User talk:EnOreg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, EnOreg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Err, I've been here for a year. But thanks. --EnOreg (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Access dates in references[edit]

On Template_talk:Cite_news#Accessdate I started a discussion about the hidden accessdate parameter. At that time I was unaware of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_25#Retrieval_dates_for_online_versions_of_old_printed_sources.2C_again. I for one am a opponent of the hidden accessdate parameter, as I stated there. Somebody else is a clear proponent. Although it would seem you are an proponent also, in deference to your knowledge of this subject, I would like to invite you and state your opinion there. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the pointer. I'll have a look. Cheers, --EnOreg (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am glad you have come back to this discussion at Template_talk:Cite_news#Accessdate. Meanwhile, however, Debresser's removal of the relevant text at Template:Cite_news still stands, and he has said to me on his talk page that he "will not view favorably any attempt to press your point [i.e. by undoing his edit] other then by reaching consensus first". It seems to me that you and others reached the consensus last year, and he is the one who needs to demonstrate consensus for his latest edit. Would you support restoring the text at Template:Cite_news/doc which until last night said "accessdate: Full date when item was accessed, if it was found on line. This is not needed when the article is itself clearly dated. In such a case, accessdate, if used at all, should be commented out so as not to be visible to the ordinary reader." (which is the essence of the compromise reached at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_25#Retrieval_dates_for_online_versions_of_old_printed_sources.2C_again)? If you, as a more senior Wikipedian than I, were to feel able make that change back yourself, it would carry more weight. Thanks, Alarics (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I regret that currently I'm too busy in RL to get involved in a long policy discussion, sorry. I don't see any arguments in this new discussion so far that haven't been made in the archived one. Without new arguments the discussion will just go round in circles. I very much appreciate your effort to remind people of what's been discussed without entering into an edit war. Keep up the good work! --EnOreg (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Immigrants in South Africa[edit]

I see you removed my link to the South African Police Service Annual Report on the basis that it is unqualified. [1]

I strongly feel this one should stay. It is the police. They do have a lot of first hand experience and they certainly (should) have access to a lot of collaborating statistics, such as the number of immigrants deported. And the size of the discrepancy is so large (7-15% of the total population), that you don't need to employ statistical methods. -- Nic Roets (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nic, IMHO giving three references for a single point is more than enough. The current references name their sources while the new link doesn't which makes it unverifiable. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. Numbers that are not based on proper statistics are not encyclopedic, even if they come from the police. I believe the current three links make the stronger case. --EnOreg (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Your Edit On Flowchart[edit]

I have made flow charts with Microsoft Paint, not fancy but they are flow charts. Just thought I should enlighten you. I have NOT undone your edit. Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 23:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sumsum for the anecdote. :-) It is beyond me why anyone would use a drawing tool that is not vector-oriented to draw flowcharts. That approach appears to have only downsides, no advantages. Anyway, I guess this point is not worth any more energy. Thanks again for your comment. --EnOreg (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I did just because I only had one option.=) Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


Just to late you know that Zuckerhut is the usual German word for sugarloaf. Whilst the components of the word can be broken down and translated literally as "sugar hat" the correct translation is sugarloaf. mit freundlichen Grüßen, Der Nikolaus 08:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenes Lair (talkcontribs)

Hi Eugenes, your points are certainly valid. I don't think the article contradicts them in any way. The quotation marks make it perfectly clear that "sugar hat" is only a literal translation and the text explains that it is really a loaf of sugar. Greetings, --EnOreg (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


Hello, for your information Ptbotgourou is a BOT, so he couldn't respond you. For the issue your point to it (the bot), yhe unique solution is to found on which wiki the mistake exist : all languages on which we have fr:Correspondance (transports) en:Transit pass,de:Zeitkarte. Then to modify all wiki yourself to have a correct situation. After you hope that nobody do the error again. Sorry, it's the unique solution I know --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 11:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(Answered at the original location of this discussion. --EnOreg (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
I think it's easier that you and me learn japanese that try to add a "shield" on an interwiki bot. The bot couldn't understood that he is making a mistake. One solution could be checlking the history (of each article) if this link have been remove earlier but interwiki bot would overload the cache server with this type of frequent request also with a very few gain. A lot of false positive could be found. The earlier removing could be a vandalism or a renaming... so it's very hard to developp a shield. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 08:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
(Answered at the original location of this discussion. --EnOreg (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Curing capitalitis[edit]

