User talk:Ephix

Deleting account
No, you cannot delete your account. This would remove you from the edit histories of articles and violate the terms of the GFDL, under which Wikipedia is published. You do, however, have the right to vanish. 17Drew 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: account
hi, do i have the right to delete this acccount? if i do, i wish to do so. I would appreciate if you could assist asap. thanks. ephix 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User accounts aren't usually deleted because the GFDL licence requires than an audit trail is kept for user contributions. If you don't want to use it anymore then I suggest that you randomise the password to prevent cracking and leave the account alone. See Wikipedia:User account for more details. (aeropagitica) 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to delete Consensus decision-making article
You recently attempted to list the Consensus decision-making article for deletion. In your reasons, you said that as the term "consensus decision-making" is a neologism and referred to the guideline WP:NEO. I have reverted this, since you did not follow the policy on article deletion, WP:DEL. Bottom line is that you did not attempt to discuss this on the article talk page (or elsewhere) prior to listing it at AfD. This is a well established article on a subject of considerable interest. Many editors, including me, have spent a great deal of time collaborating on this article. It is recognized as fairly authoritative coverage of the subject. And the subject, itself, is one of interest to many people who look to Wikipedia for basic information on a given subject. There are over 180,000 uses of the term on the Internet, many books about it, and thousands of people who practice, or attempt to practice it (neologism, or not).

ephix: Your account is a relatively new one on Wikipedia, so it is likely that you are not familiar with many of the policies and practices here. I would like to highlight one: WP:CON. Discussion about articles occurs on the article talk page. If you think that something is amiss with this, or any other article, you should discuss it there. Major changes to an article are decided on by consensus (ironic, in this case, but true). You would be most welcome to discuss your concerns there. Sunray 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Networkviz.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Networkviz.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 03:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interactive Visualization
Ephix writes: ''removed merge tag dated 2006. IV is a clearly branch of graphic visualization in computer science not a general field''

Can you provide an example of a modern-day visualization progam that is not interactive? If not, would you agree that it would be difficult to justify the existance of this article?

Brad Halls 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * well said, i guess this yet another outdated article in a fast moving field. now you can be bold and merge the two. ephix

Mashal page
I noticed that you created a page called "Mashal" (which should really be "Parable" because I doubt anyone will ever find it under Mashal). The trouble is that none of this material is sourced, and there are numerous abbreviations that most of the world doesn't understand. Can you fix it up?--Gilabrand 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Before adding new pages, I would suggest copyediting and finding sources for this one. At the moment, I think it is pretty incomprehensible. If you think a separate page is needed, then call it Parable (Jewish) or Parable (Talmudic) and then explain what a mashal and a nimshal are, on the page. --Gilabrand 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

TalkTalk
No problem. I know how it can get when dealing with multiple redirects. Sometimes it helps to have a fresh pair of eyes look things over. Let me know if I can help in the future. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Efrat Gosh
In response to the comment left on my talk page ... I am sorry you took offense. None was intended.

Before I added the notability tag I did google her name. I found several hits. That's why I did not tag the article for deletion. The notability tag is a suggestion to add notability information so that it won't be deleted by others. All that's needed is to add things like recordings, concerts, etc. (with verifiable cited sources of course) ... that will go along way towards demonstrating notability. The way the article is currently written, it just sounds like she is a person who sang for some friends. Remember that it is important for the article to be obvious about the artist's importance and notability. There seems to be a lot of info from the google hits ... just add them to the article. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dave Fetterman
A tag has been placed on Dave Fetterman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * please see article talk page. ephix (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete speedy deletion tags on articles you have created, such as Dave Fetterman. Use the tag instead.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Muhammad
Shalom aleichem brother Ephix. Noticed your recent edits to two articles (viz. Qur'an and Muhammed (pbuh)) and thought I'd pay you a a visit to offer kind greetings. Your latest article Judaism's view of Muhammad seems like its off to a good start, and Insha'Allah I too will try helping expand it with some of the authentic resources that I have. Please do let me know if you need any authentic resources/information about Muhammad(pbuh)'s life or the Islamic connections to Judaism. Shalom &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Abd, thanks for the greetings. I would like to point that this article is distinct from the article Muhammad and the Jews in that it deals with Judaism's view of Muhammad as the tile might indicate. I will thus be edit and mainly summarising your edits as the main purpose of the article is deal with Muhammad from a religious perspective, as opposed to a purely historical one. Please see more on the article's talk page. Thanks again. ;) ephix (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... That's odd, I didn't know that article (viz. Muhammad and the Jews) existed. Nevermind though, I'll assist with editing and summarizing of the content that I've posted yesterday. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a great help. Please summarise it to a paragraph. Thanks! ephix (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Haredi Judaism
Haredi Judaism is not the same as Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism also includes Modern-Orthodox Judaism. So, your merger proposal was completely illogical. I removed the merger template and consider this discussion to be closed. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue has been brought up before, Orthodox Judaism including Modern-Orthodox Judaism which is arguable in itself, does not bear on my proposal merger which I was in the middle writing when you removed the tag. I have now reinserted it so please participate in the discussion on the talk page. ephix (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As you just said yourself, merger discussion can vary from days to weeks. In this case, you have had no, and I mean no, support for your merger proposal. Eight people have now commented, it is entirely pointless to continue. As I said on the talkpage, if you want to keep going, than you can, but it won't get you anywhere. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, in addition to me, and I'm a wikipedian too, (hello!) there were two others who addressed my points and suggested renaming the article. I've accepted accepted this as sufficient compromise so I may change the tags. I could have and perhaps should have proposed this to start with, but if you see my latest comment you may understand why I didn't, the material of the article overlaps with the "Orthodox Judaism" article. ephix (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

