User talk:Van helsing

c:\ Archive

C:\ ├Archive 1(2006) └Archive 2(2007½)

Removal of links

I see you have removed all of the links I just added. Did you visit the link or are you just on removal autopilot? The link in question is the best guide to the federal budget I have seen and entirely relevant to the entires I placed it. I use the link in my classroom when dealing with the federal budget. I thought it would be appropriate on wikipedia, and it certainly is. On some of the entries I was updating the URL of a link that had been there for years. You removed it entirely. Do you have any authority of federal budget related information, or is this just knee-jerk reaction?

-mibs

Sofia Edit

I noticed that you edited out my external link. I believe that it is a legitimate link for the following reasons:

1. Many other places (cities and countries) have links referring them to travel guides which are useful for that area, as they contain information regarding that area which is not included in the article. Hence there should be no reason why my link to the Rough Guides website should be any different. Unlike many others, the Rough Guides website does not have extensive advertising on it, but rather, it provides a large degree of useful travel information.

2. As you are probably aware WikiTravel has a number of external links referring people to their own travel guide. In the Sofia example, I added an external link as Wikitravel has failed to do so for this location. Surely if adding external links can be done to a series of other locations such as New York by Wikitravel, it should not be restricted for less well known places?

3. The fact that there are links to Wikitravel would suggest that information regarding travel is considered to be appropriate for the Wikipedia website.

I fully understand that there is a need to prevent people from merely advertising on Wikipedia, as this is not it's purpose. However, I hope you will agree with me that in this example, it is not a matter of advertising, but of providing a highly important link that is legitimate as it has a basis in precedent.

Kind regards,

Markrushmore 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC

Hi Markrusmore, let me first tell you that WP:EL includes a lot of info for you to get a feel how wikipedia is generally dealing with external links. Secondly, when someone’s only edits are the inclusion of a link to one particular website in articles, chances are pretty big that that will trigger a remove-spam-link reaction with other editors, strengthened by a conflict of interest concern.

Going through your points:

1. Wikipedia:Spam#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another answers part of that question. And I consider the shop, by-this-book and related products fields a quite considerable amount of advertisement.

2. Wikitravel is not wikipedia, it’s a sister project, so what is done there doesn’t necessarily apply here. However, it gives you an excellent opportunity to add your link to wikitravel, and people reading wikipedia will find it via the wikitravel link.

3. No, wikitravel is the portal through which people can find that information.

Hope to have been of help. --Van helsing 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thank you very much for your response- that clears things up somewhat!

Thanks - re semiprotect mushroom

Thanks for directing me to the correct page with instructions.Heliocybe 12:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for your knowledgeable input on the subject. As you can see, we have to stay alert a bit. --Van helsing 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix volumes

i see you reverted my edit to List of Asterix volumes, i meant 44 pages from the start of the story to the end, please look in the talk pageBlacksmith2^talk 10:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right; it only applies to the storyline and isn’t (always) followed in the Asterix spin-offs. Couldn’t find a usable reference on it though, and I would be curious on why exactly 44 pages. --Van helsing 11:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in each page, the top half will end with(say page 29) 29a and the bottom with 29b, true for most, the some that dont could be worded in,could be worded into, need a reference though,Blacksmith2^talk 07:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hangon, you have put a reference in, you might want to add, 'except for, this and that',if there are any which dont,Blacksmith2^talk 08:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I don’t know which don’t. In this list for instance (Planches: 44) I see some exceptions, while the German article on Asterix also talks about "...zumeist 44 Seiten..." (mostly 44 pages), so not always. Will look further for a ref that specifically talks about the number of pages of an Asterix album. --Van helsing 11:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinacarta maps

Can you please explain why you removed all my entries to Vinacarta interactive maps (Vietnam, Nha Trang, Ho Chi Minh City and Chiang Mai)? Especially for Vietnam, these are the only interactive maps around..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ida74625 (talk • contribs)

Because I don’t think that linking to yet another Google map alternative, full of commercial & real-estate listings I can’t even switch off, is a valuable addition to the articles. " No matter what categories the user selects to be shown on the map, your busines [sic] is always there and the first to show up.".

I also notice that adding those links is pretty much the only thing you do around here, and have been removed before as spam, making me believe that it would be a good idea for you to read WP:EL&WP:COI. If you still think the links should be added to the articles, please discuss it first on the article talk pages. --Van helsing 09:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my Jokes?

I made a page called Wikipedia:Jokes. And you deleted it. Why? This is Serminigo Speaking. --Serminigo 10:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I’m all in for jokes, I don’t think it is what Wikipedia is about, even in Wikipedia namespace. It could be a nice page to read (if there were actually some jokes there), but it has little to do with an encyclopaedia. Did you notice the WP:NOT link I used in my edit summary? It’s also in the humor template you put on the page. It explains pretty well why the page probably isn’t such a good idea. Notice that other pages using the humor template have a strong relation with Wikipedia, Wikipedians or editing Wikipedia, a collection of arbitrary jokes doesn’t. --Van helsing 11:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-)

~~Bad~~Interesting timing though! :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know :-), but it puts the significance of things a bit in perspective; real live events like that or one of the quarrels on a pedia that everybody can edit. --Van helsing 09:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Germany. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn... a template... and t’s even all true. not confessing of course, I’m always right :-) --Van helsing 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, according to the grapevine, consensus works, sometimes at least. --Van helsing 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Baggio Deletions

Why did you delete my addition to the page on Roberto Baggio regarding his brief and not widely known stint as an adult film star. Although this is a somewhat shadowy part of his checkered career, I believe that it is important to be proud of the entirity of the life journeys of our heroes, as the highs and lows have led them to superstardom. With Baggio, one such low was when he was performing 'The Baggio" in order to solve his then growing financial difficulties. Let's not hide from it, but rather use it to inspire us to lift ourselves up much like Baggio has.

On a broader note, I notice you have a penchant for deleting the pages of other users based on your own judgments. Quick question - how do you apply for the position of "Supreme Chancellor of Wikipedia", as I believe I would be suited to this position as well.

