User talk:JdH/Archive2

Welcome!

Hello, JdH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! STTW (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made a contribution to wind farms which I have deleted. This is not a comment on the content contributed, simply a matter of keeping the articles focussed. The articles on wind energy and intermittent power sources have a lot of information on these and, as the discussion pages for all three articles shows, the latter two are probably the most appropriate place for contributions, and particularly the intermittency article which is primarily about variability. I look forward to seeing your contributions there! I have not tried to re-contribute your text in those places, since I suspect you may want to integrate the ideas into those articles yourself. Best regards.--Gregalton 10:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian's often think that if Encyclopedia Britanica would not have an article then Wikipedia should not have it. I don't agree. Also, people here think a reference to a paper (which people probably can not check) is better than a URL. Again I don't agree. Anyway, I would not delete the article that you are talking about, and in general I would not delete as much as most people. Vincecate 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Solar updraft tower stuff... Did you notice my exchange with Essene at User_talk:Chriswaterguy#Please_post_link_to_changes? A web search reveals him to be Bishop Goolsbee of the Essene church - an email address given on a web site is the same as the email he gave to me (though it has since died, it seems... pity, I was curious about what possible legal argument he might try to come up with.

Anyway, I should not speak unkindly of the mentally ill (as I suspect might be the case, at least in some sense... though if it's defined broadly enough, we're probably all mentally ill). I wouldn't like to be inside that head, with all that resentment and anger. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. No I didn't see it until I just saw your notice. I take that you changed the words "Essentially, what Goolsbee was trying to do..." in my edit of 17 July 2006 into "My opinion of what Goolsbee was trying to do...". You shouldn't have done that without asking me first :-), but I happily forgive you for that transgression. Anyway: you are in no way liable for what I wrote, and if Goolsbee wants to sue me instead it wouldn't worry me one little bit. btw, did you see what Flexme thinks of me?

You may have noticed that I abandoned Wikipedia shortly after the confrontation with Flexme, and several other confrontations like it. I have come to the conclusion that the basic premise of Wikipedia, which is: everybody can edit, is a dismal failure. It turns Wikipedia into a prime playing field for spammers and nuts. JdH 16:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to mention that edit... the threats of legal action were making me uncomfortable and I wanted to feel completely safe, without giving in and actually removing your comments.

I have a much more positive view of Wikipedia (and Appropedia, where I spend most of my time now. It's sometimes a difficult road, but there are good results in the end. I know that if someone looks up Appropriate technology here they'll find a good resource and launching pad, unlike Britannica where they get nothing, or just googling, where the results are unstructured. I had someone rave to me about the appropriate technology article recently and ask if I'd edited it - it was nice to be able to say I'd written a lot of it; even nicer to know that many hours of work on that article contributed to something which is actually being used. --Chriswaterguy talk 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my page:

Actually, there is a Wiki policy against Forbidden uses of sock puppets, and what Essene is doing here may qualify as such. JdH 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little surfing surfaced the following Talk:Hargrave Jennings and User talk:Catherineyronwode. That in turn leads to "ORMUS~What Is It? The Myth, Magic & Murder of ORMUS", ORMUS University Online and ORMUS™-Our Product. In my opinion Mr Goolsbee is doing better with ORMUS Marine Manna™ than with the Solar Tower™ JdH 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more disturbing. Still, he seems to have gone. I sent him a couple of emails (I had been trying to give him the chance to be reasonable) and my last email bounced, so perhaps ORMUS isn't doing well enough to pay his ISP bills... --Chriswaterguy talk 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition of info at Appropriate technology#Ventilation and air conditioning. Good to see you're still contributing here.

