User talk:Enochlau/Archive 2006i

This page contains archived material written on my talk page during 2006.

Thanks for the Barnstar

Thanks. The bot which updates the assessments is currently broken, but it should be functional soon. This means the assessment counts are currently blank, but tagging still needs to go on. -- Longhair\^talk 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cunningham

See please Talk:John Cunningham (poet and dramatist) - in fact, this is maybe the best an gratest page on Cunningham in the web, :-). -jkb- 18:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on talk page. enochlau (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sleep-Tech Inc

How was the Sleep Tech article spam? Please tell me because at no time was the article of spam content and or wording

It was deleted for being a non-notable company as per WP:CSD and WP:SPAM. If you wish to contest the deletion, go to WP:DRV. enochlau (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, i am in no way affiliated to "Sleep-Tech" hence it is not self-promotion nor Spam, Everything on that page was properly cited. The notion of you calling a store that is at numerous malls, and has a large online presence, SPAM? No way. Look on the US Gov Copywrite Query, the Company shows up, The query on the Westfield Shoppingtown Meriden Mall, comes up, see Query For Sleep-Tech Also, comes up on the Query of the SimonMall Database, see Query For Nanuet Mall. The deletion in my opinion has been couter-productive to the aims & goals of Wikipedia Mgarnes2 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to recreate the article, as long as you fulfil the guidelines at WP:COMPANY so that your article will not be deleted again. Other than that, you should see undeletion at WP:DRV. enochlau (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the guidelines, what should not be done that was done last time? Mgarnes2 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to expand on the company's notability - that is, why should it be included in this international encyclopedia? enochlau (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Capon

You edited Edmund Capon recently, changing Football (soccer) to soccer. The proper naming of this sport has been the subject of much painful negotiation. The consensus being that most, if not all, references to the sport in an Australian context should be Football (soccer).--Hack 01:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, got it. enochlau (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Parton v Milk Board (Vic)

Hi Stephen, as you're a law student, as I was wondering what you thought of the discussion at this article - the issue is about the inclusion of a category. I'm seeking third opinions because I don't think either of us are budging either way. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, posted my view to the talk page. --bainer (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this...

Talk:China#Final version. This guy is so obviously Chinese. He has no respect for rules, or concern for others, and just creates masses of spambots I mean sockpuppets whenever he doesn't get his way. In argument, he resorts to blankly citing rules and elevating all arguments against him to an argument against the rules - a typical Communist tactic. Can't even write proper English. Makes me want to put a "China=Shame" section on my user page like our friend Bonafide.Hustla. --Sumple (Talk) 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Fardon

Cheers for cleaning up my edits to the article on AG v Fardon. Exams end in 6 days, so I'm going to get into some serious wiki-writing over summer. Sambo 11:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Commons

Hmm cool. I'll do it when or if I get access to a better connection. --Sumple (Talk) 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

A bit from column A, and a bit from clumn B :D. I'm capped atm, but on top of that Optus is being horrible. --Sumple (Talk) 07:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_fiction_that_breaks_the_fourth_wall/Criteria

Please consider visiting Deletion Review and endorsing the undeletion of this page (currently done temporarily for review purposes). {{db-talk}} uses CSD #G8, which doesn't apply to talk subpages when the top page exists (in this case, Talk:List_of_fiction_that_breaks_the_fourth_wall). I'm sorry no one has notified you of the review before now. -- nae'blis 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. enochlau (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polynomialdeg2 image

Hey, I'm just going through all the graph images I find and creating updated versions. The Image:Polynomialdeg2.png had a note on it saying you wanted to be notified, so I thought I'd let you know. :) --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your image. However, the reason why my image had no labels and was rather simple was to enable the illustration of the basic shapes of certain polynomials without distracting features. Your image looks a little out of place now on the polynomial article - scroll down to the part where there's a whole lot of them. Let me know what you think. I guess a way forward would be to recreate the rest of them? Of course, the best option would be to create new ones in SVG format instead of new ones in PNG. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, yeah. I see what you mean. Certainly there's a need for consistency as it does look a little out of place right now. Obviously I'm going to have a bit of bias in the one I created, but I think that labeling the axes gives a more complete graph without adding too much to the complexity of the image. I'll revert my change for now just as a matter of consistency. As for SVG images, that would be awesome, but I don't have any tools with which to make them. Know any good ones out there? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

request for minor/uncontroversial deletion

Hi Enochlau, Could you please delete these pages? Oversubscription and Contention ratio they both redirect, or did redirect to the disambiguation page Contention, which in turn links to those pages, creating an infinite loop. They would be much better appearing as redlinks from the disambiguation page, due to the fact that they are devoid of content. I remember cleaning up the contention page and disambiguating it originally, but there is nothing in the history so I must have neglected to save a new version of the page. Thanks, Grumpyyoungman01 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wang Wei (pilot)