Stop changing my Roberto Baggio page. It's credibility is for the admins to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfol2258 (talk • contribs)

:-) That’s brilliant. "Important to be proud... of our heroes", "The Baggio... not hide from it... inspire us" I certainly agree with that one, "Supreme Chancellor of Wikipedia"? I guess dress up like Jimbo, grow a beard, and convince everybody that the other guy is a fake.

But seriously, your reference is a primary source, we shouldn’t use those. More importantly, we should be very careful what we put in Biographies of living persons (please read it, that’s a policy). And no "it's credibility is not for the admins to decide", it’s for the all editors to decide. Consequently, don't consider Roberto Baggio to be your page. Hope to have been of help. --Van helsing 12:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On calling a spade a spade

I do not wish to enter into any discussion on this issue, however sometimes things need to be named by their real names: someone who takes pleasure in taking all the trouble and change psi into pi (serving no apparent purpose but turning a text confusing) cannot be mentally sound --- the nature of the change suggests that it must be the work of the same person, editing from different sites. I therefore do not understand your objection; at the same time, as mentioned above, I do not wish to become involved in any discussion regarding this matter which is no one's problem except that of this deranged man or woman. --BF 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, respecting your wishes. --Van helsing 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --BF 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove useful links!!!

Please, don't be an ignorant watchdog. e.g., If you remove some useful Congo related news link, which I posted, why don't you remove some others "commercial links" from that page too?! Selective criteria or what? Also, I saw that you "automatically" removed some old external links related to some South-Slavic bookstore and some South-Slavic authors. What do you really know about related topics and usefulness of that links? Did you discuss removing of that links with anyone? Now, I'll revert your changes and place the links back and if it's necessary I'll gladly be watchdog for your contribs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.172.231 (talk • contribs)

"Ignorant watchdog"? Well, I certainly didn’t expect you to be very glad about it :-), but I will try to make it up to you. I will not revert you link inclusions again, instead I will give it to the guys at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. However, I will also explain why I have a problem with your links:

The sole intention of the Gerila links is to sell books, CD’s and movies, or "promotion and distribution" in their own words.
The majority of the Gerila links are incomprehensible by our readership, non-English, and well... this is still an English wikipedia.
The inclusion of those Gerila & RamblerNews links are your sole contribution to this wikipedia, making me think you have a conflict of interest concern. Please don’t keep adding the same site to many articles (see point 5 here).
Your IP resolves to Ljubljana, Slovenia; and surprise, your bookstore has a seat there as well, strengthening the WP:COI concern.
You are even replacing links to the official English site of an author with your bookstore links. ^[1]
Your RamblerNews.com is related to Gerila.com, as their main pages link quite obvious to each other.
You keep adding your links as reference, while reference sections are for references not general external links (see WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer).

If these points don’t convince you, please see for further info WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided.

Regarding your arguments "my link is useful" & "there are other commercial links" please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#Common spammer strawmen. Hope that clarifies a bit. --Van helsing 10:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the clarifications! The whole intention of adding and reverting some of the external links (pointed especially to Gerila) was in good faith that it may be useful for a relatively small, English speaking audience interested in such "exotic" non-English topics. As about "conflict of interest", unfortunately, I'm only regular visitor and occasional Gerila customer. btw, I didn't know that Gerila has a seat in Ljubljana, Slovenia?!? I thought it is a Serbo-Croatian bookstore from Belgrade, Serbia.

To be honest (on the verge of being naïve, I must admit) if the inclusion of your El’s were really "in good faith", I’m sorry they are deleted according to wiki policy. However, adding the translations in the articles of the info in your EL’s, for our English speaking audience, would be really be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Van helsing 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

Could you please comment at Talk:Physics on your reasons for wanting to keep such a long, disorganized section on history in the main article? Thanks, Gnixon 02:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not that I want a "long" and "disorganized" history section in the article, but having a concise summarized history section, pointing to the main article would be nice. And I see you’ve already made a similar point on the physics talk page, with a reason for deleting the entire section, a week ago. Repeating that point on the physics talk page would be a bit superfluous. Of course I should have read your comments before putting the entire history section back here, sorry. You seem to be in the middle of a complete overhaul on the article, and it’s probably nicer if people give some room until you think you’ve finished the job. --Van helsing 07:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Sorry if I came off as snippy---it wasn't my intention. I kind of like the way individual sections seem to be acquiring stuff about history. Do you think that's enough? My "overhaul" is largely done, and at least one other editor has added a bunch of stuff. Please don't let me get in your way if you want to contribute! Cheers, Gnixon 16:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Since this involves ignoring last weeks ANI resolution, I'm informing the editors who were involved there. I thought you'd be interested. Miss Mondegreen talk 14:29, July 30 2007 (UTC)

EU in lists

Hi! DSuser is on a crusade to eliminate the European Union from all lists of countries, namely:

It would be of help if you could join the discussion. Thanks! —Nightstallion 14:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a central discussion at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries now. Please state your opinion; thanks! —Nightstallion 09:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template for Discrimination Project

Greetings about the Template for Discrimination Project. I'm leaving a note for you and other recent editors so the back and forth editing of the Discrimination template will cease and those interested can dialog about the need to include or not include an article. Please use Template talk:Discrimination and start a new section "Include _____ ?" so that others can also help keep the discussion constructive. thank you. Benjiboi 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) ? I’m sorry, I think you mean well, but it seems you’re a bit too quick trying to prevent a "revert war" here, most people wait with that until after one starts. Currently people are just editing the template, that’s really okay when they think they can improve it. Sometimes somebody gets reverted, it happens, which is a natural part of building a consensus. Calling for people to stop editing and discuss first would be a good initiative when things get a bit more "out of control". Apologies if I misunderstood the purpose of your message a bit. --Van helsing 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to all editors I posted the same message to several users who had just recently added or deleted articles off the template establishing a protocol inviting dialog on the discussion page if edits start to go back and forth. No worries if that has little to do with your edits. Benjiboi 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

Why did you remove the sort buttons on List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita? When you remove something that is clearly not vandalism, at least explain your decision using the Edit summary field, that way others can understand you better. Thank you. ---Majestic- 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you’re absolutely right, your edit was certainly not vandalism and I didn’t meant to imply it was, should have used an appropriate edit summary. The reason I removed the sort buttons is threefold:

Mostly sorting is only used when you have a table with multiple columns of data (like here). With List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita we have only one data column (GDP), the other columns are there for identification or information purposes. Sorting on rank or GDP creates the same order. When you’re looking for a specific country, your browser search function is a quicker option. And sorting on the year of the source data I didn’t consider very useful.
You had to implement the sortable class by creating new nested tables because of the spanned heading in the first nested tables. That created double borderlines in the heading, which aren’t that pretty.
Mixed short and long multiline headings with sort buttons like they are used in this case have a disorganized cluttered appearance.

