User talk:Van helsing/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, and

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any
  articles, such as: copyrighted
  texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

from Wikipedian: --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, well done. I was starting to think people did not want to vandalize my page. Lapinmies 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have many quite a few edits, why not make an account? --Dunlevyd 10:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got myself an account to circumvent the anon IP limitations being: ---Van helsing 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. --212.102.225.147 15:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to thank you for the subtle <grin> reality check. I've removed the article from my Watch list. This editor seems beyond my powers of persuasion (not to mention

No im doing them by hand, but it doesnt take so long now Ive learnt where all the countries are - after a lot of practice!. but it would be good to have a program like that though - its funny my computer about ten years ago came with a free atlas program that was able to do that but I havent seen anything since that could do it. Regards, -- Astrokey44|talk 10:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not how much people do speak Irish, but how much that do not have English as a native language (whether it is native together with Irish or not doesn't matter). I agree that 30,000 might be a poor guess, but it is not a POV towards the 60,000-100,000 Irish speakers. --Donar Reiskoffer 08:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donar, I agree with you. The 80.000 came from the Irish language article which stated: “80,000 people has been quoted as the number of people in the Gaeltacht who use the language as their first, daily language.” Those people will probably say: English is my second language. Which doesn’t make it necessarily true of course, maybe only closer to it, but still a guess.

Don't get me wrong by the way, with my opinion-comment in my edit I was not reffering to your edit (POV towards...), only to the factual-template that includes: "this article may simply be opinions" which I think is not true because the article is a simple copy from the source (made it in my IP time). Together with the two other templates (not verified & incomplete) I thought there where enough “warnings” and the extra factual-template was maybe just a bit over the top, that’s all. Happy editing. --Van helsing 11:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The remark "though it does not do full justice to the alternative approach of Gibbs" is a literal translation from what is in Casimir's biography of Ehrenfest. The review appears to be about Boltzmann's work & that of his school; it is not a comprehensive review of the entire field of thermodynamics, probably wasn't meant to be in the first place. The qualifications you edited out come from Casimir's biography as well. JdH 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaaaa! Okay thanks for the info. So portions of the Paul Ehrenfest article are actually from the (translated) Casimir biography about Ehrenfest. My first impulse was to undo my edits. I wouldn’t dare to remove something if the article was supposed the be that translation, but it isn’t, so I think I can leave it like it is. Thanks again, interesting reading material. --Van helsing 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with a link to the International review of physical chemistry? It is probably the most important review journal in the field. It is not spam as you called it. I've added it to

What I considered "wrong" here is that it is not a link to the International review of physical chemistry, but a link to a publisher trying to sell it. A lot of those links to this publisher where added by

spam. If I have made the wrong judgment here, please tell me, and I will revert my deletion of those external links. --Van helsing 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The link is to the publishers page on the journal. That is always the only link to a journal. Usually such pages allow access to tables of contents and that is the case here with links to the right of that page. In

List of scientific journals in chemistry and reconsider linking to that at that point. I guess I'm agreeing with you but not with your reasons. Let us leave it off for now. --Bduke 14:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Reason of my action was mostly triggered by the sudden mass linking to books of the same publisher by the same editor. Such external links don’t provide extra information (what I expect a bit from an external link), but an opportunity to buy it, which can certainly be okay of course.

Though, I’m happy with your

List of scientific journals in chemistry

linking solution, this:

...probably the most important review journal in the field... versus ...On reflection it probably is not (notable enough)

confused me a bit. --Van helsing 14:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor and Francis are mainly a publisher of academic journals. I myself have published in Molecular Physics, published by them, and my daughter used to work for them in London. Note that these links do provide extra information. They link through to tables of contents for many volumes (not sure if all are included for this particular case, but the contents for Mol. Phys. are extensive). That is more than an opportunity to buy it. It is better to link to the journal home page rather than the tables of contents page to put the journal in context. It is probably the most important review journal but there are other contenders like Annual Reviews of Physical Chemistry from the RSC in UK. My question was whether a link to any review journal was notable enough to be included on the Physical Chemistry Page. This is a very general article for a broad area. We have to be sparing with external links or we get far too many. --Bduke 23:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your contributions and seeing the ones you reverted, I have added the link back in for the articles and Taylor and Francis journals I know something about. I consider them to be entirely appropriate for these more specific articles. I leave the others for other people to think about. --Bduke 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad that someone who knows more about it then I do, had a look at it and corrected where appropriate. --Van helsing 07:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you are reverting an article like Woman and there are other editors who have made other edits to the article, reverting to a previous version will undo those edits as well, regardless of whether they are good edits or not. I don't know if you intended to do this -- I am guessing you did not, especially as that edit you made removed a completely noncontroversial interwiki link -- if you did, you need to explain in detail why you reverted to such a previous version. In any case I have restored the section which I interpret that you wish to keep.