Btw, have you checked Appropedia recently? There's some exciting partnerships and the community of contributors and supporters is growing. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JdH, thank you for your kind message. As for 1941, it had to be 1940, which I have now corrected; it was just a typing error — thank you for pointing out the error. Further, you may be very well right concerning Lorentz being the thesis advisor of Ornstein, rather than Ehrenfest, as my only source for Ornstein's biography has been the short article by Herman de Lang, which you may wish to consult: [1] (in a footnote I have acknowledged this article as my sole source). Incidentally, I have discovered that Ornstein's PhD thesis has been digitised and made available by Igitur (a new service provided by the Central Library of University of Utrecht); when the last time I attempted to download this thesis, for some reason I did not succeed in doing so (the pertinent server appeared to be working extremely slowly, if at all). I believe that the biographical information contained in this thesis will establish who Ornstein's thesis advisor has been, Lorentz or Ehrenfest. For the event that you may wish to consult this thesis, here is the address: [2]. I hope to extend Ornstein's biography in the future, adding to it more details concerning his scientific work; for instance, it is not widely known, but the Ornstein-Zernike theory has been vital for the molecular-dynamics simulations of various phases of He, one of the biggest technical problems being the ${\displaystyle 1/r^{6}}$ divergence of the Lennard-Jones potential for the inter-atomic distance ${\displaystyle r}$ approaching zero; this strong divergence renders many of the underlying integrals non-existent. Hartelijke groet, --BF 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

hello JdH, thank you for your message. I reverted your move because I thought it needs to be discussed first and it was not in compliance with Wikipedia rules on nobility. I think we better discuss this topic on the talk page of the article itself, instead of going back and forth between our talk pages, is that ok? sincerely Gryffindor 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - note a correction of a recent comment I made about languages, at User talk:Black Falcon#languages other than English. --Chriswaterguy talk 14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi JdH,
Ik zie dat je een hoop interwiki's hebt toegevoegd, top! Alleen is het over het algemeen op dit moment handiger als je op de nl wikipedia linkjes maakt naar de Engelse wikipedia. Op de nl wikipedia worden de linkjes namelijk een stuk vlotter opgepikt door botjes (die ze dan weer propageren naar de Engelse wikipedia en andere talen). Kijk maar wat je doet met deze info ;). multichill 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volgens mij manipuleer jij je botje: als ik een interwiki link plaats in nl:wiki dan gaan er dagen, zo niet een week overeen voordat een botje dat opmerkt, maar als jij dat doet dan ziet jouw botje dat binnen 5 minuten :-)

Er is overigens een goede reden dat ik in die interwiki's geinteresseerd raakte. Het was mij namelijk opgevallen dat Februari (Overleg | bijdragen) een groot aantal nieuwe artikelen plaatst, zonder ooit een bron te vermelden. Ik begon mij af te vragen hoe betrouwbaar die infornatie nu eigenlijk is, en de meest voor de handliggende manier om dat -bij gebrek aan bronnen- uit te vinden is te vergelijken met anders-talige wiki's. Voorlopige conclusie: De grote lijnen kloppen meestal wel, maar de details (zoals jaartallen) vaak niet. Soms zijn er aanmerkelijke verschillen, zoals b.v. tussen de:Georg III. (Anhalt-Dessau) en nl:George III van Anhalt-Plötzkau. Volgens mij zou een en ander nagekeken moeten worden door een onafhankelijk persoon, maar dat is een heidens karwei, en om dat goed te doen heb je de oorspronkelijke bronnen nodig. Kortom, ik weet niet wat ik ermee aanmoet.

Bovendien ben ik afdoende gefrustreerd over wikipedia, en ik hou het voorlopig maar voor gezien. JdH 03:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klopt dat ik m'n botje soms een duw geef. Mijn bot draait zowieso heel vaak een rondje over de nieuwe pagina's op de Nederlandse wikipedia, dus als je aan een nieuwe pagina een interwiki link toevoegt dan gaat het heel vlot. Ook draai ik vaak rondjes op categorieën waar ik of iemand anders net een hoop links aan hebben toegevoegd. Ik heb nu bijvoorbeeld net een aantal rondjes gedraaid over een aantal categorieën waarvan ik zag dat jij interwiki links hebt toegevoegd. Als je nog eens aan een categorie ergens een hoop interwiki linkjes hebt toegevoegd dan kan je altijd een berichtje op mijn overleg pagina achterlaten, dan laat ik m'n bot even los.

Februari was mij een tijd geleden ook al opgevallen. Om dezelfde reden als jij ben ik interwiki links gaan toevoegen. Er zit regelmatig verschil in jaartallen en soms wil hij ook nog wel eens een dubbel artikel aanmaken. Ik zal Februari nog eens vriendelijk vragen of hij een bronvermelding wil toevoegen, dat maakt het toch allemaal wat beter te checken.