All not too important issues but taken together I thought your edit wasn’t the improvement you were looking for. Hope that explains it. --Van helsing 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, El on ka 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dif1 and dif2

It's not vandalism, it's actual information. Do you don't understand this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.118.44 (talk • contribs)

Hé, you’re smart, I didn’t even call it vandalism, and look... you’re already denying it is! Don’t change sourced information to your own preferred values; we have enough of those editors around. --Van helsing 09:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Saw your remarks (later redacted) on my original comment to Thatcher131 re the Rex Germanus situation. The expression meant being tired of the situation and certainly wasn't intended to be taken literally. Maybe it's not as common an expression as I had thought. Sorry for any misunderstanding that my wording may have caused. Raymond Arritt 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you’re right Raymond, it is a common expression to refer to a situation. It took me unfortunately 5 minutes to realize I was being quite silly with trying to feel partly addressed by it. My apologies, and thanks for the block reduction on RG. --Van helsing 07:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

On this...[2]...how did you do that?--MONGO 15:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately no neat tricks involved other than copy pasting some tally samples, and pushing some buttons in Excel. It does show clearly what happened IMO, and I think it shouldn’t have, at least not to that extent. --Van helsing 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting my links, unless

Please stop deleting my links under Porsche>Directories, unless you are going to do the same with all others equally i.e. Porsche>Communities as well as other external links.

Both of the Porsche only websites that I submitted links to are the only Porsche “ONLY” Directories that are human edited on the net. In addition, they are “FREE” for all Porsche websites webmasters (large and small) that can be reviewed by all. The websites are not only directories but offer valuable Porsche related information and help also for free!

My apologies if this is not the place to contact you but I could not find any other way.

Cheers, T_Max —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.149.231.219 (talk) 11:39:09, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the place to contact me, it is however custom to add new comments to the bottom of the page. And you’re right, there are other inappropriate EL’s, however inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. As you seem to be the moderator: T_MaX on the forum section of s8m.net I would like to invite you to read our guideline on conflict of interest, and of course Wikipedia is not a collection of external links or Internet directories, WP:SPAM and WP:EL are also good items to read. The best thing for you to do is to first discuss the inclusion of your website on the talk pages of the relevant articles, if there is a consensus to include your link, it will be included. --Van helsing 12:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your chart

Your chart of my RfA was very interesting, and gave me some comfort, as well as some pause for reflection. I placed a thumb of it on my user page so that it doesn't get deleted as an orphan when I request a courtesy blank. Thanks. - Crockspot 19:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My chart? :-), I would certainly like to consider it to be your chart. But, glad your okay with it; I only later realized that I wasn’t sure to what extent I was following "unwritten etiquette" by analysing/highlighting someone’s RFA like that, without even contacting the nominee.

For me it’s clear that you should be an admin by now for a couple of days; if you where actually evaluated on your on-wiki activity that is. I’m increasingly confident that off-wiki activity of a user - or more specific in your case: expressing political viewpoints - shouldn’t be taken into account on on-wiki activity of a user. Regardless if they are considered positive, negative or happen to be easily traceable on the web and therefore are "known". The last one obviously not being the case for most users, and therefore can potential create some sort of unbalance.

Your "closing statement" is truly a laudable & powerful one, which make me wish I would have endorsed your RFA more strongly than my weak "I’m-not-sure-what-to-do-with-this-situation"-neutral. I hope people take a moment to read & think about it... I am. --Van helsing 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci

Great picture of the bronze horse! I have moved it from the Leonardo article, as it really isn't his work, and there are a great number of pics all demanding space. (I've been very selective). You photo now has a space and a blurb on the page mentioned above, but the whole story of the horse is very interesting and I think that it warrants a separate article showing a number of Leonardo's drawings, as well as the bronze recreation.

I've also been to the commons page and rewritten the info there in a way that starts with the fact that it is a recreation, rather than a statement that it is Leonardo's horse, and then says that it isn't really.

There are several ways of describing such objects:- copy, reproduction, recreation, restoration, forgery, fake and "in the style of". This is specifically a recreation, not a reproduction or any of the other things.

I'm a bit busy on a couple of other things, but I'll get back to the horse article. Can you dig up info as to how the bronze horse came to be made? Can you digitally crop your photo? The problem with this, and other landscape photos is that you have to make them wide in order to enlarge th central bit, which is the feature here. The present format would need to be made very large, perhaps 500pix, in order to give a feeling for how big the horse is, but if you crop it to a more squarish shape, then a 250 pix photo is going to make the horse look enormous, which is what one wants.

--Amandajm 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amanda, I’m perfectly okay with your edits. I indeed wasn’t sure how to refer to it, as Leo actually never made/finished one (at least in bronze), everything with "re-" seemed wrong; re-creation sounds fine though (instead of recreation :-) ).

I will look if I have some material on the subject, but from a technical perspective, the most astonishing thing I heard was that Leo planned to cast the whole horse at ones. Which would have been an enormous achievement considering the huge pressures of that amount of liquid bronze in the mold. Even today they would have great problems with a huge casting like that (the guys in New York did it piece by piece).

As for the landscape format of the image, I made it so wide to include the three banners on both sides of the horse, but uploading a cropped version isn’t a problem of course. --Van helsing 08:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo is beautiful and I like the ppresence of the banners. When we do a whole article on the horse, we should use the wide photo, but squarish shots are generally the best in a regular article because of the way they fit with the text.

The casting of such a big object is indeed remarkable. I suspect that Michelangelo may have been right when he accused Leonardo of not being able to cast it. I don't know how Donatello cast the Gattamelata, but he was highly experienced at casting bronze and had his own team. I believe that Verrocchio's Colleoni was cast by the Venetian canon foundry at the Arsenale. Those lads would have known what they were doing. The Arsenale could build, equip and arm a front-of-line ship in four days.

