User talk:Enochlau/Archive 2006f

Barnstar
Thank you very much for the barnstar :D. I've got the ponies, and the barnstar, all I need now is a barn. It's nice to see my work appreciated. Sorry I couldn't reply sooner, it has been a very busy few weeks. -- Prod-You 16:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Graphs
What software do you use to create those mathematical ones? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.216.16.213 (talk • contribs).
 * My own custom software. enochlau (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong
  ：

The planning of the establishment of Wikipedia Hong Kong as a society has entered the final stage.

From 27th April 2006, every Hong Kong Wikimedians is welcomed to participate in the discussion on the vote on the official name of the chapter. Then a one-week nomination period and a three-week voting period will be held. At the same time, you are also welcomed to join in the discussion on the draft constitution of the chapter.

After an official name is decided, the recruitment of member will be started and the first general meeting will be held (Please refer to the schedule). If you're interested to join, please sign your name on this page so that an estimation on the number of member could be done.

WIKIMEDIA HONG KONG NEED YOUR CONTRIBUTION AND SUPPORT NOW.

I am the Wikipedian who invites you:encyclopedist 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother contestant
I see you have deleted the Big Brother reference from the Fort Street High School article. In that case, you may want to delete the page I recently created at Elise Chen. But then again, I want my $20 back! --Sumple (Talk) 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Official full name
Should I revert user:Alanmak edits and restore to this version? He's obviously trying to spread his POV version towards more articles. &mdash; Instantnood 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
 *  Thanks so much. Your edit follows previous consensus, and hopefully user:Alanmak would concur. Yet we still have to decide how should the wikilink(s) be like when their official full names have to be used. &mdash; Instantnood 19:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The 55's
Hi Enoch,

Would you mind telling me why you deleted the page I created with above subject? Please email me directly with answer. Regards, NickManon


 * It was deleted under db-band: see WP:CSD. If you wish to contest the deletion, go to Deletion review. enochlau (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris DiBona
Hi, you previously deleted this article, but I felt that he was notable enough to warrant an article. Please take a look. Cheers, jaco ♫ plane  16:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Molonglo image for use on TV Show
I am a stock footage researcher for a kids educational television show. We are interested in using your photo (url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Molonglotele.jpg) on our tv show and I wanted to discuss it with you.
 * (Replied by email. Commented out email address. enochlau (talk))

Misuse of Fairuse image
Hello. So as per your verdict, fairuse images may be used in the user pages? --Bhadani 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the prompt reply. In case, you wish, you may persuade the user. If I persuade, he may take it in a diffirent light, as earlier when I pointed out to him something about a particular user boxe used by him, he reported the matter. I am mortally afraid of him! Anyway, we talked on this issue, and got in you a new friend. --Bhadani 14:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(merging sections) Hi, as I feel helpless in the matter, I have also posted a message at the Village pump. This is for your kind information: and. Regards. --Bhadani 14:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

my talk page
the vandal hasnt been around for a while. can you unprotect my talk page please? Xtra 14:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Anti-Elmo sentiment deleted
I must admit, I was completely surprised that this article was deleted.

I have a long-history of contributions to Wikipedia over the past year (please review my contributions elsewhere). I don't have a history of writing biased articles and never have participated in vandalism (in fact, I will usually clean it up).

I do appreciate the jobs that the Sysops do with the pages and respect the decision that has been made.

The article on the above subject was written from a neutral point of view. It did not contain any attack language whatsoever. It did contain an example to substantiate what the topic was about.

While I would like a chance to have the article re-posted, I am not asking that. I am asking for a specific reason in the text for why it was deleted. This way I can better craft and write articles that won't be so controversial.

Thank you so much for your time....

Regards. Wac01 14:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Image:Jin Mao Tower.jpg request
Could you please show local image description history and last version? I'd like to chech something. A.J. 15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC))
 * I found it here Image:DSC 0251.sized.jpg, thanks for yout prompt reply! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ejdzej (talk • contribs).
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Yes, you can delete it: I needed only source information for Commons. Thanks! A.J. 15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tipsy McStagger
Is there a reason you didn't speedy delete this besides the fact that it is on AFD? I don't really see why we would want to keep obvious crap article around for the world to see (and mirrors to propogate across the internet). Christopher Parham (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
 * I would describe that page as obvious vandalism, but okay. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Speedy Deletion
I write in reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terence_Laheney

Wikipedia policy is to let a VfD debate run for 5 days. After those 5 days, the votes are counted and the appropriate action taken, unless an early and clear consensus is reached. In my opinion, four votes in six hours does not count as an early and clear consensus.