Sommige mensen kunnen soms wel erg irritant zijn op wikipedia, ik zie dat je een aanvaring hebt gehad met Dolfy, dat is mij ook al verschillende keren overkomen. multichill 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voor de goede orde: Ik heb ook nogal wat links gemaakt in fr:wiki en de:wiki, met name in die gevallen waar ik in en:wiki geen corresponderend artikel kon vinden. JdH 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC) zie bv:[reply]
fr:Catégorie:Comte de Montbéliard
fr:Catégorie:Comte de Provence
fr:Catégorie:Comte de Bar
fr:Catégorie:Comte de Chiny
fr:Catégorie:Comte de Toulouse
fr:Catégorie:Comte de Barcelone
fr:Catégorie:Comte du Maine
fr:Catégorie:Italo-Normands

Hi,

Just in case you're the JdH who was trying to distinguish between Steedhâlder en List fan Steedhâlders on fy:.
As far as I can see, you're adding the list interwiki to the main article page. I'll put it back for now; you might want to check what it's supposed to be. Mysha

Wees aub voorzichtig met veranderingen. Het probleem dat ik heb proberen op te lossen is dat er interwiki conflicten waren. Op nl:wiki zijn er namelijk aparte artikelen voor nl:Stadhouder en nl:Lijst van stadhouders in de Nederlanden. die beiden verwezen naar en:Stadtholder. Dat heeft tot gevolg dat interwiki botjes in de problemen komen, en de automatische propagatie op alle anderstalige wiki's geblokkeerd wordt. Wat je niet wilt doen is fy:Steedhâlder en fy:List fan Steedhâlders dezelfde interwiki's meegeven, waardoor er opnieuw een interwiki conflict ontstaat. Aangezien fy:List fan Steedhâlders nog leeg is raad ik je aan het voorlopig maar zo te laten. Zodra fy:List fan Steedhâlders voltooid is ga dan aub te rade bij nl:Stadhouder, nl:Lijst van stadhouders in de Nederlanden, de:Statthalter en de:Liste der Statthalter in den Niederlanden om dubbele verwijzingen te voorkomen.
Als je ondanks die goede raad toch iets wilt veranderen dan moet ik er bij je op aandringen overeenkomstige veranderingen aan te brengen op alle interwiki's; als je dat niet doet onstaat er namelijk opnieuw een interwiki conflict. JdH 10:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you're adding the list interwiki to the main article page. I'll put it back for now; you might want to check what it's supposed to be. Mysha

OK, apparently we are out of sync. The problem was that nl:Stadhouder and nl:Lijst van stadhouders in de Nederlanden both directed to Stadtholder. That leads to an interwiki conflict, and as a result interwiki bots are unable to properly propagate the interwiki links to other-language wiki's. I was not aware of the existence of Statthalter; I have now linked Statthalter to nl:Stadhouder and Stadtholder to nl:Lijst van stadhouders in de Nederlanden. Since Stadtholder is devoted to the Stadtholders of the United Provinces, and contains a list of Stadtholders as well I think that this is the best solution, and it should avoid interwiki conflicts as well. JdH 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zie ook mijn commentaar op User talk:Mysha (nl). HenkvD 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@JvH. Shouldn't you just link Stadtholder to nl:Stadhouder and keep the interwikis between the Lijst van Stadhouders just between nl: and :de? The solution you are proposing just increases the confusion. I think the en: Statthalter and Stadtholder need a merge. Theun 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that easy. If you take the trouble to go through the various other-language articles you will see that most of them are devoted to the Stadholders of the United Provinces, and contain a list of those Stadholders. However, some articles are more generic, in particular de:Statthalter and the Scandinavian articles: they talk about Stadholder in a more general context because there were also Stadholders in the different realms of the Holy Roman Empire, and in Norway as well. I have tried to separate that in a logical way. By that criterium the Stadtholder article is clearly more related to the nl:Lijst van stadhouders in de Nederlanden and the de:Liste der Statthalter in den Niederlanden than to de:Statthalter and the corresponding Scandinavian articles. Therefore, if you want to reduce confusion I would suggest to rename the Stadtholder article to List of stadtholders for the Low Countries provinces. Or better still: Revert the merge that was performed recently between those two articles, and merge the original version of Stadtholder (i.e. prior to the merge) with Statthalter instead; i.e. remake it into a general article covering the concept of Stadtholder in a more general sense, just like de:Statthalter does. List of stadtholders for the Low Countries provinces can then be devoted to exactly what it suggests it is.
btw: It took me a lot of time and effort to untangle this interwiki mess, so I would hate to see people to re-create the old mess. JdH 17:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you try to get it logical but there are only two articles which are clearly a list (nl,de). Just separate them. The other article is just about the title/function Stadhouder (in dutch) en Statthalter (in german). By some obscure way (Law of Ellywa?) two articles appeared on :en, probably a translation from the dutch and the german article. I'm not going to merge that, I spent as much time on :fy as possible, believe me I'm needed more over there.

But forcing the interwiki's to stay unlogical isn't the solution. It is just clear there is no interwiki mess just a mess on :en concerning the Placeholder article. There's got to be an english word for this title and not some dutch-anglification or german-anglification. Theun 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to be aware of the fact that the interwiki links in the fy:Steedhâlder article cause an interwiki conflict, and I hope that you will take the responsibility to resolve it. JdH 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wake up, fy:Steedhâlder is a one to one copy of the dutch nl:Stadhouder, how can you try to sell the interwiki's to be set to the nl:Lijst van stadhouders in de Nederlanden which we might get in the recent future. So what should we do then? I can see that you have tried to make some logical solution without conflicts in the interwiki, but it is a very unlogical solution if you see the content of the frisian article compared to the dutch. Now its my fault this article is a mess on en:? I will change the interwiki to the one that is at least the right one, but you shouldn't think the problem is solved now, it just rears up its head whenever an article of these ones get translated. Now I know for sure the current implementation of interwiki is dead and unworkable. Theun 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You broke it, so it is your responsibility to fix it. JdH 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the conflict. Now we have three sets:

• Statthalter - the general meaning
• Stadtholder - the Dutch stadhouder
• nl:Lijst van stadhouders in de Nederlanden - the list.

multichill 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks :-) I have added ru:Штатгальтер to Stadtholder. JdH 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that there is yet another unresolved interwiki conflict: It turns out that Steward (office) links to all of the above, and provides a more general discussion of the concept of Stadtholder, quite similar to what de:Statthalter does.
In the mean time I resurrected List of stadtholders for the Low Countries provinces, a move I already regret in view of the fact that we have now 3 closely related articles: Statthalter Stadtholder, and Steward (office). Perhaps those 3 should be merged?, see: Talk:Stadtholder for a discussion JdH 19:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you changed the leader oj Japan from Hirohito to Tôjô. I suggest you read articles on Imperial General Headquarters, on emperor Showa himself and the Tokyo tribunal about the propaganda work made by Douglas Mac Arthur. Furthermore, there is an entire chapter in Hirohito and War by Peter Wetzler that described the relationship between the to men and explain that Tôjô was entirely devoted to his emperor. Considering Tôjô, a prime minister between 1941 and 1944, the "leader" of Japan is a bit outdated. --Flying tiger 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the dispute on Talk:WWII, and saw that you posted a POV tag on the page as part of the dispute. This is disruptive editing; make sure you don't edit pages to prove a point. Thanks. Parsecboy 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the water is a bit muddy as to who was actually in charge of Japan during the war. Regardless, POV tags should not be used for a petty dispute in the infobox. Generally, it's better to use them for articles with repeated violations of NPOV throughout the article. Generally, just posting on the talk page should generate enough interest from the editors who watch the page. However, if that fails, you can always post an RfC at WP:RFC/HIST, to invite more people to comment. Parsecboy 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are just as many reliable sources that state Hirohito was in charge as much as Tojo was, or that his role was minimized after the war to preserve his ability to rule as emporer (i.e., if he was just as culpable as Tojo, why was he not being tried for war crimes and Tojo was?). It's not black and white. And yes, the loudest arguers often do prevail in the short term on Wikipedia, ultimately it's those with reliable sources that end up writing the articles. I might add that you have not provided any sources on the talk page, as far as I can tell, while Flying Tiger and Oberiko provided several supporting their view that Hirohito ultimately was in charge. Parsecboy 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JandeBakker.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a notification that the deletion of Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg is being reviewed. The DrV may be found at this location. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted..." In the DrV, users may discuss relevant issues in attempting to form consensus, as well as assert Uphold Deletion or Overturn Deletion, with a specific rationale for the stated conclusion. ... Kenosis 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]