User talk:Enochlau

Hi! I welcome comments, suggestions and complaints.

READ THIS FIRST: Please use the + sign at the top of the page to add a new section to start a discussion. Do not simply edit this page and add it somewhere. If you are here to contest a deletion that I have made, please make sure that you have read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? before you post.

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)

Archives

I archive discussion from my user talk page, and because I simply cut and paste, you will need to check the revision history of this page if you want to quote a diff. As of 2006, each archive will contain 30 sections of discussion. Also, note that the dates below are in DD/MM/YYYY format.

• 2004: 2004 (16/01/2004-29/12/2004)
• 2005: 2005a (18/01/2005-28/11/2005), 2005b (02/12/2005-31/12/2005)
• 2006: 2006a (02/01/2006-24/01/2006), 2006b (24/01/2006-07/02/2006), 2006c (07/02/2006-20/02/2006), 2006d (20/02/2006-29/03/2006), 2006e (29/03/2006-30/04/2006), 2006f (01/05/2006-01/07/2006), 2006g (04/07/2006-12/09/2006), 2006h (14/09/2006-07/11/2006), 2006i (07/11/2006-01/12/2006), 2006j (02/12/2006-31/12/2006)
• 2007: 2007a (04/01/2007-08/03/2007), 2007b (10/03/2007-?)

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 File:1978 Brands Hatch Ferrari 312T3 Gilles Villeneuve.jpg and File:1978 British Grand Prix Brands Hatch Fittipaldi F5A Ferrari.jpg, both tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|due credit is given to Barry Boor}} 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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'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'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#Continued accuracy dispute... 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'i 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am reffering to your drawing at top right corner of Cubic equation article.
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).
$R={2E \over 3|E|A}{\sqrt {|3AC-B^{2}|}}={2E \over 3|E|A}{\sqrt {|F|}}\gtrless 0$ if $E\gtrless 0$
$S={B \over 3A}$ & ${E \over F^{2}}{\sqrt {|F|}}=H=4x^{3}\pm \ 3x$
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'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 Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th 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))

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Hello,

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

Can I trouble you to write a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram 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)