Hi, saw your downcasing in Multiprotocol_Label_Switching; I find telecom and certain other fields (business and management is a prolific offender) seem to want noun group that's vaguely technical, and more, to be upcased. It's like a cancer. However, I've been told that things ending in Protocol, Model, Framework, etc, might be left upcased, as they can be considered to be proper nouns ... hmmm. Tony (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for your support. :-) Interesting rule of thumb. I followed it in so far as I did not downcase any of the protocols. For the OSI model I used the spelling of its WP article. The layers should be fine in lower case as they are not proper names by any definition I know. Thanks again, --EnOreg (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I could use some help: Talk:OSI_model#Capitalized_layers --EnOreg (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a look there, but will have to reveal that I was pointed there by you (canvassing policy, etc). But I think it's safe for me to to point you to an issue I've raised more generally about the sorry state of the MoS/Computing guidelines. Perhaps you can offer advice when changes are proposed there (I presume you have some sort of expertise in the field!). Tony (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for chiming in! I have to say, I admire how you dealt with the ensuing ad-hominem attacks. I'll have to think about my next post there for a while.
As for the MoS, I see capitalization as a more general question that is not particular to computing, even if abuse is rife in this field. Either way, I'll certainly be happy to offer my opinion if that helps. --EnOreg (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's becoming more of an issue. We've had Halley's C/comet and there's a fuss going on at Chief Mechanical Engineer, which the UK railways people are insisting remain upcased against all logic and, indeed, WP:TITLE, which says article titles should as far as possible be consistent with their siblings. There's a professional and organisational motivation for upcasing everything in sight that most external styleguides don't like, and nor does WP's house style. However, I've downcased a lot of articles, especially in business, management, and accounting, with not a glimmer of objection from anyone. They know they shouldn't be indulging themselves in this oneupmanship! Tony (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The technology and telecom people take the hardest line on this. As well as ... bizarrely, the British railways wikiproject people who want their Chief Engineering Officer. And NASA engineers and North American dog-breeders are another corner of caps infestation that meets resistance when intelligent formatting is raised. Other areas tend to be fine with WP's long-standing and stylish (= easy to read) house rules. Fear not, reform usually takes a few waves of pushing on a wiki before success comes. Tony (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. ;-) --EnOreg (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, linking years[edit]

It is different with future years, the link to the article on 2030 is very relevant in the context and is obstructing people who may wish to visit that article. I believe it should be linked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(copied to original thread and answered there) --EnOreg (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dating undated comments[edit]

Hi! I was editing the article 'Some Kind of Wonderful' and noticed a minor issue I wanted to bring to your attention. When signing and dating others' unsigned comments, as here, it is often helpful to indicate the time in UTC (as here). I bring it up only because there appears to be a four-hour difference between UTC and the time zone you've selected; it's an extremely minor point, so I'm just offering this comment as something to keep in the back of one's mind. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out and fixing it there! Cheers, --EnOreg (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hyphenating "rent seeking"[edit]

For whatever it's worth, you may wish to see my comment on the talk page.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! I answered there. --EnOreg (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixing "OSI" damage[edit]

Thanks for the notice, hope we can keep the damage under control. Noticed also this somewhat questionable edit that might be related. Please keep the faith and hope you can continue to contribute despite the unwarranted personal attack. W Nowicki (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Yes, I also have my doubts about that other edit and just didn't want to open a parallel discussion, yet. But it needs to be addressed. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Template OSIstack[edit]

Hi, I made a comment in Template talk:OSIstack that refers to a change you made some time ago. Would appreciate your insight. Nicholsr (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Constrained optimization[edit]

Maybe I'm missing something. Did my edit (with AutoEd) change the visible layout of anything? – S. Rich (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi S. Rich, thanks for bringing this up here. The revert was about the source formatting, i.e., only relevant to the editor but invisible to the user. Some editors, including myself, prefer a blank line after each section title to make the article structure visible. Therefore, please don't remove these lines without consensus. Thanks and regards, --EnOreg (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Come on. "Some editors" want a blank line, therefore other editors should seek consensus? They should mention it on the talk page, or post an RfC, or what? Rather, keep in mind that WP is a project that anyone can edit and WP:EDITCONSENSUS says "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." If my edit had changed something visible, then there might be need for discussion. But we do not involve ourselves with discussion on trivial, non-consequential matters as to whether some editors like a space after each section heading or not. I don't mind at all that you reverted, but asking for consensus before such edits it not part of the program. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I find this approach too confrontational. Look, if you find this matter trivial then simply leave the formatting alone rather than risk irritating other editors. If the source is consistently formatted then there is really no reason to touch it. --EnOreg (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)