The abovementioned debate ran for six hours before you speedy-deleted it. You said, "The result of the debate was Speedy deletion". That is incorrect. Anybody that can count could see that the consensus was becoming "Delete" (3 votes), not "Speedy delete" (1 vote).

The debate should have ran for five days, giving plenty of time for either: a suitable number of votes to be cast so that a fair decision regarding the article be reached, or for the article to be suitably adjusted.

I ask you to consider carefully how you treat VfD articles in the future.

Please make any reply here to prevent conversation from becoming fragmented.

Mikesc86 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just read your user page. It seems you were a fairly new sysop back in January. Perhaps the speedy-deletion was an honest mistake. Mikesc86 22:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

vandal and fraud
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mucoid_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=54828334

I've put it on ANI, but I wonder if you could spare a moment. Midgley 03:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
 * A pattern, rather than a specific sentence in that edit. There is a considerable scam involved, and the edits ofthat user have the effect of removing information which would dissuade people from being taken in, and adding the claims and double-talk ("no in vivo function of mucus" is total crap for instance) of the guy who originated it into WP where it lends a spurious credibility to this.  I'm a doctor BTW.  Midgley 03:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly have a problem with blanking this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mucoid_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=54826569
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
 * I've changed the hoax' tag to disputed. The "mucoid plaque" concept is widely propagated via colon cleansing sites, so it's not just an individual editor's OR. Tearlach 08:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ISCF
Hi, came across this page while going through NSW selective schools. I'm doubtful about its notability. But I'm not sure of my own judgement given the nature of the subject matter. Can you take a look? It stands for "Inter-School Christian Fellowship". --Sumple (Talk) 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Anon edits on main page?
How is this possible? :) 219.79.29.47 05:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note the date. On April Fools' Day this year, some admins unprotected the Main Page. That was quickly reverted before disaster struck. enochlau (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bus Uncle
Hello! Long time no see. ;-) Recently I've been editting the article Bus Uncle. Do make improvements to the aritcle~ BTW, I've suggested the reason why I prefer the present title in the talk page. Take a look at it if possible. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 08:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC))
 * ((spreading replies on many user pages are bad)) Just out of interest enoch, how did you hear about it in Aus??? novacatz 16:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

Re: STHS
I still don't find him sufficiently notable. High school olympiad acheivements are not expressions of notability as alumni. So while the addition is now verifiable, it is not encyclopedic. I would also consider removing "Blake Robertson-Hall" and changing some other alumnis' descriptions, eg "Noted Rocker". The problem with rollback is that it doesn't let you give a reason for your reversion. jnothman talk 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you see my efforts as vandalism re: Dr Tay. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". I concede that Dr Tay might have met the criteria but to disable the page is rather extreme. 203.3.197.249 00:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Continuing to add the name after having it removed by two administrators is probably not a good idea, especially continuing to futily scrounge around to find any scrap of notability that you can. It isn't locked down entirely. Established editors may edit it. enochlau (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * that's rather harsh. you could have made it a discussion topic. adminstrators do not necessarily have all knowledge. give the guy a break. it wasn't vandalism 210.56.67.41 13:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, administrators aren't around because we know everything, but this case clearly falls within school-article vanity-spam, which is rather frowned upon by anyone. enochlau (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Potential vanity new article
Nick Adams new article popped up today by an unverified user. it seems a vanity article. 210.56.69.249 13:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nick Adams has talkerbot operating on it. the article is full of vanity and is blatant promotion. 203.3.197.249 04:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit of Ruse School Song...
Somebody has replaced the Ruse School Song with "Eat My Shorts", i edited that out and i got this message from you : "Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. -- enochlau (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC"

isn't it interesting, and now you've added another school song,this time under the name of "gesta non verba", the school diary states that there is no official name for the school song, and gesta non verba is the school motto, and has nothing to do with the school song... maybe the school song part should be left out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobowu (talk • contribs).
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

