User talk:Van helsing/Archive 2

c:\ Archive

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

67.165.216.16/Primetime

67.165.216.16 is hard-banned user Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you see any edits by that IP or by users who appear to be him please contact me or another admin. All of his contributions should be reverted on sight. -Will Beback · † · 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

I saw your discussion with User talk:Patrick about Help:Sorting. Check out my note on Help talk:Sorting about a possible improvement on the {{Dts}}. — MrDolomite | Talk 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, think I would make it an alternative (Dts2 ?) instead of a replacement. --Van helsing 09:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I see there has been some more work done on {{Dts}} so maybe we can take the best of both. — MrDolomite | Talk 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick implemented your version and fixed the numeric month input, works great now. Thanks for the improvement. --Van helsing 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award to you for Baldness and Politeness in the Best Interests of Our Wikipedia--Ludvikus 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm quite sure, but for what?

It seems you've done something good on my User Page regarding Categorizations, but what?

Can you, very, very briefly, brief me on it?

Best regards, --Ludvikus 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I changed the two category links from markup that included your userpage to the categories, to markup that only link to the categories (without inclusion). Done by adding a colon before the word Category (explained here). --Van helsing 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Jacobi

Thanks for fixing the refs. I like your solution. I'm also glad that somebody actually looked at the article. --Karlhahn 00:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I think a lot of people are looking. But mostly you won’t notice until they start editing. Glad you like the refs. --Van helsing 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't simply revert what I did

you didn't do research at all. Icons like these cases won't break the layout. You just made the mountain out of the molehills. You didn't provide any concrete evidence AT ALL why adding these icons is no good. Your reason is not sufficed. 72.138.191.63 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. You keep reverting to a table that is not prepared to be sortable yet [1] [2] [3]

2. You add the flag icons only for “certain” countries without any consistency [4] [5]

3. Flag icons are meant for recognition and/or esthetics; your use is the opposite, littering an already cramped up table cell intended for a short concise clarifying message.

4. And for your “do more research” and “it’s used somewhere else” remarks - apart from that being not a very good reason – did you ever consider if it was useful? Or, how many of those flag icons were already there in the very same articles you were adding them?

--Van helsing 18:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. feedback: This is not a reason. This statement is easy to refute. Icons were added on "note", not on "states". 72.138.191.63 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. feedback: This statement is also easy to refute as well. I have no responsbility to add everything on that table. Someone else can make contribution. It is consistent as Hong Kong and Macau are a part of PRC that you can't deny in any mean. Note should mention clearly. For these icons from Hongkong and Macau, these are not national flags, but regional flags. It is still under PRC category. Therefore, your statement can't be established in "any way".72.138.191.63 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3&4. feeback: well, this is your own personal opinion. What do you mean by littering and cramped up the table cell. Just added 2-3 icons one can cramp up the table? even a 5 years old kid won't take your words. Any concrete evidence you can provide these icons were really having that effect? please provide for us next time. Plus, wiki is for every body. There is no owner. It is not for you only. 72.138.191.63 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aah... how delicious, a wonderful discussion with a bright future. Xcuse me if I need to prepare for an answer on your cunning response... probably in a couple of years or so. --Van helsing 21:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Styrofoam

Good call; it was never my intention to sound like I was giving an ultimatum—obviously, I did, though. Thanks for the note and the reasoning behind keeping it a separate article. —Scouter Sig 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can happen to the best, all okay then, cheers. --Van helsing 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatness

Seems like someone's got a little problem over on Greatness. A few more edits, and I say we take it to RfC or an admin for further action. --HubHikari 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it’s just one of those article names that attracts kids. Not really a high profile article and probably not enough vandalism to get an sprotect on it. Let’s just put it on our watchlists and check it regularly. --Van helsing 08:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lebowski

Why do you delete my addition to the Lebowski post? I presume you're a robot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebowskidc (talk • contribs)

No don’t worry, it’s called a watchlist. But I must admit that it’s quite tiresome that you keep inserting your blog. Could you maybe have a read at WP:EL (specifically links normally to be avoided) and WP:COI? Thanks. --Van helsing 08:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the literature; I'll give them a read right now. As for my posts, however, I'm sorry you're tired, but I'm prepared to place that link up for however long it takes. Lebowski DC features the best Lebowski trivia I've ever seen, and people deserve to know about it.