3-revert rule
I don't mean this to be hostile in the slightest, but I do think it's appropriate to make sure you're aware: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move
Sorry, I missed the discussion of this page move. You seem to have moved it to a name not even mentioned in the text. Were you aware that there's discussion going on at the talk page over the inclusion of "koshering" in the article? Perhaps you could usefully join in there. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also puzzled why you capitalised "salt" --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Efratgoshalbumphoto.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Efratgoshalbumphoto.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Peterschiff123.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Peterschiff123.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Smallman12q (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Peterschiff123.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Peterschiff123.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.43.119 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Schiff article
You may in danger of a WP:3RR violation, as you currently have performed 2 reverts. In order to avoid edit warring, I'd request more consensus building. BigK HeX (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read up on the guidline you cite. An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period. Otherwise I'd like to build a consensus on this, no need to edit war, but I'm a little disconcerted by your reversions, especially given that the deleted comment is your first contribution to the page.
 * ephix (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've just taken to reverting me without even bothering to check what text you're removing, but your edit comment stating that you're "reverting per some talk page consensus" seems a rather odd interpretation of events. The edit you reverted has not even been questioned on the talk page, much less can there be any "consensus" against it. Instead of these inscrutable edit comments, I think some detailed elaboration of your complaints with this text on the talk page would be a vastly preferable approach. It is quite obviously neutral text. If there continues to be some vague, unmentioned problem with this well-sourced and neutral text that compels you to delete it, I see no alternative than to seek an administrator's opinion. BigK HeX (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any point in us debating here on my talk page or even the article's talk page.


 * You lost all pretence of acting in good faith when you completely removed the economist label. I'm quite confident an admin will see your edits to the page as coming from the detractor you are rather than an actual contributor with a neutral point of view.


 * Wikipedia isn't the place for economic debate and as I first said in the discussion you wanted me to open, according to the vast majority of sources Schiff is cited as an economist amongst many other things, not any of your labels. If you want a minority view point covered based on a book review, you can create a subsection provided you find better sources for the topic.


 * ephix (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Linda McMahon page
Hey Ephix:

How are you? Thank you for your interest in the Linda McMahon page. It is rare that I get an editor refer to sources and materials in the context of an edit on the page, so I know I am working with a rare, thoughtful kind of editor. I see in your edit that you chose to list McMahon as a former wrestler. In my perspective, I agree that she has been active in the ring, and it is worthy of mention that she has had on-screen roles.

But Ephix, why label her a "former wrestler"? How can we prove it with references if she was never on the roster and never competed directly in a match? Did she ever wrestle anyone professionally? It's a tough statement to make. You see what I'm saying?


 * -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 01:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Screwball123, thanks for so eloquently making your point. While I think this discussion would be better placed in the article's discussion board, suffice it to say here that professional wrestling is classed as a sports entertainment, which in the case of WWE is more about entertainment than actual wrestling, and in that Mrs McMahon partook. There are plenty of videos on YouTube, DailyMotion and other video sharing sites which testify to this, not to mention common knowledge. The said activities were very much physical but I will confide in you that there may be debate to be had on the exact label. Professional wrestler might not match her activities in the ring as she certainly wasn't a professional nor was it her intent to be, but wrestling entertainer and promoter may be more fitting. Thoughts? ephix (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Ephix! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Efrat Gosh -

new articles - Israel project
Hi- I've listed the relevant new articles that you started here. Please feel free (maybe even obligated...) to do the same in the future. Thanks! --Sreifa (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Facebook employees has been nominated for renaming
Category:Facebook employees has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. feminist (+) 16:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)