An old AfD
You commented in the AfD at Articles for deletion/Shopping encylopedia. I have started an AfD of a related article at Articles for deletion/Shopperpedia. Your comments there would be appreciated. Graham talk 10:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Class of 1984 external link
Hi, could you please explain why you have removed the link to the Class of 1984 external web site? (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Technical_High_School)
 * Because such a link is blatantly not encyclopedic matter. Wikipedia is not a repository of just any link that relates to a topic. See also External links. enochlau (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there are no grounds for excluding the site reference. 'Blatantly not encyclopedic' would depend entirely on your definition of 'encyclopedia'. Here's a common definition:


 * "n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty."


 * 'The entire range of human knowledge' can certainly be seen to include the activities and experiences of the pupils that attended the high school in question (including documents and photos). The linked web site (the conglomeration of input from over 50 students during 1984) is of interest to students attending the high school not just during 1984, but also in the decades before and after 1984 (due to the commonality of teachers in question). The site also presents a historical view of the school that will be of interest to current day students and teachers


 * If you're keen to play by the rules of “Wikipedia:External links”, then let it be pointed out that the inclusion of the site reference in no way violates any of the points raise in the “Links to normally avoid” section. In fact its inclusion is specifically supported by Point 5 in the “What should be linked to” section, as the site contains an immense amount of “neutral and accurate material not already in the article”.


 * Your unilateral and undemocratic action misses one of the points and purposes of Wikipedia. Please reinstate the link.--Andrew Jens


 * A good proxy to an "objective" view of what's encyclopaedic is imagine that you're reading wikipedia and reading about some random school, say the Hilbert Middle School. How likely is it that you will want to follow an external link for their alumni of 1974? --Sumple (Talk) 12:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mind if I respond "very likely" if you're from the alumni of 1975? I understand what you're driving at, but could I suggest that linking through Wikipedia is not always a random exercise. I guess that could be one of the points of the "external links" - providing extra details beyond the scope of the main article. No one is forcing the casual browser to click on or read the material found in the link. It is there if they want to go further. Heaven forbid anyone should ever try to turn the Internet into some sort of linked set of pages!


 * Also note that by the definition of: how likely is it that someone will want to follow information on a site, do you think the article could do without: "Flag pole - located near main gate"? I would guess yes, but then again this might be intensely interesting to one in a million readers, and I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of that information. With pretty much infinite space provided by Wikipedia, what right has one user to limit the potential benefits of an article to perhaps thousands of others (especially when no Wikipedian rules have been violated in the process)?--Andrew Jens


 * While Wikipedia isn't paper, it isn't toilet paper either. And in case you're wondering about the flag pole thing, I actually think a lot of information in that article (as well as many other school articles) consists of irrelevant minutiae that should be deleted. enochlau (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I'm glad you've understood the "toilet paper" argument. It's just one more reason for reinstating the external link to the Class of 1984 site, as it's not even remotely in the "toilet paper" category. As it took you less than seven minutes to investigate and reject the sths84.aus.cc site (despite there being many hundreds of pages/documents/photos/memories, etc.), could you now reveal to the rest of Wikipedian world the criteria you use to unilaterally remove other people's additions (without discussion)? How are you going with addressing the other points that I (and others) have raised? There are now many people eagerly awaiting your justifications.


 * I disagree with your desire to delete "irrelevant minutiae". Please remember "what's one man's trash is another man's treasure". The reporting of "irrelevant" material can be treated as a formatting issue in order to not distract readers from the "relevant" material. That flag pole may be an interesting reminiscence to (say) the one kid who had his bag run up it. Please be aware that your attempt to dehumanise Wikipedia may not be the correct way of approaching every type of article in an encyclopedic reference. Certainly some articles (such as a high school) may involve intense memories and emotions to the thousands of people who spent many of their formative years there. Your "bricks and mortar" approach to such an article is one-dimensional. Perhaps future readers would treat the day-to-day activities at a school as a welcome part of an encyclopedic reference. No doubt you would treat the letters Mozart wrote during his travels as purely an itinerary?--Andrew Jens


