User talk:Enochlau/Archive 2007g

This page contains archived material written on my talk page during 2007.

List of Old Fortians

One of the young'uns is cut-and-paste move reverting on List of Old Fortians and List of former students of Fort Street High School. Please take a look. Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Wei (pilot)

Hello again Enochlau. Sorry to bother you, but it seems that someone is back again on Wang Wei (pilot). Could you kindly help out here again? Thanks. Nic tan33 (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Rhodes article deleted?

What happend? Okay they say not to take things personally and that my information I type will still be there...so where? And what happend? Why did this article consitute a deletion? Please inform me of this. Thanks. I'm not upset...but just slightly like everyone else. I believe I do have proof or sources for my article and believe that it should stay. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content as was deleted did not make out the subject matter as being sufficiently significant. It just appears to be about a college girl who was involved in an unfortunate incident. If you wish to re-write the article, ensure that it is more substantial than before and that it includes evidence of notability. Otherwise, you may seek undeletion at WP:DRV. enochlau (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks I will. It was even in the News show "Nancy Grace". Punkymonkey987 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and i want to add that she was in the news. Why do others who make it in the news get to stay on Wikipedia but not her? Punkymonkey987 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're basing it on notability, why not delete this article as well as all the others who have been charged with first degree murder? or not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Drexler Punkymonkey987 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I don't want to be mean to her. I have nothing against her personally. However, she made the news so now she has to suffer the consequences. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with you is that you didn't check the references before deleting the whole article. I think you could learn a lesson here...to check on the references that I have provided. There are LOADS of "notable proof" for the undeletion of my article. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I looked at everything before I made my decision. Just because you provide a link or three doesn't mean that the person is immediately notable. enochlau (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Amiga User Group (MAUG)

Hi,

There seems to be nothing in the deletion log on why you deleted this article.

Can you please elaborate or direct me to the deletion log... because I can't find anything meaningful.

-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slick12 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted for being an article about a group that did not assert notability as per WP:CSD A7. If you want to rewrite it, please provide evidence in the article that suggests why it is a notable organisation. Not all organisations meet the notability requirements on Wikipedia: see WP:ORG. If there are articles about similar groups on Wikipedia, try and follow their example of how it is written. enochlau (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:: Accent Reduction

Thank you very much for your insertion of Citations for Verification at Accent reduction. It was very helpful to me as I would like to contribute as best I can at Wikipedia.

As a well respected Admin of Wikipedia I was wondering if you could help me out regarding current edits and/or deletions being made at Accent reduction. I seem to be fending off attempts by a website and it's probable associates at AccentSchool.com (possibly York University also) attempts to spam Wikipedia. See: User_talk:99.238.106.6 and User_talk:76.64.192.84 These are anonymous IP addresses, and I have found them to be within 10 miles of each other and in very close proximity to York University. The reason I investigated the IP address location originally was because User_talk:99.238.106.6 and User_talk:204.15.37.131 was adding and deleting in order to push free software that AccentSchool.com is advertising. The software they advertised for was actually an Adobe Flash file and did not quite work well at that. They also spammed their website at Accent reduction . As User_talk:99.238.106.6 describes they would like to spam "about a dozen of accent reduction sites as well as 10-20 well known accent reduction practioners". This seemed hard to believe that they would want to do this. So the task ahead of me as a Declared interested person in Accent reduction may be a little frustrating as there doesn't seem to be other neutral editors participating at Accent reduction

-1st question -Am I going about this correctly?

-2nd question- Is their latest claim that Kathleen S Dunn is advertising at Accent reduction correct? I see no spaming of or by Ms. Dunn at Accent reduction. Ms Dunn does seem to be a well respected individual in Accent Reduction. I do think that the subject associated with her is of value albeit in need of editing. There are other links to ASHA and VASTA on Accent reduction but I also do not consider them to be advertising nor do I consider any Citations for Verification to be advertising.

The fact that the above anonymous IP addresses now are intent to remove Ms. Dunn entirely and not edit the subject or discuss the matter at all at Accent reduction leads me to believe that there continues to be a COI and Vandalism(Blanking) intent.

As a dedicated Wikipedian I would really value your opinion on these matters. I know you are very busy so any help would be appreciated. Sincerely, Esller (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Selected Picture

Hi there, just to let you know that an image you uploaded has been chosen as a selected picture over at the Amusement Parks Portal! If you have any similar images that you feel would also be appropriate then feel free to suggest it on the nomination page. Many thanks, Seaserpent^85 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contract

I agree about the state of contract. One of the difficulties is that, a while back, User:Wikidea (who claims to know something about law) did a very large edit on it -- changing many things. I tried to persuade him to discuss some of the things he was doing beforehand, but he went ahead anyway, so I kind of gave up on the article.

I am afraid I could not even persuade him that the sentence "Contract law is based on the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (pacts must be kept)" should go - it is truly embarrassing to have something like that in the headline of such an important article. It sounds like something a law student picked up in a lecture and didn't really understand (its meaningless drivel). The article goes down hill from thereon.

