User talk:EdgeOfEpsilon

Welcome!

Hello, EdgeOfEpsilon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! VanTucky 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Wikipedia: Copyright

I'm currently about halfway through editing, but I had to stop a few days ago when some stuff came up. By the time I got back to editing, 2 or 3 sections had been added. Because it's so out of date, and because my voice wasn't very good (read 'was horrible') on the day I recorded, I'd be happy to turn the project over to you.

Here's a few hints:

As far as I can tell from those unintelligible IPA symbols, 'prima facie' is pronounced prima 'fuh-SHE'. DO NOT say prima 'facey', as when I listened to my recording of this, I almost fell out of my chair laughing at how stupid I sounded.
Make a friend who speaks and reads German. See section 6.1

Have fun.

One more thing: I've updated the info for currently active projects. You're now shown as working on Copyright. Lx45803 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

onomatopoeic TARDIS

Hello, I changed the spelling back to "onomatopoeic", which is correct, but I didn't notice at the time that "onomatopoetic" (a form I hadn't seen before) is also correct, and means the same thing. The only difference is that onomatopoeic is the adjectival form of onomatopoeia (adapted into English from Greek by way of Latin), whereas onomatopoetic is the adjectival form of onomatopoesis (adapted into English directly from Greek). The Latin-filtered version is, in my experience, more common, but both spellings are correct. -Father Inire (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera not a microcar

Here is why I don't think Aptera is a microcar:

I could find no external reference listing Aptera as a microcar. According to Aptera themselves, their vehicle is officially a motorcycle in California.
Other historical and modern microcar models are noted for their miniscule size. The Aptera is as large as a standard two-seater automobile in capacity, track width, wheelbase, and tire size.
There is no official "microcar" vehicle size class in the US. There is a "two-seater" class and a "minicompact" class at the low end. Other countries have a city car class.

The best course of action is to ask Aptera what class it falls in. (In my opinion, it is in a class by itself!) If you don't mind, I'll move this conversation to the Aptera talk page; it is worthy of wider discussion. --IanOsgood (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera

Why did you undo my restructure of the article? See the Talk page Greg Locock (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on your talk. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source for japanese female urinals

Hi. I have seen some in some old japanese houses, but I do not have an online source. Sorry. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Image of Penis Article

What do you think about changing opening picture of the Penis article? Your opinion needed. Thanks! Yestadae (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Planned production electric vehicles

Category:Planned production electric vehicles, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aptera 2 Series for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aptera 2 Series is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptera 2 Series until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Crash counting

The article Crash counting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. This subject is no more notable than the deleted SpadFS article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpadFS. "Crash counting" was invented by the author of SpadFS and appears to be not used anywhere else in computer science/storage literature.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- intgr [talk] 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, EdgeOfEpsilon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Proposed electric car models

A tag has been placed on Category:Proposed electric car models indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aptera 2 Series for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aptera 2 Series is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptera 2 Series (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]