--Amandajm 01:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future GDP

In the List of countries by future GDP, we have 2006 still there. What's your opinion on removing the historical parts? Chanakyathegreat 15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the regular GDP lists carry the 2006 figures, and 2006 isn’t really what you would expect to see in an article having future in its title, I don’t see any problem in removing those columns. --Van helsing 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map.org.pl

Hi, Noticed that you removed the link to map.org.pl with the comment it's a Google maps clone. We will add airport, tourist, city and photographs the following months. Can we put the link back up again at that time? Regards, Mada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.76.187 (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to propose inclusion on the talk page first, when a consensus to include is reached, you can. In the main time, please take a look at our conflict of interest and external links guidelines to get a feel how wikipedia is generally dealing with external links, thanks. --Van helsing 11:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank for your answer. I wasn't familiar with the proces to propose an inclusion on the talk page first. Thank you for explaining. I will do that in a few weeks. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.76.187 (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mausy5043/Sandbox/Defective pixel

Thanks for proof reading the article. It's much appreciated. Looking at the history of the "dead pixel" and "stuck pixel" articles, I'm not expecting a lot of feedback from others apart from the two of us. I'll give it a week or so and then I'm going to make the changes. I'm still pondering which is the best option though (1) replacing the "dead pixel" article or (2) creating a new "defective pixel" article. Any arguments in favor or against either option, that might help to decide which way to go, would also be appreciated. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 09:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have put my thoughts on that here. --Van helsing 08:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are external links for?

I understand your comment about not wanting to divert readers away from Wikipedia, however why would then there even be a need for external links? I am the founder of the american revolutionary war site which is one of the most commonly used research tools among grammer and high schools on the internet if you review media metrics. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22theamericanrevolution.org%22&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLG_en___US230&start=10&sa=N

The content I have I personally think enhances the material presented in Wikipedia with information regarding the individual battles of this historic time in our history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtl6713 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jtl6713. First, by removing the EL’s to your website please be assured that I’m not making any negative value judgement about it. I actually think it looks like a comprehensive piece of information about the American Revolution. However, I also think that there are a couple of problems with how you were adding the amount of links to it in Wikipedia. Such as:

I fear you were promoting your website by repeatedly adding links to it, something which is not allowed.
You have an undeniable conflict of interest as being associated with the website, and display typical spamming behaviour like always adding your link to the top of an unordered list (How not to be a spammer).
To answer your question: "What are external links for?" – Instead of repeating what already has been written before, I would like to direct you to our guideline on external links (especially the first three paragraphs) and "What should be linked". Bottom line of the answer: "To be able to link to information that could not be added to the article itself for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". I don’t think that’s the case with the pages on your website. However, if you indeed would like to enhances the material presented in Wikipedia it would of course be great if you add the knowledge you have in the articles themselves instead of the EL’s to your website.

Hope that clarifies a bit why someone suddenly removes the external links to your website, which I admit is probably not a very nice thing to discover. --Van helsing 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby present you with The Working Man's Barnstar for your tireless efforts in mainting external links on Wikipedia! -- Chris B • talk 20:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Christopher. --Van helsing 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aydchery/Ayd86

Hey, is something actually coming from this sockpuppet accusation? Is there a case open at WP:SSP? Otherwise, we'll need to report each one of these guys to AIV individually. GlassCobra 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends a bit on what you would like to reach with that. Six out of seven are already blocked indef. Reporting them individually on WP:AIV doesn’t get them more blocked.

Opening a SSP case on the newest username could be useful. However, it’s painfully obvious that they are socks, not just because of the usernames, but because of the consistency in spamming the same external links on the same articles. We don’t need community input or checkuser to make that finding. And the reason that he creates new accounts each time is because the last one he used is blocked. Getting it blocked faster would lead him to create new accounts faster. How many SSP cases would we need to open each time before he gets tired? I’m not prepared to play that game with this user. As long as he doesn’t do any sophisticated damage - which he doesn’t - it’s probably sufficient to just tag as sock, revert and notify an admin ones in a while. --Van helsing 10:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja 250 picture removal

Hi Van... I'm a newb to wikipedia and trying to figure out why you removed the picture of the 2008 Ninja 250R from the Ninja 250 page. There's clearly a picture of the pre-2008 model directly from the Kawasaki web site that was submitted in the same manner. Is there another way to classify the submitted picture that would allow it to remain on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssewell (talk • contribs) 23:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssewell, sorry to have removed the image from the article, but it was needed according to our Wikipedia:Image use policy. User: Quadell deleted the image with the reason WP:CSD#I3, which boils down to: "Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", may be speedily deleted. I actually wouldn’t know a way to resubmit and allow the image because its not public domain, hasn’t a free license, and I can't think of a good fair use rationale. What other pre-2008 model image are your referring to? Because it’s quite possible that the use of that image isn’t really okay either. --Van helsing 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... it's not public domain, but it is definitely intended to be distributed for promotional/media relation purposes, as clearly defined on the kawasakimedia.com web site. I think its important to include this image on the Ninja 250 page since it accurately represents the current 2008 model of this motorcycle as the manufacturer sees it.

Images test

Copy and past this into sandbox, I am not sure how this works or how the format works in the article [[Image:Precum.JPG|300px|]] Gum-tree-chopper 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... eh, thanks. Though, in the future, if you want to give other people little gems like that to show your appreciation, it’s more usually, or actually more appropriately done around here with things called barnstars. But, thanks anyway. --Van helsing 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dattorro

Hi,

Regarding the edit of Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) at User talk:Dattorro, please note that he has recently deleted several of Dattorro's edits, as they contained my real name and home address. The edit you reverted was actually Dattorro's, however Fred deleted the edit record; his nominal edit is what you see now.

Hope this makes sense!

