User talk:Wimvandorst/archive05

For archiving 2009 discussions.

Belated Thanks and FA preference question

A much belated thanks for upgrading PFOA to a B class article with the automatically generated suggestions. They have proven helpful. I have been using the cite journal, etc. format lately on PFOA. Is that the same as cite.php (sp?) that is the recommended format for potential FA articles? Thank you. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization#How to categorize an article

Hi Wim. Please have a look at the end of the second sentence. Thanks. --Leyo 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hyodeoxycholic acid rating

Did you really mean to rate it as a stub? As far as I can tell your WikiProject doesn't have any rating criteria, so the default ones apply. The article doesn't have much on chemical properties or detailed reactions, but the account of biological functions of HDCA are fairly complete (there's not much more literature on it), and the article is thoroughly cited with 17 references. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you're being a bit harsh there Wim! I mean, the article has, erm, section headings and things like that ;) I'd re-rate it myself, but I've got a plane to catch, so could you give it another look. Physchim62 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Xasodfuih and PC. Yes, re-reading the article, there is indeed enough chemical compound information in it to grade it as a {{Chem Start}}. Thanks for calling my attention to it, and I'll correct it presently. To inform you: the WP:Chem wikiproject is the historical origin of the Wikipedia assessment grading scheme. You can find the details of our grading (still the historic values) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Assessment. For seeing what optimally constitutes a A-Class WP:Chem article, may I suggest a visit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines. Success. Wim van Dorst (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

{{Chembox}}

Hi Wim

I've checked a dozen pages, before and after the chembox new change. They look exactly the same. Could you elaborate? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re line wrap in drugboxes

See my answer on the chembox page. Use firefox and enable side bars, then you see why I have done the edits. On long names the chembox/drugbox blows up to huge size and displays funny/unusable. Thats not a style change, I try to fix a defect here. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re line breaks are to be done by the browser, not by the user

You reverted a whole lot of work I have done to make the boxes work on firefox 2.xxxx, which is not an old browser. Sorry, but IE and firefox 2.x do not wrap long names. Please convince yourself of the problem, before reverting. You cannot simply order "are to be done by the browser". They don't do that and they are out there, displaying your reverts as crap. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And please don't revert edits without a discussion, even if the contributor is anon. This is not vandalism. Thanks. The reason for my edits is that firefox 2.x does only recognize space as a word wrap separator. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) 70.137.173.82 (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You could have discussed that on my talk page before reverting. I am a professional. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh... wikipedian from the Netherlands, and former marketing manager! After working for Philips for 33 years in a senior technical position your breed became my nemesis! Never mind... 70.137.173.82 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion. I did leave you a message on your talk page, and so did Wimvandorst. You even took part in it. Old hands decided to fix this by adjusting the code for the template instead of fixing each of the thousands of pages affected. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Harold-Wilberforce-Clifton.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Harold-Wilberforce-Clifton.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Chillum 03:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Photographic chemicals

Hi! Yes, these chemicals are used in black&white photography (hydrochloric acid is used in toners and intensifiers; sodium sulfate is used in tropical developers). Regards, Dorgan (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Article assessment

You may not have notice the section on article assessment at WT:CHEM, but it looks as if we are going to have to have an assessment drive at both WP:CHM and WP:CHEM. I'd be grateful for any comments you might have. Met vriendlijken groeten Physchim62 (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. Thought you'd be interested since you do so much image work. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Carbodiimide

Hi Wim

Ordinarily I would not tag compound class-articles with {{Chemicals}}, but I do believe this article deserves both {{Chemistry}} and {{Chemicals}} because it does contain a monograph on a handful of representative members. That is not an ideal situation, but that can be fixed in future. What do you think? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Split off, so it should stay as it is now. :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sodium sulfate

Hello Wim, I understand your undo, but my aim was to create a "See also" section which is still lacking for the page on "Sodium Sulfate" and it is also a good place to directly link to the first discoverer of the substance, even if, I agree it induces some redundancy. Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Shinkolowbe, a See-also section is only worthwhile if there are additional topics, not covered in the article. Typically, the first discoverer of a chemical compound would be well described in the "History" section, where for sodium sulfate it is. So, adding that to the See also section remains not useful. If you have a good topic for it, feel free to add a new section for it. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

File permission problem with File:Hanswijers.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Hanswijers.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Tidewater Council logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tidewater Council logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. B (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)