 * If every class from, say, 1984 to 2005 wanted to put a link to their yearbook site on the main page, would you still consider all of them to be worth keeping? Jogloran 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's unlikely to happen, isn't it. And if each cohort did create a decent web site, I'd have no problem. The link (at the bottom of the article, not interrupting the flow of the main text) adds to the utility of the article to the likely readers. Unless you can come up with a cogent argument against inclusion, I think that Andrew intends to re-insert the link. If you want to engage in further debate, please do so on the talk page of the article. Tony 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course! That's the whole point. What part of 'encyclopedic' is causing so much trouble here?--Andrew Jens


 * I think the fact that three editors have expressed their discontent, if you insist on putting it back in, I will refer the matter to WP:RFC. enochlau (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Still not willing to debate the issues eh? Or are you still considering your response to the points raised above? I'd welcome the matter being referred to someone else – please do.


 * By the way, not one of those 'editors' have actually said that the link shouldn't be there - perhaps they are reasonable people trying to evaluate the issues and get feedback before making a decision. Please note that four contributors to Wikipedia have said that the link is okay.--Andrew Jens


 * I oppose the presence of non-notable minutiae on any schools page - as is the case with this link. In any case, if the 1984 Sydney Tech students are dissatisfied, perhaps this should be posted to wikiproject schools for discussion? --Sumple (Talk) 05:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain why having the external link is a case of "non-notable minutiae"?
 * How many of the people opposing the link actually went to Sydney Technical High School? Perhaps it's not your business as to what genuine "old boys" of the school wish to place as a link at the bottom of the article about their school (as long as it follows the Wikipedia rules - which this link does). Still waiting for some reasoned opposition.--Andrew Jens
 * (inserting a comment) " Perhaps it's not your business as to what genuine "old boys" of the school wish to place as a link at the bottom of the article about their school ". That's where you are going wrong, my friend. Whether something is notable or not is judged by the outside world. As far as I can see, there hasn't been a single external editor (i.e. one not from Sydney Tech) who has spoken in support of that link. --Sumple (Talk) 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sumple. Even if it's an article about your school, there is no reason to reject external scrutiny. enochlau (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's where you're going wrong (Sumple), as Tony has supported it - so there goes that 'point'. I didn't realise you could tell which high school someone went to based on their contribution to Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you apply fewer assumptions when commenting on other people's work than you have just demonstrated in this case. No one is rejecting external scrutiny - there just hasn't been any evidence yet of worthwhile scrutiny.
 * What we should do is get back to the issue. No one has yet provided a single response to the issues raised above. Any chance of that happening soon, or are you as stuck as you appear to be?--Andrew Jens


 * I think there a fundamental misunderstanding at the root of this debate. The website being discussed isn't a simple amateurish "home page" for a particular year. It is actually a very comprehensive database that describes STHS in the late 1970s and early 1980s. From the Google searches I have performed, it is by far the most detailed repository of STHS information available on the WWW at the moment. It is wikipedia's loss if the link is denied. Winterelf 05:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You've made two edits in total. One to your user page, and one to my talk page. I wonder if there are actually fewer editors supporting this than there appears to be. Ever heard of a sock puppet? enochlau (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The old 'attack the man instead of the ball' approach - interesting. Once again you have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the issues. The only thing that is revealing in this issue is your stubborness. The ten or so people now supporting the inclusion of the link now require the two people who have spoken against it to provide grounds for it's exclusion.--Andrew Jens —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.95.29.18 (talk • contribs).

As a contributor to wikipedia, particularly in providing information for the St George and Southern suburbs, can I please add my support to my schoolmates request to have our Sydney Tech High Class of 1984 website included as a link to Sydney Tech High? It really is comprehensive source of information for students, former students and people interested in the St George area. J Bar 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what the Elf said. The website in question is a priceless collection of school journals, photos, memories and HISTORY of STHS during the period 1979 - 1984. A huge amount of effort went into the site and for you to remove the link with only a cursory glance at the material smacks of high handeness and arrogance. STHS_Old_Boy 06:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto sock puppet comment above. Special:Contributions/STHS_old_boy is very revealing. I really don't see what your problem. And insulting me isn't going to help either (insults removed). enochlau (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Enochlau

A friend of mine has just become a Wikipedian. He says that you reverted his addition of the external web site address for his class of 84 at that school. Did you have a good reason for doing that?

