User talk:Van helsing/Archive 3

c:\ Archive

C:\ ├Archive 1(2006) ├Archive 2(2007¹/₂) ├Archive 3(2007²/₂) └Archive 4(2008¹/₂)]]

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! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

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]