Best regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation, a misunderstanding of me then. --Van helsing 10:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuropeanUnity

These links might clear up some of the confusion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Complexxon and [3] (second-last paragraph). I'm probably not the best person to list it for deletion since he's convinced I have a hidden agenda and accused me of "informationterror" when I reverted his hijacking of the European Unity redirect: User_talk:64.69.127.105... Thomjakobsen 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that indeed clears things up a bit. After reading the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complexxon of a year ago, I get the impression that EuropeanUnity is just a repetition of Mr. Tychon personal thoughts and theories. Deletion discussion here. --Van helsing 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mrs./Mr. Van Helsing and Mr. Jakobsen, To my humble opinion, you are both sustaining the widespread confusion about the root cause of lacking unity in the European Union. Not only by just mixing two totally different lemmas, but also by obscuring the first Wikipedia objective of spreading knowledge worldwide in respect of the right to understand and take part without the need to have to represent oneself. Referring to my real time acts in Houston during the Enron trial to 'clear things up', makes you an ignorant watchdog and "someone who takes pleasure in taking all the trouble to change psi into pi", and cannot be mentally sound (See above -other talk / I like the expression very much). This being no encyclopedia but the Wikipedia, I suggest you concentrate on willful abuse and bad faith, like the way I research energy- and P3-related crime, just for the common cause and public greater good. If you don't understand complex matter, I suggest to visit my website in order to better understand the post-war root cause for public-private chaos and realted bad conduct... and please refrain from preventing people to take notice of this lemma of EuropeanUnity being the missing link in the European constellation of opposing and conflicting interests -or to review and /or edit it. Wikipedia is a high-quality-pedia " in a spirit of mutual respect and is not censured". So give people a chance to learn and know what they see and to 'read' what they look for, in order to know tact from fact. My views and analyses are based on facts and of firsthand source: compare key-document 'La Condition Americaine' on www.xxell.com, the global encyclopidea. The European evolutionary thinking about the energy-transition from 'Coal and Steel' into a global natural gas-economy should not be censured by yourselves. I think it is an insult to term my honest efforts as musings, clearly nonsense and repetition of thoughts as if there were no real development, sound progress or effective innovation whatsoever. I am convinced that it is people like you that prevent responsible development and sustainable globalization of coordinated understanding and cooperation. I am sure you cannot bear that responsibility and don't even want to account for, seeing the costs and damages you provoke. You are not only waisting your own energy, but other people's efforts as well. This should stop a.s.a.p.. Stephan Tychon@dr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxell (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Mr. Tychon, let me try and summarize your rather lengthy post above: "you’re unhappy about the fact that your article is being considered for deletion"; I can certainly understand you feel that way. However, regardless if I sympathise with "your views and analyses" as you say above, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and therefore not the appropriate venue to express them, your own websites or public discussion forums are. If you want to write on Wikipedia about the topics of your interest, please make sure your contributions are verifiable by including reliable sources (which excludes your own websites) and are neutral in point of view. --Van helsing 10:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All said, La Condition Americaine is an official document of a conference in Paris, 1965: N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie lecturing Gaz de France on sophisticated long-distance and high-pressure gasdistribution technology for the projected common European pipeline and exploitation/distribution industry. Hence a verifiable, reliable source which, I feel, you are trying to neutralize. The other point you make, I understand better: the document is never published for obvious political reason (which is not neutral!) and firsthand new information I provided on my website. I will scan the official document if I get back to Europe and put it whereever you suggest. I am in the US right now, until Dec. 20th. May I propose to help me rather than obscuring factual evidence which probably is new and rather disturbing for the settled interests. Thanks for your efforts, understanding and responsible action. Written & signed by Stephan Tychon@dr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be assured that I’m not trying to hinder you in any way for some obscured reasons, happy to help where I can as long as it complies to Wikipedias policies. Awaiting forthcoming verifiable reliable sources. Regards, Van helsing 21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

Sorry to bring this up when it was such a long time ago, but back in July you modified the opening definition in the article sales [4] [5], but you didn't change the citation for the definition. Do you remember where you got the definition from? I don't want to revert the definition back to what it was if you have a better citation, but right now the definition doesn't agree with the citation. Could you take a look at it? -- • • • Blue Pixel 22:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, it seems that while trying to reword/improve the definition, I only ended up in making the definition plural (as the article title). [6] Actually pretty close to one of the definitions in the cited reference: "Sales: Activities involved in selling goods or services" (American Heritage Dictionary). So I’m not so sure if the current definition is all that bad. --Van helsing 10:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the dictionary definition is a good one, but the American Dictionary says "activities involved in selling", not "activities involved in providing". I think "providing" is a rather broad term in this context, because "sales" doesn't create a product or service, it sells it (or trades it for cash). Providing something means to make it available. The sales article is about selling products and services -- finding a buyer and selling to him. It's about trade, not production. When I saw the word "providing" I envisioned a handout of some sort, like welfare -- or a sales force that also manufactures what it sells. Would you agree to changing the article definition to agree with the definition in American Heritage? -- • • • Blue Pixel 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think you’re right, I’ll change it. --Van helsing 09:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![7] -- • • • Blue Pixel 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byrdcliffe edit

I just caught up with the deletion of my contribution to the Byrdcliffe Colony entry and was hoping that the decision could be revisited. I thought readers would benefit from knowing where the Byrdcliffe archive is located and so included a note about it in the text, saying where it was, and an external link to the online index of the archive. The archive is a unique resource and should benefit readers of the Byrdcliffe Wikipedia entry if they are interested in further information or research. The link was to an official site, a site “with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article,” to quote Wikipedia’s guidelines. Plus, it contains “neutral and accurate material.” It is “informative, factual, etc.” and the link is functional and will remain so. Perhaps simply note the external link without anything in the text? Thank you. Ermcki (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have restored the EL. It may be useful for you to know that adding multiple external links to the same website in a short period of time sometimes raises a SPAM removal flag. To avoid people removing your EL’s (under the impression they are inappropriate as “spammed”) , a particular descriptive edit summary or talk page entry explaining its reasons for inclusion good help people to take extra care when evaluating its usefulness. --Van helsing 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Van, thanks so much for your support,
--A. B. ^(talk) 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rex Germanus

I dunno... I was ambivalent but decided to put the template, and leave the user talk page intact (He added the same message to both pages). If he is considered banned, he is not really entitled to a user page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --El on ka 03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit here was indeed far less justified&helpful then I anticipated at that moment. I however still do consider it to be a very bad idea for Phil to try and hide his questionable comments, after people already have responded to them, about a valuable editor who has left because of questionable comments without consequence for the maker in the first place.