Tony 12:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

PS The link seems to satisfy the criteria at the link you cited. Please specify which criterion you are using to justify your action. Tony 12:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Further comments should go to Talk:Sydney Technical High School. enochlau (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sydney Technical High School
I was wondering if I could ask for your opinion on this edit - some users have been trying to insert a link to the class of 1984's website. I think it is most unencyclopedic, and there has been some heated discussion on my user talk page at User_talk:Enochlau, where no-one is budging. What do you think? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments on Talk:Sydney Technical High School indicating what circumstances (all of which are absent here) would make the link worth adding to the article. Hopefully that sort of illustration will be better than simply rejecting the link. --bainer (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

STHS class of 84
I read with interest the discussion about the removal of a link to the class of '84 website from the WP article on Sydney Technical High School. First let me declare my interest as Senior Prefect 1984. The desire to remove the site seems to stem from the claim that it is "unencyclopedic", and could only have interest to those of us who attended at that time. Jens suggests that it should stay as it doesn't contravene any WP rules adn in no way affects the flow of the WP article. An apparently neutral contributor to this page felt that the onus should be on those who wish to include it to extol its virtues, but also that (despite the frayed tempers and regrettable incivilities) they currently had the stronger arguments.

Having recently studied the 1984 site, I would like to speak in favour of its re-inclusion: There is an impressive array of verifiable information about the school and its history which is in no way specific to the class of '84. In five minutes I viewed a photo of the Sir Charles Kingsford Smith memorial (which resides in the auditorium foyer), letters from two Australian Prime Ministers (Sir Robert Menzies and John Gorton), an article from former School Captain and Olympic swimmer John Konrads, a photograph of the very first teachers of the school in 1911, a list of every teacher who had ever worked at the school up until 1985 (including positions held). The accuracy of these are all verifiable from the school journals and the newletter "Tech Talk". I could see none of this information in 30 minutes of searching the official school website (which is linked to the WP article). I'm sure that there is much more that I didn't have time to look at, but I want to show that the Jens link is much more than a collection of 1984 memorabilia. My view is that the link stands out because it is such a detailed piece of work in a narrow field of interest. I'd like to be able to have this level of detail available in any search, as long as it doesn't get in the way of more general searches.

With respect to the Neutral Point Of View policy, I would think that links such as the official Sydney Tech. school website have a bigger problem here than the '84 link, as the school site has an on-going mission to promote the school, trumpeting it's highs and sweeping it's lows under the carpet. As a school teacher myself, I place great value on the impression of the students as to the quality of the school. Since no one has felt the need even to warn against propaganda from the school site, I think that it is quite inconsistent to completely remove all mention of an alternative site that has much work that is verifiable, contains many images of general historical value which are not included on the school site, and is written from a NPOV. Granted the site also contains much that would normally be of interest to a select few; I don't know whether this make the link unencyclopedic - I would like to hear the view of others, and think it reasonable that Tech High boys (I was never called a "Techie" - perhaps I should edit the WP article?) should declare their hand.

125.255.48.114 03:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is User:Andrewjens editing a post by an (allegedly) anon prefect? --Sumple (Talk) 09:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - I've completely lost my patience with you - you are a fool - as your reply demonstrates. I edited in order to fix a few minor grammatical things so that that other fool (Enoch Lau) would not nit-pick - it did not change the message (something you once again chose to ignore). Rhys is not an alledged 'prefect' - he was the senior prefect in 1984 - and a damned fine representative in that role - something a narrow-minded intellectual moron like yourself couldn't even begin to understand. The fact that you can say 'allegedly' without checking - see the sths84.aus.cc web site ('In 1984 - 84_School_Prefects.htm' page) for photographic evidence, simply proves that your opinions and edits in Wikipedia are worthless. It proves that no matter what the evidence available to you, you will hang on to your biased views. That is consistent with every other request (that has been ignored by the two of you) to support the stands that you have taken. You (and that other intellectual moron - Enoch) are a disgrace to your schools. You are both intellectual frauds and because of your reply will always be recognised as such by the entire Wikipedian community. You had the chance to behave as decent human beings, but choose not to - you are the architects of your own humiliation. You have destroyed the concept of Wikipedia for a number of people (myself included). Please don't even bother to reply - nothing but a full appology from yourself is necessary on this issue. This is a real test of your characters.--Andrew Jens
 * I'm not going to dignify that with a response. enochlau (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply because you're unable to.--Andrew Jens