Then I’ll stop removing it and leave it for others to decide if it should be included. --Van helsing 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: some more literature to read:WP:SIG, you can sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).

Konstable's !vote

He's on a break until monday, so he won't get your message. I wasn't sure about it either, but the bold around "oppose" leads me to believe he did want it to count. yandman 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, didn’t see he was away. But, what I can see is that he made his oppose a neutral because he wanted to wait for an answer on his question. He got the answer, but didn’t sort of confirm his final decision by changing anything about his !vote. I guess leaving it neutral is the safest choice, also in light of this comment he made:"I personally do not consider anything serious in this particular case - I trust that Werdna is not participating in anything of the sort on Wikipedia, and venting frustration off-wiki is not a crime".--Van helsing 10:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licencing of location maps for European countries

Hi. You are one of many editors having expressed a concern about the licence for David Liuzzo's maps. He already changed this for the European countries without EU-highlighting, see Commons - Template:Europe location. The creator promised to do so as well for their version with EU-highlighting, and nothing will go on as long as this may not have been taken care of. Meanwhile, in case you like to inspect the presently modified licence and wish to comment on it, please do so in the subsection Comments on the February 2007 new licence for David Liuzzo maps. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 3 Feb 2007 17:12 (UTC)

Table sorting

This edit seems to have broken sortability of the numbers columns using a thousands separator, at least in Firefox 2.0. Could you try to figure out what's wrong? If we can't get it to work I think we need to remove the separators again ..--Eloquence * 08:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Can’t remember for sure if it used to work in November (IE6); first column (population) doesn’t work for me now either (IE7). Could you please check if the columns sort properly now in Firefox 2.0? They work for me with the template used. --Van helsing 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick. Yes, everything seems to work fine now -- thanks! :-) --Eloquence * 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 20:43 (UTC)

Your edits to Mushroom

Thank you for removing the "Mushrooms in popular culture" section. It has been bothering me for awhile.

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this could be a way of solving it :-). Though sometimes trivia and similar sections can be interesting, it unfortunately often gets a bit sidetracked. --Van helsing 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC on me

Thanks for telling me. It is my understanding that I don't have to respond to it now, not at least until another editor gets behind the request and someone adds actual evidence to the complaint (e.g. diffs). Or do you think I should respond to it now? I'm not familiar with the RFC/U process. RB9 7 2 09:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, looking at the current state the RFC is in, I don’t think there’s much for you to respond to yet. At least not until QCA reads Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users and follows up on it. --Van helsing 10:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll leave it for now then. RB9 7 2 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beta stirling

You have outclassed me! Its very good!!! a couple of things could make it clearer - the displacement piston in the single frame images should probably not be blue and the cutaway could use an outline for clarity... - Zephyris _Talk 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments and suggestions. Think you’re right about clearness issues, will have a go at it. --Van helsing 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Van helsing, thank you for reverting that anon's threat from my talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you’re okay with it. --Van helsing 08:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#Netherlands_Antilles.2C_Netherlands..._but_not_Aruba. Makes sense to me now. --Shirt58 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps: shouldn't that read "c:\ Command Prompt" rather than "c:\ Command Promt"? -- someone who found "MS-DOS for dummies" too complicated.