You must be careful in future when you wish to revert articles.

Sorry Dysprosia, your are so totally right. For some weird reason I thought I was just reverting the deletion of section: Women's rights, which wasn’t the last edit at all. Thanks for spotting that and change it to what I actually wanted to do. --Van helsing 09:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the ARTICLE's page history, but I wanted to go directly to edit the discussion. So there was no way to do so. The only thing I could do was click on discussion, then edit this page. Well, if you think about there should be separate buttons for talk page history and edit this page, & same goes with article, or user page, you know? That way, if people ever need to switch from article history to talk page edit, or article edit to talk page history, that would be possible.100110100 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article and talk page as the two main sister pages, and the tabs to the right of those (edit, history,…) merely as tools you can apply to those pages. In my opinion, a logic setup, but indeed you have to click twice to go from article history to talk edit (which I don’t mind). Maybe Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups is something for you to look at. --Van helsing 06:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered your overhaul of

Thanks, though it now looks a bit like a bigger version of Template:Lists of countries. I’m not sure if the - what I see as - overlapping navigational purposes of some lists, templates and categories are an okay thing, or something to avoid. --Van helsing 08:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I should have taken a look at the wikipedia documentation. My comment should have been made either in private (an email to Ulritz and possibly Rex) or not at all. Now that I know of the rule I will of course apply it:-).--Caranorn 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like what you did by making the Gallery into a table. It is a good improvement. Thanks much. _ mbeychok 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. --Van helsing 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted 'world map' external links i note you did so in bulk. sorry you didn't have a chance to indicate your reasons for each deletion and sorry if inclusion of worldmapserver was considered spam. it certainly isn't a google mash. Middleforkmaps 06:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the personal attack in your edit summary here? [1] The reversion I did was routine, as I regularly scan large numbers of pages that show up at

Yep, you’re probably right, and I shouldn’t have made that edit summary. Guess I wasn’t very pleased about your previous edit summary and you probably caught me on a bad day. Actually... I’m still not pleased... going to make some suggestions:

• Please, do not call somebody a vandal (rvv) when there is no clear indication that someone added vandalism.
• Please bother to look at an article when you’ve decided to spend all weekend adding {{uncat}} tag’s like this. Who knows, maybe you can come up with an appropriate category instead of defacing an article with a template, or avoid badly chosen edit summaries. By the way, if you find adding these {{uncat}} tag’s useful, but are not planning on thinking of a good category for an article, maybe you could ask a Bot to do it for you.
• It seems you have a misconception of what a personal attack actually is. People apparently see it different than you, like
  WP:NPA
  or ask you to read it, I think you are smart enough to come to that conclusion yourself.
• Do you think it is a good idea to spam peoples talk pages, even repeatedly to the same user, with condescending policy messages to diffuse a situation? Like the one you wrote above and these: [2] and again [3], [4] and again [5], [6], [7], [8] in 4 days time. Please don’t do that if you want to create an atmosphere where people are willing to work with you. Especially not when you started to insult someone first, and are annoyed you get one back.
• If you’re planning to go for adminship again, taking above points and the ones mentioned at your RFA seriously, will probably give you a better chance then last time.