I’m actually wondering if it wouldn’t have been a better idea for FloNight (and ArbCom) to take a firmer stance against the "input and demeanour" of Phil instead of a general "you-are-all-bad-kids & promise-me-not-to-do-it-again"-protection. Who knows maybe ...there would be less hurt feelings, ...increased chances that Bishonen will actually return, ...RxS could finish his conversation, ...it could be more in line with the community’s wishes, ...increasing the general sense and feel that there exists balance and fairness on wikipedia in what is, and is not acceptable, by who. The sum of those benefits could - again, who knows - outweigh the "damage" prevented by the protection.--Van helsing (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Charlie

Ooh, good one ([8]). I was slapdash. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Van helsing (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External map service links

Hello. You have been identified as having added or removed direct external map service links in articles[9]. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service links about which should be done, and some more opinions would be good to find community consensus. --Para (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Sarrus linkage anim.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:Sarrus linkage anim.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:Sarrus linkage anim.gif|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t mind having it deleted, I even placed a duplicate template on it half a year ago myself, but Woody has a point. --Van helsing (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Etym. Dict.

Could you tell me why you deleted my link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.103.182 (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(these links)

Well, because I thought you are spamming your website on Wikipedia, not something that is encouraged (WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:SPAM). However, not all of the 24 etymology EL’s you have added are to your own website. Still, Etymology#External links is too big, maybe you could create some articles on the individual language etymologies you’re knowledgeable about and add your EL’s there. On another note, I also would like to suggest that instead of using various dynamic Hungarian IP’s (81.182.xxx.xxx etc.), you could explore the benefits of creating an account. --Van helsing (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broom and dustpan

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This is for your tireless effort of cleaning up after countless conflict of interest editors and for the tact with which you handle the inevitable whining. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jon. --Van helsing (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you revert so easily?

Dear Van helsing, I'm trying to put some link (Yungas Road) and you are deleting again and again. Please, see that this page is not a online shop or some place to sell anything. My contributions are very humble but I trhink are valuable because provide more information on the subject. Most important of all this is the fact that the links that are accepted by you right now are actually a travel agency puting a link and using wikipedia a a SHOP. Please se the gravitybolivia link in the yungas road article. I would like you to put again my link, and I propose to delete the gravitybolivia link for clearly being an online shop.

Greetings from Ecuador. Bruno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.12.30.22 (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Van helsing, and he will speak for himself. I have observed for over a year the repeated attempt to promote the jordibusque site. User:Panex and a whole string of anonymous editors only appear to be interested in edits that evolve around this one website. The website is formatted in a way that promotes the work of the owner. This style of editing raises the red flag of conflict of interest and in the long run is not helpful for building an encyclopedia. The best way to submit these photos, as I have said in the past, is to upload the photos (sans the copyright notice of course) to the commons under one of the free licenses. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(about: [10] & [11])

To add a bit on what Jon already said:

The site unfortunately does try to sell hardcopies of the photos through a ‘’Can I buy a Print’’-link on top of most of its pages, witch leads to a quite astonishing pricelist.
I don’t agree with the more information argument provided by the EL’s, as in beyond what the Wikipedia article already provides. The textual information consists mostly of 1 to 3 sentences describing the photo, not the article subject.
Yes, often there are other commercial links and they shouldn’t be there as well. In fact the one you point out is already being taken care of by somebody else. Still, inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the photos are often very good, but that’s not the criteria for including it as an EL in an article (see: WP:EL#What should be linked & WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided). --Van helsing (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had not seen the Can I buy a print section when I said my comment. Sorry for that. But it is not in most of the pages, in fact it is only in the Stories section, not in the pages I linked. I think is a pitty to loose this pictures I like very much photography in general and for me the images gives information. But if the majority of people doesn´t want to put this kind of links I have to accept it. So good bye and thanks for your answer.

Whoops!

Thanks for the fix...that was kind of embarassing.... --jonny-m t 07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s okay, I thought it was a bit weird to have WP:ANI in category:Semi-protected templates :-) . --Van helsing (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just noticed from looking through your contributions (I was trying to figure out where you saw the huge honkin' template) that you do a fair bit of recent changes patrol. Can I interest you in rollback? --jonny-m t 07:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. --Van helsing (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Give it a try at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback--just remember to use it solely for obvious vandalism (or your own mass botched edits; I've had to do that twice now) and you'll be fine. Thanks again, and good luck! --jonny-m t 08:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jonny. --Van helsing (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Dear Van,

I have altered with another suitable image. Thanks.Setoristar (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s indeed a far more relevant image; but are you sure the displayed children - and their parents - want the picture on a world wide accessible Internet page? --Van helsing (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are posing a very difficult question. But if I were a kid, I will like to see me on wikipedia.Setoristar (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but that should perhaps not be our criteria for inclusion. As the image is on commons (I failed to find a similar write-up on WP:en) this guideline: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is probably appropriate reading material. --Van helsing (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information.

Is the Image meets the criteria - "...as well as public places on private land (e.g., a large private party or concert where many people are openly taking photographs)."

I can confirm, the function is a birthday party of a child.

Could you please further clear what do you mean by, "...is on commons (I failed to find a similar write-up on WP:en)..."Setoristar (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading the guideline; though I personally don’t think a kid’s birthday party qualifies as "a large private party where many people are openly taking photographs" as in a concert, e.g. I don’t think this image was taken in a public place in that sense.

On you question... sorry about the confusion, it should have read:

"As the image is on Wikipedia Commons this guideline on Commons: Photographs of identifiable people (I failed to find a similar write-up on the English Wikipedia) is probably appropriate reading material."

WP:Commons and the English language Wikipedia are two different identities with different policies.

The image in question was uploaded by User: Kokuvil on commons which I assumed to be the same person as you here on the English Wikipedia. If in your assessment - after reading the guideline - you feel you can still use the image on the Paris article, then that should be okay with me. --Van helsing (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree with your statement, "...I personally don’t think a kid’s birthday party qualifies as "a large private party where many people are openly taking photographs" as in a concert..."

