User talk:Hayden120/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re:New Europe maps

Do you like them? I'm sorry, but someone has removed them with no explanation and I had to revert them all manually. As for your question, the color scheme is based on the standards of WikiProject Maps. I decided not to use the solid red because it began to hurt my eyes, the red I chose I think is much easier for the viewers' eyes. —NuclearVacuum 03:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they're good. As long as they are used for all European countries (for consistency), I'm fine with it. Perhaps it'd be better to label the 'red-orange' colour as simply 'red'; at first I thought both colours were used (red for the mainland and orange for territories or something similar), so it might be best to clarify this. If you could also update the maps for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, it'd be great. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you so very much. I am glad that someone likes them. No need to worry, I have all the EU countries made up here, but I can only upload a few at a time, so it may be a few days for all of them to be up. If you wish to change the term to "red," than be my quest (I have nothing wrong with that). As for making maps of England and so on, I think I can do that at some point. Now I am tempted to start =D I also would like to ask you a favor, can you compare the coloring of File:EU-Spain.svg and File:EU-France.svg, and which one of these reds do you think is better? —NuclearVacuum 03:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I quite like the red in the France one, it looks more definite and stands out more to the reader. Also, would you be able to add a world map in the corner? It aids those who are not familiar with world geography. Here is one example of an EU country, and a non-EU country. Hayden120 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a minor issue with File:EU-United Kingdom.svg; the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands should not be shaded red, they are not part of the UK. Also, is there any reason why there are bodies of water with blue borders around them? I'm not quite sure if this is necessary. Hayden120 (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I took your advice and made all the maps red. I also wanted to tell you that I am now done with them all. May I ask you for a favor, can you comment here on your thoughts as well. As for the bodies of water, I thought that those were the proper coloring to use, but I'm not too sure. As for the areas belonging to the UK, that is a coding problem that I will fix right now. The map I used has those areas part of the UK, and I just filled them in by accident. Thank you again for your support. —NuclearVacuum 17:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I think the bodies of water should still be blue, it was just the bright blue borders that looked out of place. Do you know how to include a world map in the corner? Bosonic dressing may be able to help you otherwise. Also missing is the border for the European continent. I'm a little bit concerned about the lack of standardisation now though, it took forever to get everyone to accept the green one—now we have a mix of the two. Are you currently working on the other European countries? Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It'll be a while, but I think I can get those all up and running shorty. —NuclearVacuum 02:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Great news, I think I have a winner here. Please check out my updated map on the United Kingdom, it includes a separation between Europe and Asia/Africa, no blue borders on water, and includes a global location map at the top-left of the image. So far I have only done the UK in this new formatting, and it may take a while before I can have all 27 member states of the EU up in this format (not including all the other nations of Europe). But please tell me what you think of it. —NuclearVacuum 03:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Well done. I could have a try doing the non-EU countries if you'd like. Hayden120 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created a category on the Commons which contains both EU and non-EU Europe maps (I'm currently making the latter). I've so far made three maps, but unfortunately I am having difficulties making more because some countries share borders. I can only colour in some of the border light-red because the rest is attached to another country. Do you know how to fix this? Hayden120 (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm starting to wonder how valid the map conventions are. After having a look around at other country articles, I've noticed that all of them use the green and grey scheme. I think there needs to be a thorough discussion with other editors before changing all the maps. Hayden120 (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it you sure like them. I think I know what the problem you are talking about it. You see, I combined all the nations of the EU together so making the EU maps would be easier to work with. I may have to go through them a little, but other than that, I am glad that you like them. —NuclearVacuum 16:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I want to correct the coloring of Europe you made on your maps, they should be the orange and not the light yellow. Also (if you are still interested), you can download one of those and I have removed the EU borders from them. —NuclearVacuum 16:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I had the maps orange originally, but it looked a bit odd (somewhat dark). I thought since the continent of Europe was a secondary colour in the non-EU maps (whereas on the EU maps, the EU is secondary and Europe is tertiary) that it'd be fine coloured light yellow. I'm still not sure about changing the colours from green and grey though; it has become the de facto standard across Wikipedia's country articles. Also, and I'm not sure if you can be bothered now, would you be able to colour the country inside the world map? Hayden120 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Chech this out.