A longer answer than you may have expected, but look at it from a positive side: I actually responded to your post instead of deleting it as trolling.--Van helsing 14:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. --Elonka 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for reverting a series of images that controversially had their forced size removed. Some images, like the one in the

Thanks, I don’t know why this is recommended. Even today’s featured article (Belgrade) is full of forced thumbnail sizes. Not that that is the decisive factor, I miss the logic reasoning behind the recommendation. --Van helsing 15:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take this discussion to the relevant guideline page? It'd be a waste of everyone's time to have editors following each other adding and removing fixed sizes. -Will Beback · † · 19:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? The moment I find that necessary, I will. However, we now have only one user slightly misguided by a suggestion (with exceptions) as something that has to be done, but is not done in practise. The screaming for guideline/policy changes didn’t arrive yet. --Van helsing 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, quite a few editors remove unnecessary fixed image sizes. -Will Beback · † · 23:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don’t recall seeing that often. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to prevent it; I can imagine there are a lot of cases where a simple non-forced thumb is plainly appropriate. But I don’t think people should go around removing all “px” from thumbs, regardless of the image, but because it’s a “rule”. And if we are going to interpret it as a rule, these (please blow holes in it) are the reasons why I don’t think it’s a good one. --Van helsing 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot resolve this matter here beacuse it's a community-wide issue. I suggest that since it is part of Wikipedia:Image use policy, that Wikipedia talk:Image use policy would be the appropriate place for you to make your case. -Will Beback · † · 00:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry Will, you probably mean well, but I don’t see a "case", "matter to be resolved" or "something to be settled" yet. If you know about more en masse fixed image size removals, please let me know, but I only saw one user... today... following a recommendation as policy. Recommending something in a policy is not wrong, implementing it as a rule is. Again, I will follow up on your suggestion when it becomes a clear issue. --Van helsing 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making a case - at least here: User:Van helsing/zanddoos. If editors are working at cross-purposes then it's an issue. I can assure you, though I'm not going to scour the logs, that there are editors who remove fixed sizes when they see them. I just saw another one. [9]. -Will Beback · † · 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is a policy. It is part of Wikipedia:Image use policy. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy if you don't agree. Mike Dillon 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed

WP:IMAGES) as it didn't make sense. See my rational here. El_C 07:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Your rationale is not sufficient to change the policy. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Forced image size. Mike Dillon 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for updating my Top 20 GDP per capita graph. The new graph looks much more appealing and easier to read. Happy editing, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 17:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you find it an improvement. --Van helsing 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To help my own decision-making, I would be interested to know your reasons for opposing Flcelloguy? —Centrx→talk • 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, just back from a trip, and all alone there on the oppose side now. That indeed needs some clarification, and probably a serious review of why I voted like that. Bit of a knee-jerk reaction of mine I think. But let me explain.

I never encountered Flcelloguy, so one of the thinks to do to get an impression of someone is having a look at the userpage. The first thing I see is a shiny national flag with "Proud to be American!" underneath it. There is of course nothing wrong with being proud to be American, Canadian, Romanian, Polish, German, Korean, English or whatever. However, having struggled somewhat with users having strong nationalistic feelings, and displaying that explicitly on their userpage; my first hunch was, we don’t need an arbitrator like that, and voted accordingly. To me it looks like a "Beware... I have a nationalistic POV"-statement towards the international community. Not really the first thing you expect someone to tell when introducing him- or herself on a userpage.

As an aside, I always found it quite odd to be proud of the place where you were randomly dropped on the globe when you were born, and especially when you’re screaming it of the roofs as if it matters. Ponders the question: did you choose the place beforehand or did you contribute something significant that had a positive impact on the place? In other words: is it your achievement?

However, after reviewing my vote I think I broke the so much quoted assume thingy, by doing it way too much, in the wrong direction, from a quick glance over someone’s userpage. Actually checking Flcelloguy contributions would have been a far better idea.

Conclusion: I hope you do your decision-making better than I did. --Van helsing 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the big flag gave me pause as well. —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for the creation of a clear animation of the swashplate Lumos3 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Van helsing 18:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got time in the future perhaps you could look at the Stirling engine article which could do with some animations. There are several external ones linked but since these are under copyright they cannot be put on the page. Lumos3 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will have a look at the article. Any thoughts on which kind of Stirling? --Van helsing 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend , Hi,

1. .Its really nice to see that there are excellent vigilant people out here to help maintain the authenticity of the material posted on this site .ONCE AGAIN ACCEPT MY HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS...!
2. .Now , coming to the point , I request you Sir/Madame , Please restore the contents posted by me since this I HAVE DONE IN GOOD FAITH AND RELYING ON RELIABLE SOURCES.I KNOW YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME THAT WE MUST NOT SPOIL OTHER'S HARD WORK .
3. .I am sure of your understanding my feelings as a sincere and devoted fellow WIKIan who wish to make available information under the Sun ABSOLUTELY FREE....!
4. . Information is notable , non-trivial and verifiable .So , please , don't delete the contents being posted by me .

