User talk:Van helsing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-mibs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mibs (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your own talk page, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and possible WP:COI as well, to get an idea on what articles and external links are generally considered appropriate. Inserting these “wallstats” & “thebudgetgraph” external links seems to be the only thing you have been doing around here, could you please instead add some content to articles? The usefulness of these links is severely limited due to the used interface and the use of the big, multiple “Buy this poster now” and PayPal links makes the commercial nature of this website pretty clear. --Van helsing (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, so the best resource for us Social Studies teachers involving the federal budget and government should not be linked in precisely appropriate articles because the information on the website, which is available for free is also available in hard copy for sale. The usefulness of wikipedia seems severely limited because of this. If there was ever an example of highly relevant information which for whatever reason could not be available on the wiki page (being too large) then this would be the case. My students who use the poster understand immediately the scale and scope of the federal government; something wikipedia cannot offer. Full disclosure, I do own and use the poster, and am an advocate of government transparency and accountability, perhaps this is WP:COI to you. Either way, I found a great resource that would complement wikipedia's mundane pie graphs, I suppose it is up to you whether it is appropriate. You'll probably get a barnstar for it. Mibs (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)mibs[reply]

Thank you for fixing that insane edit just now. Mark Borgschulte (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not entirely sure if everything SturmTiger42 (talk · contribs) wrote is unsupported by references, though I’ll have to note I don’t thing he/she added any. As you are a student in economics, could you maybe go through his/her contributions, including the Dollar and Austrian School articles? That would be greatly appreciated. --Van helsing (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmhhh... Amsterdam (Scotland)? :-) --Van helsing (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not particularly helpful if you just hack stuff out and don't bother to replace it with the formula produced in the right way. You obviously know there is a way since you gave a link to it. It's no big deal since the formula ought to be common knowledge, but what is the value in leaving even a minor hole in an article. What happens when you do something like that and nobody notices? P0M (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err... what hole are you talking about? I’m not going to replace Hellboy2hell’s image insertion with <math> because I don���t consider it to be an improvement to the article. [1][2][3][4] --Van helsing (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your retraction of a link at Greece article (09:25, 19 August 2008 Van helsing ((rm WP:EL per WP:ELNO))

As i told before when El Greco revised the link too i found a website related with Greece typing GR at MSN. It was useful for me especially when i tried to search Greek forums

I saw El Greco's note and to be honest i didn't understand it I decided to resubmit because i thought it was a mistake from his part and because i saw many more useless links,pages full of banners and outdated/not valid information.

Even now with your link reference to wiki rules i fail to see where was the problem and the reason of this removal

However with your link removal which was the 2nd to my link contribution i think i have to pass and stop Two old editors may have better knowledge of wikipedia rules. For me the site you removed was extremely helpful to find queries about Greek sites and Greece, that's why i wanted to share it.

I don't want to "spoil" my wikipedia contribution records with retractions and link removals anymore I think it was better as a simple user and not as an editor to visit wikipedia again

I didn't know there was a hidden war behind the scenes of a helpful site like this one

Wikifan02 (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry Wikifan02, the external link (diff) may have been useful for you, but that does not mean it is a useful link for the readership of an English encyclopedic article about the country Greece. What additional information does a customized Google link, with emphasis on Greek language results/forums/E-shops, give to an English encyclopedic article about Greece? Nothing I’m afraid.

Please re-read WP:EL, specifically:

• WP:ELNO point 9 and 13
• WP:EL#Non-English language content
• WP:EL#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites (Sorry, that’s not relevant.--Van helsing (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

--Van helsing (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch of the serious POV issues on the Dow Chemical page. Some people seem to have a need to infect the Dow page with excessive rantings when those rantings are well covered in other articles which are often linked on the Dow page. No one seems quite as willing (nor should they, I would argue) to write about all the good things the company has done. I support the reverts.Plhofmei (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, I guess everybody has their little WP:COIs and WP:POVs, but that edit crosses the line, at least it has to be discussed before inclusion. Do you know the website [http://www.thetruthaboutdow.org] ? I didn’t; reminds me of gripe sites like royaldutchshellplc.com and [http://shellnews.net] with respect to Shell. Could be that [http://www.thetruthaboutdow.org] is going to spawn a Johnadonovan (talk · contribs) (owner of those Shell gripe sites) for the DOW article. Let’s keep an eye on it. --Van helsing (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Template talk:Sort#Negative_number_fix_for_template:nts. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for responding so late. I see Partick already responded to your query. It’s been a while since I worked on this kind of template coding, so his comments are probably more useful than mine. If you want to implement it (I see Template:Nts is currently protected) maybe you should propose your negative number fix to a wider audience, WP:VPT perhaps. Thanks for working on that particular problem. --Van helsing (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nikhil Kothari, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Kothari. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Chirag (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that you have deleted my entry on an admission concerning Lady Thatcher being invited to Chequers by the Labour PM Gordon Brown. I believe this is significant and deserves to be included in the article as it has particular political and current significance, especially what with the economic crisis and Lady Thatcher having solved Britain's crisis in the late '70s - early '80s (maybe Brown has got in Baroness Thatcher to consult her on strategy). Anyway, I believe this should be reinstated and I shall do so if you do not provide any compelling reasons for me not to. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceChief (talk • contribs)

Please read the link I provided in the edit summary (WP:RECENT), and after reading that, please revaluate your intention to reinstate the section, thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do a second revert to the page Extended periodic table today back to a version a month old? IMO the article was best after your first revert (to the version of Heshy613).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you’re right. I now notice that Habbit (talk · contribs) moved some groups (and Helium) back in 2004, moving away from how Fonzy (talk · contribs) started the article ^[5] which was quite similar to what I presume to be the real Extended Periodic Table how Seaborg suggested it. ^[6] Self reverted my second rv; table and reference are still different though as you quite accurately state here. --Van helsing (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Van helsing, I would like to know the reason for you altering the spelling of William's surname? As a descendant of Williams, i can ashore you that the correct spelling of the name is Bradbery, & not Bradbury as you have altered it to. I have evidence in both document form & photo evidence to prove this, unfortunately being only a very new novice to Wiki, i have been unable to download any pictures or documents so far, but when i have the means to do so i would like to insert them alongside my ancestors article. also please could you advise me how to alter the main header on William's page, as i don't seem able to gain access to edit this particular part.

Westhydeian (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)westhydeianWesthydeian (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the name change. I did that because several websites keep calling your forebear Bradbury. [7][8][9] I take however your word for it that Bradbery is the correct spelling, strengthened by looking at the image you recently uploaded (which I have put in the article for you).

I take it that you mean with "main header" the actual article name; you can change that by moving a page. However, editors cannot do that when the destination page already exists, and isn't just a redirect to the old title (administrators can though).

I have requested to move William Bradbury (horticulturist) back to William Bradbery. If you need more help, feel free to ask. --Van helsing (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]