explaining your terms. For example, I have created Template:Christianityfooter from the English Wikipedia and am looking for feedback on the glosses that will be need to use for all the common Christian terms in it. (Only "Father" and "Son" were already on the Basic English wordlist. Please look at it and discuss/ give feadback, etc. I also hope this will lead us to use the same glosses for words in the articles.--Carlaude (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think something like this?

The list of groups is from en:Template:Christianity --Carlaude (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative this. Of corse we can discuss what goes where, and if we forgot some of the larger groups. --Eptalon (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main trouble with any list is that whoever we put in... more and more will want in.

1. I prefer to start small. Better yet, use a semi stable list elsewhere.

1.1 Christadelphians • Unitarianism • Oneness Pentecostalism are all small small groups. Iglesia ni Cristo is small in the US.

2. This group is not any sort of normal categorization-- which makes it hard to use and edit.

2.1 Why not use categorization of en:Template:Denominations of the United States or of User:Carlaude/Sandbox --Carlaude (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Anabaptism is Amish • Mennonites • Brethren. We do not need all four.

4. Some of what you have is just wrong. Religious Society of Friends and many other are centuries old. Puritanism is so old it has died out.

5 Do we need extinct groups in this template?

6 Unitarianism is not a Christian group. Is this a template of ism's or groups?--Carlaude (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses are agains war but to care for the label "peace church" either. I think we do not need this lable discussion within the template.--Carlaude (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the template I had the following in mind:

1. After 2kyears there are many groups. While we do not need every last group of 5 people meeting somewhere, I want the currently main groups in the list. By group I understand idea: It is irrelevant (for this list) that there is a small part of Baptists who have a different opinion in the saturday/sunday debate; or that there is a congregation of black baptists)
2. There are some groups/ideas that had a great influence (If Pelagianism had not been outlawed, we would not need the church today to be saved; If Catharism had gone through, women priests wouldn't be an issue. Puritanism may be extinct today, but it had a great influence on the moral values of most of the US...--Eptalon (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. -- Creol(talk) 12:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks seen it. :) --Eptalon (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a bit more information on just how big the job is:

First, there are nearly 8,328 articles in the english category en:Category:Rivers of Romania. That is one of the big parts about this project. The other big part about this project is that there are a TON of rivers that have those weird things over the vowels and the t's and s's, which make it harder to create because I have to use CTRL+C to copy it and then make a redirect page for it. That is more time consuming than the regular river names, like Butea River, for example. That is one of the reasons why I have been creating the rivers without the weird things over or under the letters, for ease of creation :P

Please note that I am not asking for help...yet.... :P Just wanted to share with you the depth of this project of mine :) Cheers, Razorflame 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as I say on my talk page, I am pretty taken atm. I do not have much time for bigger projects. I was referring to Category:Tehsils of Pakistan given a Tehsil is a bigger city with some cities and villages around, there can really be thousands of them ij Pakistan; once that is done: India (and probalby Bangladesh) also use Tehsils...--Eptalon (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry :) I'm not asking for help :) Just merely conversing and telling you what I hate about the romanian rivers :P Cheers, Razorflame 12:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! Can you fix all those missing operands in this article for me please? Thanks, Razorflame 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've  Done - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I think they should be classified under provinces rather than districts. Pahari Sahib (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be going quite well then - 18 supports and no opposes in first 24 hours! :) - tholly ^--Turnip-- 18:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this blocked then renamed user page: User:Eptalon Eptalon thinks that you're are looking for an unavailable revision if you click on it. I can't edit it, it always says edit conflict. Any ideas? - tholly ^--Turnip-- 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally pages get a little screwy with renames and deletes. The account was renamed, not user page existed, but it shows up later but can't be accessed. I had one under my name which was essencially the same. (Re-)deleting the page seems to take care of the issue. -- Creol(talk) 06:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 10:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please join ##SB39 on Freenode asap. Thanks! SwirlBoy39 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a few hints on what could be added to make the article on Atatürk bigger (on its talk page)...--Eptalon (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your interest and hints. I wrote something about that. See you soon... --Dsmurat (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No neutral votes? Going through the archives, it looks like that decision was made in August, 2007, back when I was on my one-year wikibreak hiatus. I would have loved to have added my two cents to it, though. --TBC 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is somehow a bot working not logged in, or is it just a user saying they're a bot? They're very authentic edit summaries, but someone could have been sad enough to make them up... - tholly ^--Turnip-- 16:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that even possible (bots not logged in)? By its very nature it should be logged into the site. We should have a log of all approved bots running on the site (or, do we already have one?). Hope my questions helped. ^_^ Synergy 16:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen many IP bots, but there are some. I'd look at the times the edits were made and compare them to the edits of a 'normal' bots. The edits by a confirmed bot are usually regular, whilst this IP seems to be irregularly editing. However, the edits aren't exactly disrupting, and plenty of IW links are added/corrected by IP bots (the ones I've seen, anyway). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know about IP bots. Thanks, - tholly ^--Turnip-- 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very much like a bot, adding interwiki the few I saw were for Afrikaans, which is basically a dialect of Dutch..--Eptalon (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: it was just my bot, User:TuvicBot, having a problem staying logged in. This happens with the pywikipedia-bots, sometimes. Sorry for the disturbance. --Tuvic (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]