You are correct, I used the name "Kokuvil" to download the same image on the Commons.

Your expression, "...If in your assessment - after reading the guideline - you feel you can still use the image on the Paris article, then that should be okay with me" makes me to positively consider and keep the image on the Paris article.

But your careful caution makes me to reconsider another option whether to delete the Image from the Commons and upload on English Language Wikipedia.

Thanks.Setoristar (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

wikiarabia is changing what the reference says, and putting in his own opinion instead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeydi (talk • contribs) 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright problems vs. WP:CSD#G12

Hello - I'm the admin who usually works WP:CP, and today I deleted three articles you listed there on April 18.

I wanted to let you know that blatant copyright infringements, regardless of the age of the article or number of edits in its history, can and should be tagged with {{db-copyvio}}, for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12 if:

the editor does not assert permission or ownership and
the article has no clean versions in their history

Jimbo changed G12 about 18 months ago to remove the 7-day tagged limit for blatant infringements unless they assert permission somewhere, like on the article's talk page or an edit summary or some other place. If they claim they own that site or that they have permission from the site's owner, that's when they get the 7 days listed at WP:CP.

It's okay if you list articles like this at WP:CP, but it's a lot less work for you to tag it with {{db-copyvio}}, plus it gets deleted faster. We're trying hard to crack down on copyright infringement and G12 is definitely a good tool in our toolbox. Thanks very much for catching these three - good work! Thanks! - KrakatoaKatie 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Katie. --Van helsing (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!

That was MY spammer! :-P Heh. Keep up the good work. ;-) Regards, Húsönd 12:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yours? Mind WP:OWN :-) --Van helsing (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fidodido1951

My goodness I was surprised at the quickness of your response, But you missed the line stating that The Stored energy of the Flywheel( Energy Storage!!!) was infact used to power the system during subsequent operation.

Load Orientation Devices

Electrically driven Flywheels have been used as Load Orientation Devices. The early development of this concept was carried in the mid 1990's, and suspended load orientation was demonstrated with control accuracies of better than 0.1 Degrees was obtained.

The stored energy of these devices Flywheel, enabled the system to operate with energy drawn down from the flywheel. Suspended Video Camera control is, along with steering control of immersed vessel. Can I re-insert??? Thanks for your attention Fidodido1951 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Fidodido1951[reply]

Well, 30 minutes is generally not considered that quick around here. But, I’m not entirely sure what you want to tell here, I would certainly appreciate you expend on the subject a bit. But, from the mention of video camera control and "accuracies better than 0.1 degrees" I get the feeling you are more looking for the article on gyroscopes. Though, anyway, please attribute your future additions to reliable published sources, thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ronin (band)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ronin (band), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronin (band). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts. --Van helsing (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An animated .gif suggestion... (Silbermann's heliostat)

Hi, I have been very impressed by your Universal joint animation and wondered if you would not be interested by another device (I am completely unable to imagine working ;-) : the Silbermann Heliostat (1843). It is a device which follows the sun and reflects the rays in a (fixed) given direction. There is a (short: 5') vidéo on this link I found on the fr:héliostat French page. Thanks! -- fr;UserTalk xofc 80.200.180.205 (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Xofc, thanks for the suggestion. The Silbermann Heliostat looks indeed like an interesting device. I watched the video, which gave quite a good impression on how the mechanics work. I will keep your idea in mind, though I must admit that I didn’t create animations for quite a while now, and would need some free time on my hands... something I seldom seem to have enough of lately. Thanks again. --Van helsing (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my revert on the Myanmar page. I saw the media para removed and reverted. Should have checked the rest of the changes carefully as well. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 15:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I understand your edit summary better as well. Glad you’re okay with the fix. --Van helsing (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go

You keep reverting edits to stop a vulgar comment on james bond talk page.

Why can it stay? It breaks the rules.

Please let me remove it or you can change the rules to allow anything in discussion. --81.1.104.146 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What rule do you think it breaks? I certainly understand that people – and I include myself in there – aren’t very appreciative of comments like that, but it doesn’t merit complete removal like you did, certainly not including someone else’s reply on it. Next to deleting peoples comments on talk pages, could you please as well not blank complete articles and if you had the same IP by then, article sections, thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seismic Risk

Nice user page!

I noticed that you had removed a link on the page about Seismic Risk. I would be interested to know why. I saw that it had been deleted by someone inserting a commercial reference, then checked it and it appeared to be relevant to the topic, as well as being publicly funded, so I re-inserted it. I have just checked through the external link guidelines and I can't see a clear reason to exclude it, although I am not particularly bothered either way.

Incidentally, since you appear to be a regular editor, what is the procedure on making edits to articles? Is it normal to make an entry on the discussion page to explain edits that are made to articles? --Muchado (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Oikos link after I noticed – via the article Ground-structure interaction – that user Oikos-team (talk · contribs) had spammed the website around on several articles. All instances were apparently removed, and the user received a conflict of interest reminder and a WP:SPAM warning on his talk page. When I found your inclusion of the link, I removed it as well. However, in retrospect, the episode was more then a year ago, you weren’t spamming the link, it seems on topic and I assume you don’t have a conflict of interest, so I’ll reinstate the link.

With respect to your second question, you don’t have to explain every little edit you make to an article on the associated talk page, a small edit summary about your edit is however good practice. When in doubt however (controversial issues or big changes to the article), its considered better to take it to the talk page first. See Wikipedia:How to edit a page for some more info. --Van helsing (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save the frogs

Hi, It appears you deleted the following link from the Amphibian page:

[http://www.savethefrogs.com/ SAVE THE FROGS! Nonprofit Organization]

Your deletion of this important web site is not in the best interest of amphibian conservation, nor is it beneficial to biodiversity, human or ecological health. If you have a valid reason for deleting the link, please contact me at [email redacted] and otherwise I would appreciate your putting a bit more thought into what type of links belong on Amphibian pages. Thanks. Rubendesh (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start to repeat thinks that are already written down quite well, could you please read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI and your own talk page to get an idea on what articles and external links are generally considered appropriate? The talk page guideline has also some useful info. For instance, talk pages are the main means of communication between editors, not email; and new topics are usually started at the bottom of a talk page.