OK, I made a "green and grey" version. What do you think? —NuclearVacuum 01:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that looks great, and much more suitable as it fits with the rest of Wikipedia. Sorry to be a pest (:P). Hayden120 (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You better be!! Lol, just kidding. ;) —NuclearVacuum 02:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Hello! Please, I need your help to deal with an issue that has appeared in the article about Brazil. See it in here. Thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I will make a brief summary of the problem: I started to rewrite the section “History” in the article on Brazil. The idea was to improve the text changing the old citations based on websites for books written by several renowned historians. I had already rewritten three subsections without having received complains from other users. In the fourth subsection that deals with the reign of Emperor Pedro II, I received serious complains from user Opinoso who made baseless personal accusations against me for no reason. I sent him a private message asking him to get into a peaceful resolution to the matter, but he simply ignored me and kept with the accusations, attacks and ironic remarks towards me. After that he added untrue information in the subsection. And even more serious: he was not faithful to his own sources and created information that did not exist in the sources, as I managed to prove in the discussion page.

I would like to help, but I must apologise—I'm not familiar enough with the topic nor do I have enough time currently (most of my editing is simply gnoming in my spare time) to start any discussions. I may be able to help later. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. But thank you, anyway! Regards, - --Lecen (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange bot edit ...

It's not my bot, but I think this edit to the interwiki links on Francia is based on where the linked-to article on the other wikis are linked to. For example, de:Fränkisches Reich didn't link to en:Francia but to en:Carolingian Empire (I have since changed it), so the bot removed the back-link on Francia. Does that make sense? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the clarification. Hayden120 (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Map size

Hi Hayden. Fantastic job on the Template:Canada image map. Currently the article Canada is undergoing a Wikipedia:Featured article review#Canada. The map seems to be noticeably quite large when looking at its placement in the article. Is it at all possible to slightly reduce the size of the map to make it a better fit? Mkdw^talk 09:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day, I've changed the size from 650px to 550px. Hopefully that's a bit better. I'm not sure whether to make it any smaller though, the text might be difficult to read. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, would you mind editing it again? There's been a concern raised at Canada's FARC that "The big map of Canada is good, except (1) it doesn't explain what "clickable" really means, and (2) the key at the bottom is illegible." Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've restored it to 650px. I'm not sure if it's much better; I might need to edit the image and enlarge the legend. I'm also not sure how to address the 'clickable' confusion—I would prefer to keep the caption simple. Hayden120 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hayden120. You have new messages at RWJP's talk page.
Message added 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RWJP (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank-you very much for the Barnstar you awarded me, I'm very glad about recieving it. Your help was appreciated too! mgeo talk 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Norway and HDI

The HDI only verifies that Norway is the most developed country in the world, not that Norway is the best country to live in.--90.149.222.38 (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally the level of development equates to the quality of life. But okay, you have a point—this part probably could be removed. It is hard to take you seriously, however, when you start throwing terms like 'dictatorship' around. You may wish to read dictatorship. Hayden120 (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no definition on dictatorship on that wiki-page, only a list of persons claimed to be dictators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.222.38 (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The very first paragraph lists the three possible meanings. Or, you could try Britannica[1], which states: "form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations." This is not true for the current government of Norway. You could always try living in some of the poorer parts of Africa or Asia to see the true meaning of 'dictatorship'. I'm starting to suspect that I'm being trolled by this discussion. Regardless, this is all a waste of time, unless you can provide reliable sources. Hayden120 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Zondor and his discuss template

FYI, I've asked Zondor to comment about his addition of these templates on his talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Army Logo

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Vsa_logo.gif

need some Times .. for replication uinto the pzublic images server —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyox (talk • contribs) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, please note that images uploaded to the German Wikipedia cannot be shared with the English Wikipedia. Images need to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons if you wish to use them on multiple projects. However, it appears you are uploading copyrighted images—which is not allowed on WikiCommons, nor on here if you do not have a fair-use rationale—and removing the free, existing ones. It would be appreciated by fellow editors if you could also use the edit summary to explain the changes you are making. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sako TRG image

I provided a non-free use rationale for using the FDF 8.6 TKIV 2000 image. I could not find a free picture of a thus kitted out 8.6 TKIV 2000 rifle system. That is no surprise, since a custom made Zeiss telescopic sight is part of this particular sniper weapon system. Non-free use rationale can probably not be used on Wiki Commons, so I did not re-upload the image there.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed you just changed the licencing. Only images that are completely free (including for commercial purposes) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons, so it was wise to upload it here. I've always had trouble maintaining non-free media, though. Hayden120 (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Iceland, Republic of

If you haven't seen the recent changes to the Iceland page, specifically the name, you might want to take a look. There's an editor who's trying to undo the consensus you guys made about the "republic of" issue. I think he's a little obsessive about some he calls "long-form names", as I found from his talk page. It seems a bit bizarre to me. He's had himself banned over it, I think. You might want to take a look at the conversation I've been having with him as well. It's in 2 parts. Thank you for your time. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, yep, I saw the changes being made to Iceland and reverted it once. It's quite frustrating when you think we've reached a consensus, and then another editor comes along and starts it all over again. I thought the letter from the Office of the PM would make it clear ('republic' is only used descriptively), so I'm not sure what else to add to the discussion. I'm hoping some other editors can also chime in. Hayden120 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mannanafnanefnd and DYK

Hello. I just added some minor stuff to Mannanafnanefnd, nice stub. Something you may find useful: next time you plan on an article that features some interesting fact or has an unusual angle, you may want to propose it to DYK (Wikipedia:Did you know) for feature on the Main Page. I mean, I'm pretty sure a summary such as Did You Know "...that Mannanafnanefnd is the committee that regulates names in Iceland?" would have made it to the Main Page. (DYK is a nice thing, but it's heavily about Anglo topics, so stuff from Iceland or elsewhere would surely be nice.)

WP:DYK has a laundry list of rules for an article to be eligible, but I think the two main ones to know beforehand are: (1) 1500 characters of prose text (not counting lists, references, links) and (2) being created less than 6 days ago. Obviously it's too little and too late for Mannanafnanefnd, but another time you could develop the article in user space for as long as you want and then post it once you have it long enough for immediate proposal to DYK. Of course it's completely optional, but being featured at DYK can bring readers, corrections, additions, etc. Cheers. 62.147.25.32 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (P.S.: I've also added it the other day to Wikipedia:Unusual articles, which is a complement or an alternative to DYK. 62.147.25.32 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

G'day, thanks. Yeah, I was thinking of nominating it for a DYK, but after having a look at some of the other DYKs for that day, I didn't think it was long or substantial enough to fit the criteria. Thanks for your improvements to the article! Hayden120 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Map of Svalbard

Hi! I'm doing a cleanup of Svalbard, and saw the nice File:Europe-Norway.svg you made. I've tried to create a similar map just showing Svalbard (since the .svg maps are a lot better looking than the current .png), but I don't seem to be able to ungroup Svalbard to color only it, and not the rest of Norway (I am only a n00b when it comes to Inkscape). Since you seem to have a grip on this stuff, it would be very appreciated if you could help me out here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

G'day, I'm quite a 'n00b' with Inkscape too, to be honest. I can't take credit for the original map, sorry; User:NuclearVacuum started replacing the EU maps with .svg format, and I made a few extra non-EU ones by simply altering the colours. We went through a few different styles before we finally agreed on the green and grey format. I had troubles with grouping too, but NuclearVacuum was able to sort them out... not sure how, though. It'd be best to leave him a message... I'm sorry for not being much help. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I have left a message on his talk page. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want all of you to know that I am now the Tsar of SVGland! Lolz, no seriously, I am amazed that you came to me for this, I am honored. Well, taking a look at the map, the reason you can't click and separate Norway from Svalbard (or SVGlbard ;3) is because both are part of a single path. Currently, I have no idea how to make such a detailed connection like how it is done on this map here. However, I happen to be an expert on separating them for you. Follow these steps and you should do it quite well.

1. Select Norway on the map.
2. Copy Norway.
3. Go to Edit and click on the selection which reads "Paste in Place." This will make two Norways on top of each other.
4. Click the "Edit paths by Node" tool (click F2 on the keyboard). This will make little nodes appear on the borders of Norway.
5. Select all of the node of Norway (leaving Svalbard's node alone).
6. Delete these nods by selecting the "Delete selected nodes" icon on the top-left corner of the screen.

There should now be a defined separation between Norway and Svalbard. If you need any more help with this, I can make the map for you. —NuclearVacuum 16:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, and with the guide I can now do it myself the next time I come across this problem. Svalbard should be nominated for good article soon, so you help is much appreciated. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)