I need a copy of “Grammar for dummies” I think. You’re totally right of course, missed that, thanks :-). --Van helsing 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

swashplate animation

Hi, I was admiring your animation of the mechanism behind a swashplate engine ([6]) and was curious as to the specific sources you drew upon for the model. Could you please provide some link or name a literary source? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lombar2 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, I think it was partly memory and this image (of a hydraulic pump). By the way, I’m not sure how the pistons in a swashplate engine are connected to the swashplate; somehow I don’t think it’s with a ball joint like in the animation. --Van helsing 07:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's all I needed to know. --Lombar2 17:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Category:Balanced arm lamp

Your recent edit to Category:Balanced arm lamp (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the second part of this question --Van helsing 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

You're welcome, Tim w. 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed you reverted some vandalism on my page. Thanks, Tim w. 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sortkeys

I started a discussion at Template talk:Sortablename, since there seem to be a number of unconnected efforts to create sortkeys for sortable wikitables. ~ trialsanderrors 23:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superpower article

While I completely agree with your edits, I fear that the creation of the subheadings European Union, China and India will have two unwanted consequences (that have happened before, about a year ago and which ended in the deletion of all five subarticles about "emerging superpowers") for the page: (1) people will slowly and gradually start to expand the subsections, and possibly even create subarticles. This is what I often call subsection creep. The page is about superpower, not about potential superpowers; and (2) people will start to add Russia, and possibly even Brazil and Japan as potential superpowers. They will provide references that some academic or journalist once said that these could become superpowers and it will be impossible to ignore these claims - as they have provided references, as it would be POV to ignore these claims, and because it would constitute OR when we would (rightly) claim that the EU, China (and India) are considered the entities with the most potential. Without the subheadings people won't be tempted as easily. My suggestion is that we trim the section about potential superpowers down so that headings wouldn't be necessary as every potential superpower only gets one paragraph. What do you think? Sijo Ripa 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I understand, though I feel slightly uncomfortable with the reason. We’re sort of giving in on something we shouldn’t give in to. --Van helsing 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lummus

With regard to ABB/Lummus, note that we do have an existing article on Combustion Engineering; this may help. Atlant 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sorry, I didn't look at the edit, just your edit summary. So you already knew about the CE article. ;-) Atlant 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :-). Maybe shouldn’t have made it a red link, but I think it deserves its own article. I’m not a ABB Lummus expert, but I think there’s a lot more to its history than the purchase of Combustion Engineering in 1990s (there are already steam cracker furnaces designed by them in the 60-70s). Can’t find much on the web though, will dig further. --Van helsing 07:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDP etc.

Hi thanks. What I found there is how to do it by hand. editing every singe cell is quite time consuming though. Is there no easier way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etidepeti (talk • contribs)

Replied

Prime minister of Italy. Redirected page to President of the Council of Ministers of Italy

Show me the way--Gp 1980 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves --Van helsing 16:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Italian. It's too much for me. Thank you the same--Gp 1980 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the Map

nominal per cap

PPP per cap

Thank you for updating the map in the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. However, it looks a little strange, because of indicating irrelevant ranges of figures. e.g. 0-250, and 250-500; The map includes no country having a GDP PPP per capita within these ranges, so why did you indicate them? This is not a nominal GDP per capita map, right? And what about the other "arbitrary" numerical borders of ranges, as 6250, etc.? Eliko 13:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, it does look a bit strange. I took the lazy approach by transforming the nominal map (with its existing color scheme and value boundaries) into a PPP per capita version. Turns out there where no 0-250 and 251-500 countries. By-the-way, the weird value boundaries (6250) where chosen to have an approximately equal number of countries in each group range (when it was based on nominal per capita). Think its solved now by the new map of Brainboy109. --Van helsing 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

queens park high school

hey why did you delete that takefly piece from the article...im rob jeffries and i go to that school...i am in takefly...who come from that school...so i think if a pupil is putting up information which is true...then you should replace...i bet you dont even know where chester is...and no it isn't where hollyoaks is...because hollyoaks never comes to chester because its all filmed in liverpool!.....so please...revert the queens park high school page!

Zippo (Citation Needed)

Hopefully, you can add the Citation - I've tried, but got lost somewhere The citation is from the Zippo Collectors Guide, (http://www.zippoclick.com/media/pdf/collectorsGuide.pdf) Cabaret4059

Thanks for the ref, done. --Van helsing 08:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]