Excuse me Enochlau, but how about discussing the edits on Wang Wei (pilot) before blanking them? Cheers

verify tag?

You wrote on Frank Tallman sheet "The verify tag is there because there are no references", I am new,can you expand so I understand what references are missing? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MissionCreek (talk • contribs) .

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

oldest school

I'm not sure that's right either, or at least its questionable. I need to check all of the schools that started before or around the same time to see if they are secondary schools and also what date the schools really started. Some choose when teaching started and some choose when first established. Give me a minute and I will get back to you on it. Ok you're right it does appear that fort street is the first "government" secondary school but remember National Schools Board Schools aren't really government schools either. They had a local board that paid half the costs and ran the school.

--Cmurphy au 09:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Did I stuff up my editing here? I notice you deleted something about me due to deletion mistake --Cmurphy au 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well that's one's true and probably verifiable but is it truly notable! every school in australia is the first at something! will we now see the first catholic/anglican/presbytyerian etc first secondary/primary in nsw/vic etc then in the hunter valley/central coast etc . Every body want's to be the first at something but a NPOV would say so what! Remember I estimate there are at least 26 schools operating today that started before fort street. That includes schools in every state and covers government/private/secondary/primary. But whatever it seems everyone wants to be first!!! Until I got to it Launceston Church Grammar school claimed to be the oldest continually operating school in Australia conveniently ignoring the other 14 before it. I think I am going to write up an article entitled the oldest schools in Australia but I'll have to wait until I a) finish my research and b) publish it ;-)

--Cmurphy au 09:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note of appreciation.

Dear User:Enochlau, thank you (and User:Sumple) very much for your help regarding Wang_Wei_(pilot), and for taking the time to remove my 'userpage'. Nice to see such helpful folks here! Nic tan33 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your most welcome, I suppose it would be the least I could do under such a situation. Would it be alright if I seek your advice should other 'problems' arise? Thanks again. Nic tan33 11:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deletion of contested prods

...isn't cool at all. Would it really kill you to wait the few days to have a discussion on the issue and give the prod contester an opportunity to edit the damned article? Un focused 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I feel that it falls under WP:CSD, it's getting zapped. enochlau (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be absolutely sure not to let assume good faith get in the way of using your admin powers. Un focused 06:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which article was it? In my haste, I might have missed the prod template. enochlau (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jikoshia. You closed an AfD debate VERY early on a contested prod. It was already in the process of deletion, yet contested, so I'd think a little courtesy of waiting the customary period is appropriate. I'm not sure how many prior editors it had, but some others that got speedied recently that had a long history of edits and the deleting admin gave no courtesy notice to prior editors, so maybe I'm a little touchy right now, I dunno. This particular article isn't worth a big fight to me as I don't have time over the holiday to address it, but I still felt I had to point out how offensive it can be to delete something early that was already contested. People should have a reasonable opportunity to look into something they've contested before you nuke it. Un focused 08:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um

Oh crap, sorry, I somehow missed that it was a user page and not an article page. My bad. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNU (disambiguation)

While purusing the speedy log just now I found this tagged for speedy deletion. It appears you removed the speedy tag once before. Well I did a little bit of research and I thought I'd show you this Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/ 2006-11-26 GNU Redirection. Alph Tech STUART (talk · contribs) seems to have contacted a mediator as well. Just thought I'd shoot you a heads-up. Metros232 16:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Logarithms.png

I'm about to upload an "enhanced" version of this plot. If you don't like it, feel free to revert. Dicklyon 06:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Espen Bratli

Sorry! Looks like I tagged the db-bio as soon as you deleted it...mind deleting it again? Gzkn 09:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent speedy deletion

Hi! Just noticed you had deleted the page for Ladyfinger (band). I'm assuming this is because it was under an incorrect title, possibly should have been Ladyfinger (NE); not sure exactly. If you could explain, I'd appreciate it.