Thank you Sir/Madame With warm regards , Coolcoolcoolest 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coolcoolcoolest,

I’m sorry, but for now I can not reinstate your edits which I removed, because I don’t think they were an improvement to the articles. However, I do believe you add them with the best intentions; it is just that we have certain guidelines (and even policy) which tell how an article should look like and what they should contain. Examples are:

• Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines
  (where you can find them)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Notability

I would like to ask you to read a bit of above links and think about how to improve your previous edits. Thanks. --Van helsing 16:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A message to Van Helsing: Please do not remove entries on the R.A.C.E. engine without reasonable grounds. Your edit removed a stub that other people were interested in expanding, as well as a link to the Atkinson cycle which is an important advantage in some rotary engine designs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowilo (talk • contribs)

Though the engine may be fantastic (we don’t know, it doesn’t exist yet), promoting or mentioning the idea on every engine or car related article is not something you should do. Having a paragraph of the hypothetical engine is appropriate on Atkinson cycle, but not in Hydrogen vehicle, Exhaust gas recirculation, Pistonless rotary engine etc. Please limit yourself there to a "see also" or external link, and even then it would be better to wait till the results are known of "The rotary engine technologies are currently undergoing independent computer simulated appraisals and assessments" as it says in the link you provided, before claiming engine properties.

Note that a Google search for "Rotary Atkinson Cycle Engine" returns nothing except your entries in wikipedia and copies of them by wiki clones. So claims of notability are also too far fetched [10].

Since you already found the "The five pillars of Wikipedia" [11] I would like to encourage you to also read them, and if you’re at it, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest could be useful to. I’m also very curious where I removed a stub, didn’t know

I could do that. --Van helsing 09:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in disagreement with most of your statements apart from;

1. The engine does exist. Look at the photos of the first prototype on the web page link. 2. The engine and results are therefore not hypothetical. 3. The stub that you removed related to an entry that scot alias Fluzwup was interested in extending on rotary Atkinson cycle technology. 4. Your research should not be limited to what you can find on the Google search engine.

I just felt that removing the entry was not particularly constructive, without discussing an alternative first.Sowilo 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had a chance to research the other notable engines listed. As far as I can see the R.A.C.E is just as advanced as most of the other engines mentioned. Using your own criteria, ether the R.A.C.E. should be reinstated or the other engines in a similar state of development should be removed. This shows a lack of consistency on your part. I would favour the first option and let others decide if the R.A.C.E. should remain. Sowilo 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right,

Rotary Atkinson cycle engine (←now a red link)? --Van helsing 09:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that quite a few people are interested in producing an article on the rotary Atkinson cycle engine. It is now being studied by a prominent engine development university and other environment and alternative fuel related organisations. The results are expected in the spring of 2007. This would then be a good time for a full article.Sowilo 17:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why you chopped the

Sorry, I thought my edit summary, the watermark tag and the image use policy where clear enough. The last one says the following:

"…user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the

image description page

."

Your image contributions are appreciated, but please don’t watermark/credit them in the image itself. I assume you will understand that I will have to re-revert you here as well. --Van helsing 14:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is

BBODO 01:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Removing the copyright notice from the picture is an improvement. Though I don’t fully understand why you are still insisting on having text descriptions in the pictures themselves here and here. That’s what image description pages and captions are for. --Van helsing 11:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to the voice rise time. Best regards and Happy New Year! Daniele.tampieri 16:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, 's part of the job. Happy 2007 to you to. --Van helsing 12:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

Thanks for the note; will have to study that a bit. Developing after all? :) --Van helsing 13:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am learning some Javascript.--Patrick 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]