User talk:Van helsing/Archive 4

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 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, --Elonka 03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Big Charlie
Ooh, good one. I was slapdash. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) --Van helsing (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

External map service links
Hello. You have been identified as having added or removed direct external map service links in articles. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External 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)

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  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  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)


 * 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)

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)
 * (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 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)

Broom and dustpan

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

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)


 * 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)


 * (about: & )
 * 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 & WP:EL). --Van helsing (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Sure, why not. --Van helsing (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Give it a try at 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)
 * Thanks Jonny. --Van helsing (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Paris
Dear Van,

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


 * 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)
 * 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: Photographs of identifiable people is probably appropriate reading material. --Van helsing (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

Copyright problems vs. WP:CSD
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 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! - Krakatoa  Katie  02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info Katie. --Van helsing (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey!!
That was MY spammer! :-P Heh. Keep up the good work. ;-) Regards, Hús  ö  nd  12:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yours? Mind WP:OWN :-) --Van helsing (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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
 * 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)

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

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 héliostat French page. Thanks! -- fr;UserTalk xofc 80.200.180.205 (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * I removed the Oikos link after I noticed – via the article Ground-structure interaction – that user 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 How to edit a page for some more info. --Van helsing (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Save the frogs
Hi, It appears you deleted the following link from the Amphibian page: 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)
 * SAVE THE FROGS! Nonprofit Organization


 * 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)

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

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)
 * I actually agree with your intend, but not so much with the copy-paste method you used . 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)

Talk:List of countries by GDP %28nominal%29
Hi - you're invited to join in a discussion on the inclusion of the EU in the List of countries by GDP %28nominal%29 article. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Papa Stour
Hi there. Please see Manual of Style. 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 International English is a redirect page, not a concept. Regards, Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  08:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 MacDuiTalk /  Walk  12:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments[]. 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. --66.17.49.165 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP %28nominal%29 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)