Though I think the subject of your external link is a noble one, it would be better to add content about the subject matter to articles, instead of trying to advertise the link. --Van helsing (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palma de Mallorca

Thanks for changing the link in the info box for Palma. The funny thing is that I actually noticed it myself after I'd hit submit and was in the middle of changing it a second time. Since I have dial up, you got to it first. I've been there before, and it's a great island. Kman543210 (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s okay; and it sure is. --Van helsing (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International organization vs IGO

Hello,

Regarding the international org / intergovernmental org issue (and your reversal), the talk on IO seemed to indicate an long standing awareness that IGO is preferable. The UN now uses the specific language, as well as the US State Department: http://www.un.org/members/intergovorg.shtml www.state.gov/s/l/c3452.htm Also: http://www.aallnet.org/sis/fcilsis/Syllabi/kuehl/Introduction%20to%20Intergovernmental%20Organizations%20and%20Non-Governmental.ppt

It would seem that IGO as opposed to the vague International Organization would be step ahead. Your comments are welcome. Another need in the article is to standardize on "organization" with a z. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcontrib (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with your intend, but not so much with the copy-paste method you used ([12],[13]). A intergovernmental organization and a international nongovernmental organization are both international organizations, but the three entities are not the same thing and probably deserve their own separate articles on them. The international organization article was mostly written in the context of being about IGO’s, so I would agree with you to move - not copy-paste in order to preserve the page edit history - international organization to intergovernmental organization, and recreate a small article at IO. --Van helsing (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)#Informal mediation

Hi - you're invited to join in a discussion on the inclusion of the EU in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) article. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Stour

Hi there. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. This is quite clear that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Papa Stour has been Scottish for quite some time, and "Bonxie" is the commonly used word both in Shetland and the northern mainland where it is found. It is linked, so there is no danger of confusion. As far as I can see Wikipedia:International English is a redirect page, not a concept. Regards, Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit in doubt here, but you’re probably right. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if quite some (international) readers will read the word "Bonxie" with a big question mark in their mind. Helpful? Maybe... they can click and read the article. --Van helsing (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the link does the trick. It's a balance between avoiding confusion and celebrating the mosaic of international variety. On this occasion I think we can err on the side of the latter. I hope you will continue to bring your skills to Scottish island articles. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at United States discussions page[[14]]. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalismplease do not continue this your will have the risk of being blocked. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --66.17.49.165 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? It rather appears to me that the thread was archived, not deleted. At any rate, you may be better off actually talking to Van helsing, rather than using cut-and-dried templates that don't really seem to apply... – Luna Santin (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the United States discussions was erased from the achieve by Van Helsing, that is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. Please don't remove the discussions page, that is content people should be able to read and discuss the issues more.--69.239.171.174 (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a misunderstanding. The thread was not deleted but archived by MiszaBot (Cut - paste) on June 2nd. Its okay to revive an archived discussion if you want to comment further on the topic, though a link to the archived section will often suffice. However, it didn’t look like commenting further on the topic was the intention of 24.205.234.250. By the way, I of course did not erase anything from an archive. --Van helsing (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for removing that silly message on my user page. I didn't do it fearing I'd break the 3R rule. S3000 ☎ 10:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. I don’t think WP:3RR would have been triggered, the warning was spurious, wrongly placed on your user page, already present on your talk page and you can delete warnings when read. --Van helsing (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Conclusion

The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP (nominal) has come to a conclusion with the following result:

The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).
The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.
No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.
Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.
Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not ~~normally~~ considered to be countries are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."
The List retains the current name.
A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.

Unless there are significant disagreements within the next 48 hours I will be closing the Mediation. Any questions, please get in touch. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain pen

Sorry to bother you, but I saw you removed two external link on this page, and I'd like to understand better why. The first one is the reference to http://www.fountainpennetwork.com that's a very useful source of information, with photos, reviews and so on about fountain pen (provided by the forum users). The site can be consulted also without the (free) registration, so I don't think you can appply the Sites requiring registration rule.

It contains a lot of useful information, much more of what you can find in other cited sites that have also strong commercial interests like http://www.richardink.com/ and http://www.stylophilesonline.com/. To be clear, my question is about where you put the threshold for your judgement, because in my opinion there is no reason for the above to be there if http://www.fountainpennetwork.com is removed. So I advocate for the reinclusion of http://www.fountainpennetwork.com or the removal of the other ones.

The second external link (http://www.fountainpen.it) concern me directly, so I do not advocate anything about it, but I'd like to understand better the reasons for which it cannot be linked as an external sources. The link was put by me because I thinked that it is on the topic and contains valid informations, like many other that where there when I put the link. Obiouvsly I'm biased, but I still hope that the quality is enough you do not consider this a link spamming, it was not.

In any case I apologize for my poor english and the little knoweledge of wikipedia rules that should have caused troubles (I'm not sure I undestood well how to do with this talk page...).

S.piccardi (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and sorry for responding so late to it, was away for a while. You are referring to this edit of mine. I removed the fountainpennetwork.com external link (not a reference by the way) because it is a discussion forum, which is normally among the links to be avoided (see WP:ELNO point 10).

I removed the fountainpen.it link because it’s a wiki (see WP:ELNO point 12), it’s also written in Italian, which reduces its usefulness for the readership on an English language wikipedia somewhat. As you are kind enough to reveal your interest in this particular link, I would like to encourage you to add the knowledge you have on the article subject to the article itself, instead of the external link. Alternatively, you could discuss the inclusion of the link on the article talk page.

In my opinion you are absolutely right that more EL’s are eligible for removal from the article, I however don’t think it’s the right reason to re-include the above two links again (see this). My "treshold" for inclusion is largely based on what is described in WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:COI, which basically explain the past agreed upon consensus in these situations.

As a side note, your English is fine, and your use of the talk page is exactly what it is intended to be used for. Hope to have answered your question adequately. --Van helsing (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Oryanw's userboxes

From what I can tell, only one of the subpages is transcluded to more than one page, so I restored that subpage. The other subpages I simply copied the contents of and substituted them directly into the user page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively done, thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]