I don't mind the edit or the questioning of it. Jens told me that he fixed my typos -I wa in a hurry :). I'd still like to hear if anyone thinks any of my points are valid, and I'd like to see the link reinstated.  Would it be out of order if Jens reloaded the link, even it were only so that other Wikipedians can see what all the fuss is about?  By the way Jens, it's patience, not patients :) Rhysw 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologise for questioning the edit. Rhys's comments are valid and reasonable. You know, I'm not saying the link is useless or worthless or anything. But I think the valuable information there is probably better off included in the article and referenced, as TheBainer is suggesting. --Sumple (Talk) 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rhysw, you have shown a far cooler head than your colleagues, and for that I applaud you. We'll look into incorporating some of the material from that website into the article itself, as suggested as a compromise on the article's talk page. enochlau (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try to make sure you get all the good bits. If that's too hard perhaps you could just put a link to them :) Rhysw 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User Space for Drafts vs. Article Space
Thanks for moving my draft to my user space. I intended to put it in my user space, though I imagine based on your note that I managed to misplace it. Where exactly did you find it? Thanks. Mmccalpin 11:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Mediation Cabal request regarding STHS
Yes, I know, you're probably sick of hearing about this, by now. But. I'm here to let you know that someone has requested that the Mediation Cabal attempt to calm down the situation. If you're not interested, feel free to disregard this message. If you are interested, I'll ask that you try to put any harsh feelings behind you, and remember that you and all of the editors around you are all trying to build the best Wikipedia possible; disagreements in how to do so shouldn't get in the way of our good faith towards each other. Wikipedia is not particularly accessible to newcomers, and as beneficial new users are arguably our greatest resource, we would do well to remember that they can have thin skins. Likewise, I've known firsthand how tiresome it can get, reverting vandal after vandal, and I see that you have a history protecting this article in particular.

Now, the link in question does have some issues, for and against it; I find things to sympathize with and things to fault in all parties, here. For the time being, my interest is in calming things down. I would appreciate it if you (along with any other involved editors) would agree to set aside hard feelings in the pursuit of a better Wikipedia -- our reputation on an encyclopedia depends heavily on interactions between editors. All that much better if we can all agree to work side-by-side, and do so in a public, transparent forum for all to see. Let's try to make this a positive experience for everyone.

I am of course aware that you are an administrator. I have nothing but respect for your position, your experience, and your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for the time you've taken to read my message, and any subsequent time you might put into this case.

The particular case page can be found here. As you're probably aware, the cabal has no official authority, but in this case that may work to everyone's advantage. Luna Santin 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for help
See User_talk:Sumple. Yes I know you are probably studying. --Sumple (Talk) 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess this is as good a section as any to respond: request fulfilled. I'll try to keep an eye on this, if you want me to say anything else about it just let me know. That's honestly fucked up. I say if you have to go ten years back to find dirt on somebody, it should tell you something. Luna Santin 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of "Uk microwave group" page
For some reason, checking a page I created, "Uk microwave group", it was deleted by yourself on 09 June 2006. I was suprised, but maybe there was a valid reason? If so, please could you let me know, before I create it again.

BR, Steve G4knz.
 * Uk microwave group was deleted for being an article about an unremarkable group (WP:CSD A7). For more guidance, see also Deletion of vanity articles. enochlau (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of Australia
I'm planning to re-write that article: User:Sumple/Constitution_of_Australia. Help would be most welcome. My notes would be even more welcome... --Sumple (Talk) 07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Done the articles section. comments welcome. --Sumple (Talk) 05:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Finished". I'll replace old version soon. Comments? --Sumple (Talk) 06:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC))