User talk:Enochlau

Hi! I welcome comments, suggestions and complaints.

Please use the + sign at the top of the page to add a new section. Do not simply edit this page and add it to the end. I will usually reply on your user talk page, unless you indicate otherwise. However, I will never reply via email, unless I know you personally.

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

FPC Nomination- Sydney Opera House

Hello, I'd just like to let you know that I nominated your image of the Sydney Opera House as a featured picture candidate. I hope you don't mind as I found the image quite lovely. :) Andromeda321 01:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it didn't make the cut and I'm kind of disappointed as I still think it was a good picture! Either way, thank you very much for sharing it. Andromeda321 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System

I can see from the talk pages that there was some effort to get rid of WP:DSS, which is a clear copyvio, and that you were involved in it to some extent. However, the main page and all its subpages still remain. Now, there is a curious "copyright notice" on the the main page (Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System) which proclaims that pre-1923 of the Dewey Decimal System are public domain, and a link to the current copyright holder which proclaims that a licence is required. However, the page itself says it is based on the 2003 system, not a pre-1923 system. There is a legal precedent cited about recipes in a cookbook, which, my law degree tells me, sounds like it is being cited out of desperation rather than clear legal argument. Further, it seems odd to me that the page talks about pre-1923 being copyright-free when it admits to actually using the 2003 system. I am tempted to try to get this deleted as a copyvio but I want to find out why the last effort to do so failed - I can find no trace of why it failed on the talk pages, just some messages agreeing that it should be deleted! Can you remember what happened that meant this got kept? TheGrappler 17:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I've tracked it down now - an admin removed the speedy tag deciding it wasn't a speedy. In the case of copyvios there are two choices - speedy delete on copyvio grounds (if it is a blatant copyvio of content that is normally charged for - actually, that's exactly what this is, so I'm surprised it didn't get speedied!) or taking it WP:copyright problems. Since it didn't get speedied, I'll take the latter route. We could use the 1923 version, but somebody would have to go away and look the 1923 version up - it probably isn't documented on the web, unfortunately, so they'd also have to reproduce the full documentation of it here. The big problem with that would be that the only reason for implementing Dewey on Wikipedia is that people are more used to Dewey than Wikipedia's category system. Using an old Dewey might just confuse people even more! (And Dewey is confusing enough as it is, e.g. putting "sport" under "art"... it's only familiarity with it that makes it usable, and many people are familiar with it, but possibly not the 1923 version!)Also, there would be no way of classifying things like space flight and World War II... so actually it would probably be unworkable anyway. Meh. Off to the copyvio page it goes... TheGrappler 00:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, since the 1923 version can't cope with the Internet (it has since been sorted under "0", which originally was kept for "miscellaneous") the 1923 system wouldn't have been able to index its own web page :-) TheGrappler 00:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Most of the languages are fairly inactive unfortunately (though I have been doing quite a lot of translation from Norwegian wiki, and am drafting an article about German punctuation). It seems the creator of the Dewey classification of Wikipedia was one of the very earliest members of the project - his "Welcome!" message came from Larry Sanger himself! And it also seems he hasn't been on Wikipedia for 3 years which explains why his Dewey system linked to articles rather than the rather newer categories. That page and its subpages have been essentially neglected for years, by the looks of it. I guess once categories were implemented, trying to classify Wikipedia like that lost a lot of point.

P.S. You seem to be quite a keen photographer! I've made a suggestion that I think would be a Very Good Thing at Wikipedia talk:Requested pictures#Subcategorizing Category:Wikipedia requested photographs - I am quite suspicious that the vast majority of non-urgent photo requests aren't listed on WP:RP at all (and many articles that could do with a photo aren't marked as such), those that are often become "lost", people are unlikely to check WP:RP on the off-chance of seeing something in their area come up etc etc - I think that subcategories of picture requests (especially local ones e.g. Category:Requested pictures in Sydney) may be the way to go, especially if they can be linked with WikiProjects and regional categories of Wikipedians. Any thoughts? Some feedback on that page would be nice, since its talk page seems to be a bit of a ghost town - I can see that somebody else suggested the idea in the past but it looks like the idea died of old age rather than anyone actually disagreeing with it! TheGrappler 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on talk page. enochlau (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I replied on that talk page - it would still be possible to use the template if we adapted it to use a parameter, which would be cool. And thanks a lot for the village pump suggestion - good idea :) TheGrappler 02:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Section titlez

Thanks for taking necessary response and stopped the vandal. :-) — Insta ntnood 08:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania volunteer meeting?

Hi enochlau,

If you're interested in Wikimania, come to the volunteer meeting tomorrow night: m:Wikimania_2006/Planning#Volunteer_meeting

Cheers, +sj + 20:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Time warp baseball

Hi, you recently speedily deleted Time warp baseball as a non notable club. The author was asking about it on IRC, and I was considering undeleting it. He didn't add any assertions of notability to the article, which made it look pretty nn. Apparently it's the most popular online league for Out of the Park Baseball, which is apparently the best selling 2d baseball simulator. In my opinion, that information makes it atleast notable to not be speedily deleted. What's your opinion? If I undeleted it, I would add that information to the article, and make some other changes, to make it nicer. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 17:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, I didn't think about reliable sources. If it's as notable as those claims show, though, it shouldn't be excessively hard to find them. My proposed changes include removing the unencyclopedic stuff, for the record. I'll look into it some more. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 01:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Hofmekler

Howdy! I was about to speedy delete Ori Hofmekler when I noticed that you had previously removed a {{db-bio}} tag. It's clearly a WP:CSD A1 situation, your thoughts? I'd like to hear from you first to avoid potential wheeling. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user page. enochlau (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hamish Ross

Why did you delete Hamish Ross. That was a really nasty thing to do :(--84.67.148.195 23:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exoskeletor

Sorry about before. i though why not to make a biography of me and some usefull freeware programs that i have make. My question is,, how a person can know that it worth to be here?

Archives