User talk:Enochlau/Archive 2007b

Removing RFU notices
If you decide to keep an image that was tagged RFU, can you add an explanation? Otherwise it just looks like vandalism (which is quite common with these notices). I reverted one of your changes before I realized you were an admin. Also, the images will just get tagged again at some point if you don't add Rk. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Julie McCullough
Hi. Why was the image deleted from the article? Nightscream 19:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I see. What was the criteria for which it was deleted?  Nightscream 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
 * That image wasn't Fair Use? Why, who owned the copyright on it? Nightscream 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

brian d foy
How did you arrive at the decision to move? This appears to have been a straight head count, with a few SPAs thrown in. According to WP:CON, judging consensus involves weighing up the arguments, and the arguments in this case were "lowercase it, he prefers it that way" vs. "don't lowercase it, contradicts all our naming and rendering rules". Last time I checked, we don't render article titles any particular way "because the subject said so". Chris cheese whine 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
 * As was mentioned on that page, the MoS on "identity" does not extend to the specific rendering of a name (embodied in among other things WP:MOSTM), but rather refers to names and words used by the subject to describe themselves. The capitalisation was also irrelevant, since for the purposes of WP:NCON "Brian D Foy" and "brian d foy" are identical.  This is the part which causes the gretaest difficulty for me in understanding your close, since it appears (to me, at least) that you either did a head count or fell for the red herrings.  Feel free to disagree.  Chris cheese whine 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I would put those three down to inconsistency. In particular, fIREHOSE needs its caps flipped.  Chris cheese whine 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

AfD discussion deletion
What happened to the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Six private universities in South Korea? I thought they weren't supposed to be deleted. The deletion log says "db-author", but I, the nominator, don't remember requesting speedy deletion, and in any case I think the number of comments by other editors would have precluded a speedy deletion. YooChung 00:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Solon Band Re-instatement
Solon Band is a relevant article. Under ensemble (which it is), it needs to meet one requirenment, but it meets more then one. The first is that it needs to have one notable member, whether he was famous before, during, or after being in the ensemble, and Michael Cartellone was part of the Solon Band and later joined Lynyrd Skynyrd as their drummer. The second requirenment that it meets is to have 30 mins. or more coverage on national t.v., and they did appear on national t.v. on Fox for a 30 min. performance segment. They have also been featured on the local abc Channel (WEWS) many times, for performance. So it does meet the criteria for an ensemble. So I ask you please to put it back.

Thank you for your time, The64
 * Sure, I'll undelete it and take it to WP:PROD. enochlau (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A laugh!
This should make you laugh out loud! Kewpid 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

List of Chinese Americans
thanks for the note. I cbb commenting. I just don't want crazy shit appearing on it. I don't actually care if the whole list gets deleted. On an unrelated note, lol @ page posted above. --Sumple (Talk) 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Randyquaidvespa.jpg deletion randyquaidheadshot
Can you advise me as to why you deleted both of these photos off of the Randy Quaid page? Boston24 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

My understanding was that the copyright information was fixed to where it was acceptable language and gave the proper copyright information. Was I mistaken? The photos you deleted were photos that were given to me and permission was granted for worldwide usage by the photographers of the photos. I'm not sure how that violates copyright laws? They are in effect free images which I was told was acceptable for Wikipedia. Please let me know where I'm going wrong. Boston24 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They were incorrectly tagged. You may upload them if you tag them with an appropriate license tag. enochlau (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

F1 images
I think your deletion of and, both tagged as  earlier today may have been in error. Although there was a question over whether the licensing attributed to them was correctly attributed (was it limited to use only in Wikipedia or not), I am advised that the license itself is valid. I don't suggest they need undeleting, as there is still a question on whether an unacceptable limitation was placed on their use or not by wording used outside the licensing template, so I may as well sort that out before uploading them again. Cheers. 4u1e 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * The license used is listed at Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses. The caveat used in the license template is 'provided due credit is given to Barry Boor', and does not mention Wikipedia. I accept that there is a problem because the words used to thank Mr Boor unfortunately mention Wikipedia and can be read as a restriction on the images' use, although Mr Boor didn't in fact make any such restriction in granting his permission. That's my fault and I know I need to sort out a clearer arrangement with him. I was just confused as to why the images were speedy deleted when they were listed at Possibly_unfree_images and were being discussed there when you deleted them. 4u1e 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
 * It's OK, I need to sort something out with Barry anyway, so leave them undeleted. It's just that as I understand it the only actual problem was that someone observed that the caveat used in the actual license (which is OK) seemed to be contradicted by the words used to give Barry his 'due credit', which is an issue which I feel should be dealt with more slowly than a blatant copyright violation. At the point at which they were deleted I was still looking at Barry's e-mail to me to confirm whether I had mis-represented what he said - as it turned out he made no reference to limiting the use of the images to Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't want to waste any more of your time on this. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will sort out the permissions with the copyright owner and then (hopefully) upload again under clearer licensing. Cheers. 4u1e 10:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Fair-use
I partially reverted your changes to Image:WWEDX2006.jpg. The existence of a freely licensed alternative is not relevant. Please see WP:FU. The only important question is whether one could be created and, for a living person or a subject which still exists, the assumption is that it could. If you dispute this, though, please do not remove the no rationale tag from an image but instead, follow the instructions outlined to register a dispute. Thanks! --Yamla 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You said: "The template lists as one of the criteria, "in the absence of a free alternative", which contradicts what you claim. I understand that in general, for living people, it is generally presumed that a free alternative can be created, but I handled this one differently because of the text of the template. I removed the tag, because I am cleaning out Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 26 February 2007, not disputing the RFU claim."


 * Good point, but WP:FU trumps that. That is, we may be using the image in accord with that particular license but may still be violating another policy such as WP:FU and the image needs to adhere to all policies.  Consider also that the wording in WP:FU was tightened up after the wording on the license.  If I did not make it clear, there is no doubt that you are acting in good faith, I'm just trying to clear up what I think is a minor misunderstanding.  --Yamla 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

deletion of my pictures
the deletion log says you deleted one or more of the pictures on my site... why did you do that?
 * Read criteria #1 under policy on WP:FU. enochlau (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You honkies are crazy
Lol. Something in the water... drifting in from the mainland, no doubt. --Sumple (Talk) 03:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Solon Band
Please help me. This page was deleted after you re-instated it by Jaranda for an obscure reason that doesn't fit. The64 03:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page, Until you source it with reliable sources, which other wikipedia pages isn't or the band student-run website which isn't a secondary source, it's a no. Take it to deletion review in which it will likely be closed as deletion endorsed unless you provide those sources. Very rarely a high school marshing band meets WP:MUSIC, as for Cartellone most musicians started out their careers in high school marshing bands, but does that make those marshing bands notable, no. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the deletion was warranted. Take it to WP:DRV if you disagree. enochlau (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion
Hi there. I would just like to query something that happened a little while ago when this image was deleted. I note that it is you who appear to have closed off the debate. I am slightly miffed about this for two reasons. Firstly, the image was from a press pack and was intended for wide distribution. I felt it to be a useful, though not essential, addition to the article. Secondly, I note a double standard in operation. That is to say that I could cite dozens of biography articles which, in addition to a main photograph, include a fair use image from some TV show or other. Why was my image singled out for deletion? Laurence Boyce 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because it was tagged for deletion. And yes, policy has shifted on Wikipedia, which means that fair use pictures of living people can no longer be deleted. Sure, there are such pictures out there, but there's only so many we can delete at once. enochlau (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Zsanett Égerházi
Hi,

I noticed that you removed the image I had uploaded for the Zsanett Égerházi article. It had previously been marked by Chowbok as a replaceable fair use image. However, I responded in the file comments that it's irreplaceable. Furthermore, since it is a thumbnail-size publicity headshot, I believe it is fair use in either case.

I checked the deletion logs, but I couldn't find any response to my comment, nor did I see an explanation of why you deleted it. Why did you choose to do so?

Thanks.
 * Due to changes in fair use policy, it looks like all fair use photographs of living people are being progressively deleted, because it is always possible to recreate a picture of a person still living. enochlau (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, in future, please mention something about that in the comments when deleting. Also, I think you need to revise your statement above: "policy has shifted on Wikipedia, which means that fair use pictures of living people can no longer be deleted." I think you meant, "Can no longer be added." It would also be nice if Wikipedia's policy documents could be updated to address this change. I read them extensively before uploading the image, and I never recall seeing anything about the new policy. Vocaro 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, project pages aren't exactly clear cut about it, but I believe it is founded by reading WP:FU. See Policy #1: "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." and Counterexample #8.

Question about image removal
Aloha... you recently deleted the image for a couple of things including Neil Cavuto: log

Shouldn't you have removed the image coding in the article? Now there is just a nasty redlink (Which I'm going to go remove now). You can reply here, I'll keep an eye out. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I usually do, but sometimes I miss a few. Sorry about that. enochlau (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali&#39;i 14:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal or appeal to help
Please see the end of ˝Continued accuracy dispute˝ at discussion panel where my intention was to present the roots of 2 cubics: 8X3 + 36X2 + (108 ± 432)X/2 – (2133 ± 1269)/2 = (2X+3)3 ± 3×62(2X+3) – (2079 ± 621)/2 = 0 as a cut of y = x3 (basic parabola along with construction of the points) and 4y = 15.75 +3x & 4y = 4 – 3x (Red & Green straight lines). My proposal is either to redesign your drawing on this way (giving me somehow a credit) or to add on upper cubics at mentioned place taking in both cases drawing ratios as follows: 6cm = 1 for x & 1cm(≈ 0.4˝) = 1 for X 4cm = 1 for y & Y (shifted right for 1.5 = B/3A).

Regards Mladen Stambuk Wikipedia editing skilless, therefore preffering Skype and E-mail: mladen2@hs-hkb.ba

89.111.252.191 11:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Mladen Stambuk
 * I have no idea what you are talking about unfortunately. Which image(s) are you referring to? enochlau (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe he's referring to Talk:Cubic equation... but who knows if you'll be able to understand that either. On a precursory look, I didn't even want to try to bother. --Ali&#39;i 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Any Cubic AX3 + BX2 + CX = 0 can be presenret in depressed form as: (3AX + B)3 – 3(3AC – B2)(3AX + B) = 9ABC – 2B3 – 27A2D = 2E = (3A)3(X + S)3 – 9AF(X + S) The constants R, S and H expressed by means of A, B, E & F are introduced due to their geometrical meaning (weights are: 3 for E, 2 for F, 1 for X, B, R & S, 0 for A, H & x). $$ R={2E\over 3|E|A} \sqrt{|3AC-B^2|}={2E\over 3|E|A} \sqrt{|F|}\gtrless0$$ if $$E\gtrless0$$ $$S={B\over 3A}$$ & $${E\over F^2} \sqrt{|F|}=H=4x^3 \pm\ 3x$$ where x = (X + S)/R. The idea is to present semi-graphically real root(s) of all Cubics as a cut of basic parabola and straight line(s) that is enabled introducing Normalized (instead depressed) Cubic 4x3 ± 3x = H = E/|F|1,5 being splitted into 4y = H ± 3x and y = x3. It means that basic parabola should be drawn alowing straight lines 4y = ± 3x to be shifted up and down for H/4 & Y-axis right for S > 0 (left if S < 0) along with changing X-drawing Ratio to R. Your aestetic choice of cubic was $$Y=\frac{X^3}{4}+\frac{3X^2}{4}-\frac{3X}{2}-2=\frac{1}{4}(X+4)(X+1)(X-2)=0$$ that can be transformed into: 4Y = (X+1)3 – 3×3(X+1) = 0 = H = E, F = 3 & S = 1 This cubic is not only depressed but also due to H = 0 elapsed one i.e. marginal case that may not be chosen to represent all of cubics. Drawing Ratio R = 2×sqrt(3) and S = 1 is a shift of Y-axis 3y = 4x cuts y = x3 → straight line 4Y = 9(X + 1) cuts parabola 4Y = (X + 1)3 at: x0 = 0 → X0 = R×x0 – S = 2×sqrt(3)/2×0 – 1 = – 1 x1 = sqrt(3)/2 → X1 = R×x1 – S = 2×sqrt(3)×sqrt(3)/2 – 1 = 2 x2 = – sqrt(3) → X2 = R×x2 – S = – 2×sqrt(3)×sqrt(3)/2 – 1 = – 4 Two characteristic (instead marginal) examples are proposed at the top where either + or – should be chosen as follows: 1. If plus there are one real X0 = 3 and two conjugate roots due to F < 0 (H = 15.75/4) 2. If minus there are three real roots due to F > 0 & H ≤ 1: X0 = 4.5 and X1 = – 4.5 = X2 meaning that straight line is tangent of parabola due to H = 1 i.e. E2 = F3. 89.111.251.100 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am reffering to your drawing at top right corner of Cubic equation article.


 * I've done a lot of maths at uni and I still don't have a clue what are you are saying. If you want to change the image to something else because of educational reasons, then go ahead and redraw it. I can't help you change it because I don't understand what you are trying to tell me. enochlau (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I added on few formulae hoping it to be understood finally. Unfortunately I am not skilled to redraw the image, therefore all of that should be considered as an appeal to help. I strongly suggest Ali'i to sacrifice a minute or two bothering. Regards Mladen 89.111.250.232 09:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask other editors on that page to help you out. I can't help you, sorry. enochlau (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sunday Age needs to talk to australian wikipedians about April Fools
Michelle Griffin here from Sunday Age newspaper, could Enoch lau please call me (phone number in email) about how wikipedia will navigate international hoax day?

Forbidden City
Hey, I've finished rewriting Forbidden City and probably will leave it for a while. But could you look it over and give me some criticism? I don't think I handled the picture placements very well.... --Sumple (Talk) 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremey Penaloza Article
You beat me to it, I was just tagging it for deletion when you did it, fast work sir! (also, can you have a look at this that is tagged Brandon cross Scratch that, it has already been deleted! fast admins today... --Speed Air Man 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for deleting my subpage User:Imaglang/AMA electmsg! Have a nice day. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

why did you delete the Filipino Communication Theories right away> Is there a mechanism to indicate that it is still "work in process". my classmates were in the process of contributing to it but learned that it has been deleted.

Jimbo is coming to Sydney
Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Meetup/Sydney for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on project page. enochlau (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Requests_for_arbitration
Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed regarding the conduct of Certified.Gangsta.

Can I trouble you to write a statement at Requests_for_arbitration recounting your interactions with him at Wang Wei (pilot) and your impressions of his conduct as an editor?

Thanks.

LionheartX 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please block a user
Hi. I was wondering if you could block this user 222.123.197.32 if it hasn't already been done. Thank you --Steinninn 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some warnings are in order, but not a block. enochlau (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

uncontroversial image deletion
Hi Enoch, could you please delete Image:Traffic congestion straw man.jpg, nothing links to it and it has been superseded by Image:Traffic congestion straw man.svg. Thankyou, Grumpyyoungman01 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. enochlau (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I have another one here for deletion which nothing links to. It's only chewing up server space. Image:Bible argument map (draft only).jpg. Grumpyyoungman01 08:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

Error in image
An anonymous user at Talk:Taylor's theorem raised an apparently valid complaint against your image Image:Taylorspolynomialex.png. Could you please fix it. JRSpriggs 08:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it. JRSpriggs 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Huang Hongyun
Hi. You got rid of an article recently created, Huang Hongyun. I had asserted and provided evidence of the subject's notability on the talk page. What was I missing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borednow (talk • contribs) 14:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I disagreed with your assessment of the subject's notability. If you disagree, go to WP:DRV. enochlau (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that you disagreed. I'd just like to know why. Otherwise, doing a DRV could be kind of pointless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borednow (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

deletions
i've tagged about 60 articles just like the one you deleted about the bollywood girl within the last 2 minutes, yet many are still there, can you look through my previous contributions and start nailing some of them please CINEGroup 12:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do as much as I can already. enochlau (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions
May I ask what the tool that you use to assist with deletions is. It appears that it could save a significant amount of time. Oh, and good work on those images too. Harryboyles 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

My user page
Why did you edit my user page? 86.12.249.63 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)