User talk:Wimvandorst

Contents
Featured Picture
Signpost
Volume 20, Issue 7 — 2024-05-16 News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators? Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24 In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure Comix: Generations Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
Notice board
Archives
Please leave a new message

my WikiCommons identity

Herewith I assert that I am the same user as commons:user:Wimvandorst. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Lead(II)

Hi. I did not say it was wrong in my closing but pointed to the comprehensiveness concerns raised and some organizational issues. I would advise the following:

• Better rationalize the History and Applications sections (perhaps a single Historical applications). The former ends at the 19th century (as Tony pointed out, centuries are mentioned without greater specificity) but then the latter begins "Historically, lead(II) nitrate is used in the manufacture of matches and special explosives such as lead azide, in mordants and pigments (e.g., in lead paints), for dyeing and printing calico and other textiles, and in the general manufacture of lead compounds." This is not logically organized. Can more be said about the who and where of manufacture and more precise dates be provided? And can the two sections be made to flow together so the reader has a more comprehensive grasp of the history of application? If it was only used in pigments prior to the 20th century when was it "historically" used in matches and explosive material?
• Does it make sense to have Preparation after Chemistry? "The compound is normally obtained..." seems like it should arrive earlier.
• Some formulae are dumped at the end of sections.
• "There is no known industrial scale production." But it does have commercial use? This is just the sort of thing that could be better clarified.

Note that when I close my principal question is whether work is going on. I removed in part because nothing had been done on the article in six weeks. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Marskell, for your elaborate answers. These are indeed useful and helpful directives. I'll work on these things in the next period. They are mostly doable, although the overall lack of information on this subject will make it slightly challenging.

I wasn't aware that the review was still running, and considered it to have closed with 'no action' or something. No problem with closing it, though. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC).

Help with copyediting requested

Hi, I saw you on the LoCE list, and I was wondering if you could take a look at Reese Witherspoon when you have some time? The page is currently at FAC; I've done some work myself but it has been suggested that some copyediting from an uninvolved editor is needed. Could you do me a favor by helping me out with this stage? Thank you! PeaceNT (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead FAC

Maybe more about how it's produced in a factory? I'm no chemist though. I'll try to think of more. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Bduke about this, he's a chemist/science type like you. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scouting WikiProject in the Signpost

We'll be in the Signpost on Wednesday, 2 Jan about 17:00 UTC, someone noticed us, be sure to read it, many of us get it, read it on my talk page if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for drawing attention to it: I'm a subscriber myself (see my nice sidebar on this talkpage). Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

FAC review

I'd be most grateful if you'd review Sid Barnes at FAC. Even (especially) if you know nothing about cricket. Thanks in anticipation! --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:3rdJamboreebadge.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:3rdJamboreebadge.gif, 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. —PNG crusade bot ^(feedback) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fine with me: I'll let it go. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Score on Lead(II) nitrate

Support: 6
Weak support: 1
Weak oppose: 3
Oppose: 1
Timestamp: Wim van Dorst (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free media (Image:3rdJamboreebadge.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:3rdJamboreebadge.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

E. Urner Goodman

Could you look at this and see what you think it needs for Aclass? Leave on talk there or edit as you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Diketene

The article is all about one specific compound, with formula C4H4O2. It mentions substituted diketenes in passing, but I'm sure that benzene also mentions substituted benzenes in passing and that doesn't make it "not a chemical compound". --Itub (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Itub, thanks for keeping an eye on all those assessments that I do for WP:Chem. After re-reading the (now clearer) article, I can see you're right. Adjusted. Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC).