User talk:Wimvandorst/archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For archiving 2007 discussions. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Contents

Scouting tireless contributor

The Scouting Tirless Contributor
The Scouting Tirless Contributor

- For dedication to Scouting articles, the project, and the Movement; especially for being the key factor in improving the quality of our articles.Rlevse 11:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian Scouting Question

Hi, I'm trying to find the Russian equivlant of the Eagle Scout (US). I asked Rlevse for help, and told me to try asking you. I believe it's the Order of the Bronze Beaver, but googling, the Russian Association of Scouts/Navigators article, or the List of highest awards in Scouting could acertain the answer. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Zidel333 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Zidel, the order of the Bronze Beaver is not something like Eagle Scout, but more comparable with the Bronze Wolf award of the WOSM. It was awarded to Piet J. Kroonenberg, which article I edited. At the time I communicated with someone in Russia, knowledgeable in Russian scouting. If you mail me your email address, I'll send his name and mailaddress to you. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Wood Badge

I've done some work on this lately. Can you look at the Netherlands parts of it for improvement? I'd like to go for GA soon. I'll be adding too. It definitely needs more wikilinks and refs. Rlevse 11:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not well versed in the Dutch details, I'm sorry to say, as I never attended one myself (yet?). And personally, I'd rather give my scarce free time to B-P instead, notably so if we want to have it on the front page on 22 Feb? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 01:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
  • That's fine. B-P definitely needs some work to get to FA and it would be nice to have the founder's article an FA. I just worked on it some myself.Rlevse 02:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PR guide

AndyZ just finished this, great tool: User:AndyZ/peerreviewer/guide Rlevse 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, all those options. Did you try them yet? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Note about Harold Clifton

Since you have Image:Harold-Wilberforce-Clifton.gif on your user page, please take notice of Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy:

9. Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (...)

Best regards, Ilse@ 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Olave Baden-Powell

Article move from which title to which title? I know the B-P's has had some title fights (at least 2) and the British Peerage project (or whatever it's called) always wins because they have wiki policy on their side. Personally, I think naming a article "Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell" is silly because no one actually calls him that; I think they should be named what people call them, like Robert Baden-Powell. I guess that's the American anti-royalty streak in me-;) Anyway, since the B-P article stabilized at what it is, I'm surprised the British Peerage people haven't jumped on Olave's article name. I can't begin to try to pretend I understand British peerage naming as to me it's very complicated and I have even seen Brits argue over what is right. What it comes down to is that I think B-P and Olave's articles should be named the same way; since B-P's is settled on having his formal title in it, I think Olave's should too. The first step is, determine what would the British Peerage group say is correct for her, make the article, and move her article there, leaving redirects.Rlevse 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It was just bait, Randy. Hook, line and sinker. ;-). Did you know B-P's mum just called him Stephe, so authentically it would be Stephe Powell. And OBP definitely is Olave, Lady Baden-Powell. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
    • I still think we should make the article titles follow the same naming pattern.Rlevse 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Would would that then be Robert B. Powell and Olave B. Powell? Which would be the naming scheme? There just isn't any one system applicable. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
The one the B-P article follows, which is the one the Brit peerage group likes because if you change it, they raise a super hurricane howl of protest; so for Olave, whatever they won't complain about.Rlevse 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind throwing it out for the lions. Shall I? Just do a bold article move, to lure a discussion out? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
Up to you.Rlevse 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've left a msg with a key member of the Brit Peerage project.Rlevse 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Wim, I'm not sure of your question on my talk page. See response I left there. I was out in the cold camping with my troop this weekend. Rlevse 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gilwell Park

Speaking of GP, did you ever find more info to expand the Dorothy Hughes Pack Holiday Centre section with? I think you said it was in the Jeal book. The Freezoree I went is a local event our council has every winter. Take care, I asked Outriggr to look at the HKSA FAC, he's good and respected.Rlevse 16:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal RFC

I've filed an RFC relating to the Taj Mahal at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. Your comments would be welcome. Joopercoopers 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

template:chemicals

Goedenavond Wim! I see you are busy with the template {{chemicals}}. I am sure I would like to see a importance-assesment in that as well. I don't know if there is any discussion somewhere on that point that I could contribute to, but could you, as captain Kirk would say, 'make it so'? Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Dirk, I actually simplified the template to do just what is should do, viz., give article quality assessment, so that the WP:Chem wikiproject can go to more automated assessment. All articles in the worklist are effectively of Top importance to the wikiproject, so importance assessment is irrelevant. I'd rather have a working simple template than a fullblown overdone one. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Hmm .. in that case, all the chemicals on the worklist would be 'important' to real life (where I have argued before some have no importance in real life, but have been selected on basis of completeness, to which I can concur as well), while others which are not on the worklist are, by this definition, not important. Seems a bit black and white to me. I think the importance to 'chemistry' is not the same as the chemical being an important one (which, I must already carefully confess, is objective anyway .. hmmm). Maybe time for some thought, somewhere? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The importance you're writing about is definitely in need of some thought, notably in the Chemistry wikiproject. The Chemicals wikiproject is ONLY about upgrading the selected group of chemicals articles on the worklist, all of which have the same importance to that wikiproject, viz., Top. Therefore I deleted any importance indicator in the {{chemicals}} template. So: Yes to importance, but in the chemistry WP, not in the chemicals WP. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 13:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
OK, we apparently have different views of wikiproject chemicals. I'll leave it at this, I'll tag their importance under chemistry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, I now have completed the basic elements of the WP:Chem worklist template, see on the Chemicals and Chemicals wikiprojects pages the details. I announced the use on the talk page of WP:Chem. Feel free to publicly discuss your view there. Note that I did not make a wikiproject template: we have the Chemistry template for that. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Wim, it is just that I think that chemistry is growing quite big, and there are about 4500 (if not more) chemicals in wikipedia. For that I think that it would be good to incorporate all chemicals into the chemicals wikiproject, and maybe consider removing them from the chemistry wikiproject. But I see that that collides with the primary aim of the chemicals wikiproject, which has adopted a 'small' subset of all chemicals. Though, one does not exclude the other. The worklist can still stay the same, but all the other chemicals are also adopted. Some of the chosen chemicals on the worklist are stable B-status chemicals for a long time .. I am a bit afraid noone is interested in them, and there is just not enough to tell about them. Whereas other articles, which are not on the worklist, could with a bit of efford easily get to GA/FA status.
User:Stone and I have somewhere already said something about that in the chemicals wikiproject, but it never crystallised. The aim of the wikiproject chemicals 'collides' a bit with the thought of 'improving important chemicals' (I know, people can just 'ignore' the project and edit a compound outside the project that they have interest in or something). I'll have to think this out a bit, but thoughts are welcome. (these were some random thoughts, sorry if it is a bit messy) --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wim, would it be a plan to ask a bot to do the tagging? It saves us a lot of work. It should simply (on a list of chemicals) move from {{chemistry}} to {{chemicals}}, adding 'core' (nice work there, I'll have look how you did that trick!) for the ones in the core-list, or adding empty templates to those not being tagged yet. I guess my list is a reasonable starting point, though it needs a bit of cleaning up, there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The tagging currently in place is VERY incomplete and VERY inconsistent. For the worklist, I plan to do it all manually: there are just a few hundred articles to do, and then I (others are invited of course) can do a full re-assessment. Given the low attention to these articles the last half year, I think some TLC is necessary here. For all the thousands of other (non-core) articles, I think your approach of force tagging is feasible: take the ratings of any chemistry or chemicals tag already present, remove all, put chemicals-tag in with correct rating. Seems like a bot might be able to do, but I have no experience or knowledge in this field. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 14:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
I'll ask Martin, I think he has a contact with MathBot. For other things, you could have a look at WP:AWB, which is a semi-bot, the program loads a page, and can do automatic find-and-replace actions, you then check the result, or edit it further, and then press save .. and then the next page is automatically loaded. Worklists for that program can be created from categories, pages, watchlists, etc. etc. Maybe worth a look. But indeed, if you have to go through all pages anyway, doing it by hand is also possible. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • the AWB has a detrimental flaw: it only works with M*cr*s*ft software, which I don't use here. As for the Mathbot, you can very simply communicate with the author, Oleg Alexandrov, on his user talk:Oleg Alexandrov. He is very friendly in replying, in my humble opinion. But I don't know whether MathBot can do this, as said. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Goedenavond. I have done quite a number of talkpages, adding (mostly empty) chemicals templates to them, in some cases I have had a chance to add also some class/importance parameters to them. I got sick of it, and decided to ask for bothelp to do the last 1800 or so. I hope that will be done in one of the next days, otherwise I might have a go at another set using AWB. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well done, Dirk. I already noticed all those articles. And I saw you created the categories for the larger chemicals group too. I'm focussing on the core articles, re-assessing the worklist, which is as 'interesting'. As an aside, this kind of edit spree does increase your editorship, with 12631 edits since your first edit last March (Big Brother is watching you). That's hard work, and is appreciated. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
Hmm .. I work too hard .. :-p .. But, graag gedaan! --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to ask, could you please check the descendancy (spelling?) of the categories, the way it is now is quite OK, but there are some inconsistencies with the chemistry categories. It's just that I have been a bit doubting/confused when I created them. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

MS vs FF

Some things only work with MS/IE, some only with Linux/FF. IMHO anything that doesn't work with both is flawed.Rlevse 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Googlefight: MSIE:FF = 25 million : 10 million. Not even that bad! PS, SAHK may be in Raul's next batch of FA. Will it make it? It's so quiet. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
    • If you gents have a task to do in AWB, let me know. If I know how or can figure it out, I'll run it for you. I've mainly used it for search and replace. I use both IE and FF as browsers. Ja, I've been watching SAHK, IMHO it should pass as concerns were met and it has several supports. Wood Badge is on GA hold right now. It's basically become a Scouting Project PR as all three reviewers are project members. Rlevse 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd have given it GA with no strings attached to its current state. The recommendations are more for FA, which it indeed isn't quite yet. Added a few, left further recommendations. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Checking in with you about assessment at WP:Chem

Hi Wim, it seems ages since I posted anything here! Are the two of us going to re-assess the WP:Chem articles between us? I saw you doing a few recently; I also saw (with a happy heart) all of the updates being done by Dirk and yourself. So if you want me to help, which ones should I do? Are you starting from the top and working down? If so, should I start at the bottom and work up till we meet in the middle? Cheers, Walkerma 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: You might be pleased to hear that the assessment scheme started at WP:Chem has now been used to assess over 250,000 articles on the English Wikipedia! You might also enjoy this and this! Walkerma 03:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martin, indeed it has been ages, but then again we both have been busy with other things. As you noticed correctly, I have now started upgrading the WP:Chem assessment statistics to something more automated, using the formerly dormant and now nicely spiffed {{chemicals}} template and the MathBot for keeping tracks. I started on

  • full re-assessment starting from the top of the work list (with the 'core' WP:Chem articles). Dirk is working on the thousands of non-core articles, so he'll be busy too.
  • implementing the new template, replacing any old assessment with an updated opinion, and proper/full options use: 
    {{chemicals | core | class = FA/A/B/Start/Stub | importance = Top/High/Mid/Low}}
    .

Feel free to dig in: I just started (the template and categories did need attention first) and have arrived somewhere in the middle of the Inorganic Chemicals groups. Putting in the full templates does slow the process a bit. And yes, I'm proud to see our assessment scheme getting such wide usage. Something we did right, there. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Re: Erroneous move of The Scout Association of Hong Kong

Redirects are fixed, and I apologise for the misunderstanding. I've abandoned any attempt at consistent application of WP:NCD; I found out rather quickly that people can sure be passionate about the word "The"! Anyway, sorry again, and congratulations on an excellent article. - RJASE1 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hclplant-udl.jpg

The fairusereplace tag specifically says "Do not remove this tag." Please do not remove it again. If you feel the tag is incorrect, add the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag, like the instructions say to do. By the way, I did read the discussion Fair Use Review, and I read where you said "I give in. Delete the darn picture, if you insist." – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The same tag also says to put a notice on the uploader's talk page, which you also failed to do. Perhaps reading my previous comment in the previous discussion gave you an indication that I might take re-tagging without any comment or notification in a friendlier way this time? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
P.S. The image also has no source. You said that UDL.com uses the image, but there is no indication that UDL is the copyright holder. I'm afraid we need to know the copyright holder in order to use the image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The picture has source alright. I'm sure even you cannot deny that it is very clearly pointed out where the picture came from. And the copyright indeed is not clearly stated. All that has before been discussed. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
    • I apologize for not notifying you. The source listed does not seem to include the image. Could you be more specific? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Apology accepted. Since your tagging I have enhanced and updated the text, including more recent copyright information: the sourcing website now has a © notice. At the same moment I also added the very specific link you're asking for. Perhaps you hadn't noticed the change yet? Just scroll down on the indicated page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You're right, it's now sourced, so I took down the nsd tag. Now the only concern is whether it's replaceable, but I'll take that debate to Image talk:Hclplant-udl.jpg – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BSA GA

If you have time, could you give the two BSA articles at WP:GAC a look. If they're not passable, please hold with comments on talk page. Rlevse 11:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

gilwell park

sorry, i clicked the link to a previous version in a WK: page, and the image link was invalid, so i deleted it. i realize now that the current version had a valid link. that was the only change i made, and it was a mistake. and i don't think something like removing 7 characters (by mistake) is vandalism. --Flvg94 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, deleting 7 characters randomly throughout the page is a typical form of vandalism. However, making a mistake isn't a problem: given your registered name, I though I'd better notify you of the mistake. Normally I don't inform vandals about reverting their edits. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Gidney and Wood Badge

I went ahead and made a stub on Francis Gidney and made sure it linked okay in Gilwell Park and Wood Badge articles, it's all I could think of to do before making Wood Badge a FAC as it was at the time a red link in the lead of Wood Badge. Now I'll list Wood Badge for FAC and let's see how bad it gets beat up, it should at least come out an even better article. I'm sure the objection-bot Tony will beat it up.Rlevse 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse Rfa

Thanks for the rfa support. Glad you are a part of the Scouting project and look forward to long happy wiki editing with you. Rlevse 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wood Badge FA

Wood Badge made FA. Congrats again.Rlevse 21:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Wim, once again I need to thank you for your hard work, re-assessing the chemistry articles. I was both busy and a bit under the weather (bad cold) last week, so I was pretty quiet on Wikipedia. I'm beginning to feel well enough to stay up again, and so I was going to pitch in with some serious assessment time, then I found you had finished everything! I'm sorry that you ended up doing the majority of the work, but thank you anyway!

I'd like to mention a brand new javascript tool that makes this job easier, take a look at this. I've tried the "basic" version a bit, and it seems to work very well. He's apparently upgraded it to allow you to edit the assessment directly from the article page, to save time, which sounds even better! I haven't tried that version, that only appeared yesterday. Walkerma 04:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Just after posting the above, I noticed this and this] (note the assessments). Very interesting! By the way, the French WP also introduced the assessment scheme week or two back, and they have written their own WP1.0 bot to run it. Walkerma 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wim, I see that you're still assessing, but I thought you'd finished the list. Does that mean there is still something I can do to help? Please let me know. Thanks, and all the best, Walkerma 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nah, I'm just finetuning. I want to align the old-style manual counting that I used to do with the new bot-supported counting. The template-based assessment has not been fully kept apace with the table, so that's where some finetuning is necessary. You might give some attention, though, to B to A promotion. There are a few proposals on the wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/List of A-Class articles. And I'm thinking of choosing an A-Classer for FAC, too. Ideas? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Once again, I must thank you for taking care of those inline cites for GAs. I knew this was coming, and there may be more to come. In the summer I'll have more time to polish these articles. Right now I'm busy at work, but I'm also trying to get things moving again at WP:1.0, where things have stood still for the last two months (I've been busy offline with 0.5). I'm also getting ready to present with someone else you know at the ACS meeting in Chicago. Thanks for your help!
As for an A-classer to get to FA, we could consider sulfuric acid, which IMHO mainly just needs lots more (inline) refs and some polishing. (Others may see things I'm missing) That's a pretty important compound, so it'd be nice to have it as an FA alongside HCl and HOAc. (Unless you think the pH of our WP:Chem FAs is too low!). From WP:Chemistry I'd like to work on Lavoisier - I got as far as taking books out on him, even reading some, but then the semester started.... Cheers, Walkerma 03:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll take the bait: who's the one I know? I've been over the ACS programme, but can't find them. And the pH argument indeed has made me tend to sodium sulfate instead. Both sodium hydroxide and soda ash aren't up to near-FA level yet. Alternatively, how about the little gem of gold(III) chloride? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha! These nagging things that you just can't solve. I'd been looking for a Dutch (or even European) lecturer or so. Or someone in the chlor-alkali topics. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
I'd be thrilled to see sodium sulfate reach FA, of course! I may even be able to fill in a little history, thanks to a book I'm reading on the history of the chemical industry. As for AuCl3, I've heard that it can be hard for short articles to make it through the FAC process, I don't know how true that is. Cheers, Walkerma 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Article rating on chlorine

Usually I am uncomfortable changing the rating of any article. I prefer to let others be the judge/critic. Please observe that on talk:chlorine, it was rated A before 74.116.113.241 went and changed it to GA. Although I disagreed with that change, I didn't revert it because I don't know the policies for ratings. But if it was A before, perhaps it ought to be A once again (rather than B). Think about it. Thanks. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Karl, I investigated the statement that the article is too low on (in-line) refs, and decided that the anonymous re-assessor indeed is right: the article is too low on refs altogether. Therefore I agree with him/her, and I rated the article one grade below 'A' in our historically correct WP:Chem rating list, hence B. I'll work on adding more refs or so, to get it back to a real A later. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC).


Your GA nomination of Zinc chloride

The article Zinc chloride you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Zinc chloride for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/m/User_talk%7EWimvandorst_archive03_1946.html"