The thing is this is an article where we could do something halfway decent. First contract law approximates much better worldwide even across civil/common law systems. Second the common law of contract is quite well defined and there are many common issues. How about this: (1) an article on contract which is a pure overview, pointing to (2) an article on the common law of contract (when I have time I might be able to address French and related law contract in another article - there may already be one) (3) each topic can have a main article (like consideration) again written from a global perspective (4) Each jurisdiction can have an article which cross-refers. A big project, but that's the only sensible way to go at it. Francis Davey (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talkpage

Unfortunately, your attempt to portray my banner as racism as sadly mistaken. People's Republic of China is a place name. I suggest you take a look at User:Sky Divine's banner which openly attacks President Chen and Taiwan=shame image. Mines should not be seen under any different light simply because you disagree with my views. Regards--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editorials

Just thought I'd offer my perspective about this as it relates to Signpost stories. Newspapers, if they aspire to objectivity, generally carry editorials and opinion columnists in separate pages or sections from news reporting; sometimes they go so far as to separate the editorial process for that content from the newsroom completely. In our context, the demarcation is difficult to maintain, although we've managed to incorporate opinion pieces like reviews that are clearly designated as such. Mixing news and editorial content without obvious cues tends to confuse and disturb the reader, though.

I want to add, though, that I very much appreciate your effort on the Signpost, and also your initiative in branching out and trying new ideas. And sorry about the overlaps in our work lately - we didn't have good press coverage recaps for a while, but with someone handling that we should make an effort to let them know if we're going to be covering something on their beat. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; somehow I missed your note on my talk page. There are a lot of potential issues that I'd like to discuss with others (perhaps on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost if we do decide to include editorials on content like this. As Michael said, mixing news and opinion is a tough balance, and one that I'm not particularly comfortable trying to balance. One worry is that doing so would lead to a de-facto requirement that we give editorials to multiple sides of an issue (if you write an article saying that Knol won't work, we have to run one next week from someone saying that Knol will work). Another thing that I think is potentially worrisome on the slippery-slope end of the spectrum is that there are issues where editorials are patently unacceptable -- for example, on candidacies for ArbCom -- nearly all American newspapers endorse candidates for political office, and yet there's no way we could do so without avoiding obvious biases.

I would, of course, like to echo Michael's comments on your effort. I appreciate your work immensely. On another note, do you check the tip line for stories? Sometimes notes are left there that might save you some work finding articles via Google News. Ral315 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and your comments, guys! enochlau (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That exam

Hi yeah, I am thinking about going to Usyd. Ideally, I would have done law but if I go to Usyd, it is mostly likely that I'll do Commerce with my marks/UAI. Thanks for your kind greeting. :) Gizza^Discuss ^© 04:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Punkymonkey987 (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About what you said...

"let's not make allegations where it hasn't been proven by a court yet"

enchlau--my article has been proved by the coroner. did you read my reference to article #3???! Thanks. I'd appreciate it if people read them before deciding to delete the article for either "notability" purposes or any other reason. I'm sure it would pass the "notability test" as stated on this page that someone refered me to since they were attempting to also deleting it based on notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

I'm sick and tired of this! She passes everything that would be seen as notable.

From the notability page:

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

All of my sources/references came from an outside source!

• "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2]

My sources are from CNN (a major news source) and from the Nancy Grace show.

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.[4]
• "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6]
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]

I'm not trying to advertise myself.

Signpost tutorial series

I'm very assured that your Signpost idea will help many users become better editors. I'll post some ideas if anything pops up and will be willing to offer help in creating the "manuals". I also want to let you know that The Placebo Effect left several suggestions here. Singularity 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! enochlau (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was WP:BOLD and added the series link to the Newsroom and added my suggestions to the page also. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am actvily recruting people to help. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gonna be able to write your story this week?, I have most of the slots signed up for and people are already starting to write their articles. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the delay - I'll be writing it later today. I've just had some things in RL that have held me up. Thanks for taking an active interest in this - it really helps. enochlau (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It was very easy to find people to help on IRC. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		A wonderful job at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-14/Tutorial keep up the good work Jeepday (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost/Shankbone

(It appears you wrote the relevant entry on the signpost so I'm noting this hear)- David Shankbone was invited to Israel in his capacity as a reporter for our sister project Wikinews. I would strongly suggest modifying the signpost entry to make this clear. Since you wrote it and it was post publication I figured it would make more sense to mention this to you here rather than modify it myself. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Thanks for letting me know. enochlau (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the news kudos

Great job on in the news - good selection of which articles to use, and excellent summaries - thanks for the hard work!! --Trödel 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sydney meetup

Hi there, just thought I'd drop you a line to let you know there's a meetup in the works.

Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January_2008

Please pass this on to others you think might be interested. Best,

Witty Lama 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Valley

To answer your question, the article states that Penn Valley is a suburb of Philadelphia, it is not IN Philadelphia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.71.69 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? enochlau (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-14/In the news

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23061435-1702,00.html (and related stories) - would they appear in next week's issue? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will promise to review it, but post it onto WP:POST/N/S in future. enochlau (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry 'bout that. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aomen

Hi! Well...this guy...Aomen, seems to have to freaky thing about adding WPCHINA to HEAPS of articles. I mean everything. Even the ones with other project titles attached to it. I dunno how he does it so quickly, but I'm having quite a hefty time trying to revert his edits on WPHK articles. I looked at his talk page, he seems to be ignoring everyone. Is it possible to send him a warning or something? Thankyou. Dengero (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Signpost tutorial series

It's makes some sense to schedule tutorials based on a first-come, first-serve basis, but I think you need to actively intervene at this point to do some rescheduling. Unfortunately, not everyone who promises to do a tutorial is going to actually do so, or do so well. Moreover, rescheduling will make sure that there is adequate lead time for review before publication.

It's really good to have all proposed tutorials "done" at least a week before publication date, so that other editors can review and improve it. I'm not the first to note that what one editor considered to be a completed tutorial was not in any way actually ready to go to press. If someone drops in a tutorial a day before publication, there is a good chance that there will be errors, even if (hopefully) it's not poorly written and incomplete. That could be embarrassing to Wikipedia in general and to you in particular, and would not be a service at all to the editors who read the tutorial. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(stealing this header to avoid cramming up your talk page)

Hi! I'm just popping in to see if you'd like to make any comments on my installment of the tutorial series. I'd like to know if that's more or less what you're looking for, and if you think it's remotely helpful. Thanks! Anything you'd like to say would be welcome on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 15:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look soon. enochlau (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-21/In the news

You quoted the news article with regards to the 35mins, I presume? If you check out the Wikipedia deleted history, it was around 15 hours (07:29, January 15, 2008 -> 22:19, January 15, 2008). I contacted news.com.au but they didn't have time to fix it, it seems. Daniel (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't quite agree with you. The first deletion of the article (a speedy) was 20 minutes after the first edit on that page. The AfD of course was much later, and I think that is what you're alluding to. I've removed the time quote from the page anyway. enochlau (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring IP

Hey, could you protect Sydney Law School or block a couple of IPs? A shifting IP user keeps adding "one of" to the above-mentioned article, despite directions to discuss on the talk page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ergh. you suck. I think it's vandalism, since the user is not communicative, refuses to engage in discussion, and is probably the same user who kept making the edit from a while back. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new cat for pic

As requested, notification that i have placed your image Commons:Image:Old Chinese washing implements.jpg in the narrower commons:Category:Laundry equipment. Btw, up-dating cats is onerous enough already (have probably done >100 moves today) - can't you just watch your image pages... cheers, JackyR | Talk 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caisson

No, the other guy/girl/grandmother has moved their content into Ancient Chinese wooden architecture#Decorative roof and ceiling, where they are refusing to call it a "caisson". I can't be bothered chasing, but seriously. Either confront the naming issue or just leave it be. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

involved in a cult-like organisation? I would say that this is quite an non-neutral way to describe my affiliation. I would expect better reporting by the Signpost, which I find always excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I just summarise what's in the articles I read. That's the purpose of the "In the news" section. I understood that it could have been a touchy topic so I put it in the "Other mentions" already. I don't wish to cause you harm but that is what the article suggests (and I make it clear by using the word "suggested"). enochlau (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use "the article suggests", instead of "It has been suggested" to assure readers of who made these allegations, as well as say (as per the aricle), "Jossi Fresco, a longtime student of Prem Rawat..." instead of repeating the cult pejorative. Also, there is no mention that a discussion at COI/N was closed due to lack of evidence: After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools Wikipedia:COIN#User:Jossi_and_Prem_Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Didn't see that the Dvorak article had been covered previously—will check more thoroughly next time I go by the Signpost. Kakofonous (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Signpost tutorial series

The table of scheduled tutorials at User:Enochlau/Signpost tutorial series is becoming completely out of synch with reality (as in, when tutorials were scheduled to be published via when they actually were). If you don't have the time, I'd be happy to reorganize it and notify the editors who volunteered to write tutorials that there still is a need for them. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think your suggestion is an excellent one.

And perhaps at this point it would be best to ask those editors who haven't even started on a particular tutorial (as evidenced by the lack of a link) to at least re-commit to writing, or, alternatively, take their name off of tutorials they're fairly sure they'll never get to. (If you want, I can help by doing that notification.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs

Hi there,

What application did you use to create the graphs that you have uploaded to Wikipedia?

Thanks. Joshua.morgan (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Userify really old article for me?

Hi. I was thinking about starting an article when I noticed that it might have already been attempted as Robert Lowe (improviser)... but I'm not sure. Was there anything good there? Could I get you to userify the contents for me? Thanks for your help. -- Swerdnaneb 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks again! Wrong guy, though. :( -- Swerdnaneb 01:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chinese Australian

An editor has nominated Chinese Australian, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Australian and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Tutorial

Sure, I will hurry up with it. It should be ready by next week. Thanks.  Marlith (Talk)  21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.
2. However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.
3. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.
4. Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large.
5. Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
6. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
7. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.