Apologies if I'm not following etiquette precisely here; I'm a relative newbie at all this. Packcigs 09:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladyfinger (band) was a redirect to Ladyfinger (ne), which was a page that didn't exist when I deleted the Ladyfinger (band). Redirects to non-existent pages can be deleted per WP:CSD. enochlau (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were originally called Ladyfinger until recent legal issues forced them to change their name to Ladyfinger (ne). I understand now that the page content should be located at Ladyfinger (ne). Is there any way to find the original page to save time and direct it to the correct location? Packcigs 07:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ladyfinger (ne) was deleted for being a non-notable band as per WP:CSD: see Special:Undelete/Ladyfinger_(ne). Hence, if I recover the original text and you repost it, it will be speedily deleted again. Bands below a certain threshold of notability do not have Wikipedia articles. If you disagree with this assessment and you wish to contest the deletion, you should now go to WP:DRV. enochlau (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the possible lack of recognition, a.k.a. non-notable, but the band is signed to Saddle Creek Records, home of such artists as Bright Eyes, The Faint, Cursive, (formerly) Rilo Kiley, etc. If there are references needed to prove this, refer to http://www.timmcmahan.com/2006/04/live-review-family-radio-ladyfinger.html or http://www.rwsmagazine.com/features/index.php?paged=2. I realize I'm pushing this, but this is most defnitely a valid band that deserves an entry. Thanks so much for your help and attention. Packcigs 10:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but it's not me you need to convince. The administrator who actually deleted Ladyfinger (ne) is User:Quarl, so please post on his talk page if you want him to reconsider his decision. As I mentioned before, I merely deleted the redirect to the deleted page. Otherwise, you should go to WP:DRV. enochlau (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on this. I appreciate your patience. Packcigs 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey dude

I made an article about myself so like I could add to it when I get to college and stuff so why did you delete it?

Wikipedia is not the place for adding info about yourself. It is an encyclopedia. Pages like the ones you've written can be speedily deleted as per WP:CSD. If you want a web site about yourself, consider places such as Geocities. enochlau (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

why did you delete my informative article? it is very rude and irriponsible. I demand it being reenstated. --Hammersmith123 10:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talking about? Have you read WP:CSD? enochlau (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Please stop adding your own personal analyses and claims to this article. David.Monniaux 14:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

An invitation to view my new Userpage

Dear User:Enochlau, after spending some time pondering how to create my Userpage, I am pleased to announce the creation of my Userpage. I would very much like to invite you to have a look and comment about it. Any suggestions and improvements are welcome. An auspicious occation indeed. Nic tan33 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the complements man. Well, as you can see, my Userpage is still under construction. Also, finding more Userboxes can be a serious pain, but I will persevere. Ah yes, my 21st Birthday (It's the 29th), a Happy Day indeed... Keep the comments coming! XD Nic tan33 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Two Northern Ireland

Hi Enochlau,

Thanks for moving the BBC Two NI page!

NotMuchToSay 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey

Why did you change the {{db-copyvio}} tag on Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey? The old 48-hour rule no longer holds: blatant copyvios with nothing clean to revert to are subject to immediate nuking. --Calton | Talk 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

revert of contract

Hi Enoch, thanks for (agreeing w/me, and) reverting contract. I'm a bit swamped today, but I am planning on an analysis of User:Wikidea's changes by the weekend. I do think a discussion of a cleanup/reorg of the article has merit. --Bhuston 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service

Thought you might want to know about this it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphoto ^talk 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are "I'm entitled to my opinion"s days numbered?

Hi Enoch, I am a bit worried that the article I'm entitled to my opinion will be deleted in whole or in part, perhaps on the basis of the opinions expressed in comments on the talk page. I thought you might be able to tell me whether I am being paranoid or whether it is just asking/waiting for deletion? Thanks. Grumpyyoungman01 02:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your advice Enoch, I think it is good to have an opinion from someone who isn't an expert. I'm not an expert either, just a uni student, we covered this fallacy in a first year informal logic subject taught by Tim van Gelder. Grumpyyoungman01 21:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give Grumpyyoungman01 a couple of days to modify this image, or at least to commit to it, as it clearly advances a contentious POV. If he does not respond, I will {{IFD}} it. --Bhuston 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]