Hi Wim,

Yes, that looks fine, thanks! Today I saw a similar one for WP Tropical Cyclones here, so this may be a trend! I'm not big on userboxes, but I'll leave that one up. BTW, I think our "lack of progress" in the last month may well be due partly to lack of new assessment, we should probably re-assess our whole worklist soon. Thanks, Walkerma 23:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, of course - the remarks about ethylene are a bit off topic. But the way the article on Ethane was (and now, once again, is) the inexperienced reader (perhaps a young student) will wonder why there is this "prominent importance." She or he may figure - why bother to click on Ethylene - I will again be told it is important but have to look further. If you say "prominent importance" you might at least mention "used in plastics" or something. Most of the people who click on Ethane are not going to be chemists. They want quick answers. Carrionluggage 22:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• The introtext should be concise. How about this? Wim van Dorst 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

Hi Wim,

I wanted to ask for your (& PC's) opinion. My work on WP1.0 has got me interested in how articles are "arranged" in a hierarchy, since we need to work out a set of articles to put in 1.0. On Wikipedia we currently have categories, but I personally find these very "clunky" and it's hard to see the bigger picture. There is (in some obscure corner of Wikipedia) a way of expanding these in a "tree" format using a script from de, but this is only a little better IMHO. We have a few nice boxes like Template:PeriodicTablesFooter, but these are rare and usually only cover major topics. Over the last month or so I have been experimenting a bit with what I call a tree, and although it's technically very crude (like most things I do!) I do like the basic idea. I wanted to get your thoughts on the basic concept and, if you like it, how it might be improved. There are some symbols I'm using, ↓ means go one level down (↑ to go up), @ means go to the article, = means go to the list and © means go to the category. I have a few test pages, these don't have every link done yet, but you can go all the way through to iron(III) oxide (or any other oxide up to SeO₂). Can you try looking up an oxide starting here, and let me know what you think? Cheers, Walkerma 07:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Answer on PC's talkpage. Wim van Dorst (Talk).

Hi Wim. I note that you have fair use images on User:Wimvandorst/pictures. However, please note that any such images may only be used in main space articles, and not on user pages - please could you remove these? Thanks, CLW 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I hope blanks links to my uploaded images is ok? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gelatinsorbet.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jabir.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Leatherswimsuit.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wim, I hope you'll forgive me, I reverted your redirect on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing workgroup. I wanted to create a place where people could talk freely about the details of this topic without filling up the Chemistry talk page (I set it up as a sub-page of WP:Chemistry, since it covers 3D models, reactions etc, not just chemical compounds). I fully expect us to fill up 32 kB in a few days (6 people signed on to the group within 12 hours), and this discussion would just get in the way of general chem discussions. The analogy in my mind is Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox. What I propose is that when everything is complete we can make sure the archive listings include links to these discussions, is that OK? Good news about stub listings, btw, thanks for reassessing. Walkerma 06:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Assuming that you have my pages on your watchlist, I'll simply answer here: Of course I agree with your making a better dedicated talk page out of it. As an interested person, I did read the discussions sofar, and may perhaps even contribute some opinion of my own (e.g., butting in with my being colourblind and not able to make the distinction between emerald and beige for instance). And as an inorganics persons, I thought I better not join just yet. If the success of this workgroup is comparable to the chembox, then IMHO you're on a winner. Good luck. (PS. ACS still doesn't show the podcast of your presentation, or am I looking in the wrong place?). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC).

By the way, I'm in the US Eastern time zone, but "Daylight Savings Time started recently", so I think we are one hour ahead of usual. Either that or I'm stranded in the Bermuda Triangle! Thanks for your understanding over the talk page, feel free to add comments even if you're not an active participant. Yesterday I got a request for a bio to add to the podcast, so they will have that up soon, I'll post it on WP:Chemistry when it's up.

• Boston Mass is normally at GMT-5, and now with summertime is GMT-4. As is the normal time in Bermuda as well. So, you can't be lost in the Bermuda triangle (I had already checked such an obvious place ;-). I'll be looking forward to ACS's activities here. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, you're right, I just got confused! I think it was 3am local time when I made the post! Walkerma 20:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The boron compounds are both oxigen variations, ignoring the also important halides, which would als make a good part in the list! So I adde something to it to get it to a better standard! With the other worksites I will continue when there is more time. First I have to start my new job!--Stone 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldnt con anyone into doing this stub, it's now a nice start. I wouldnt have known that few Pb(II) species are water soluble. Sometime in the far future, it would be nice to have a "bot" insert Ksp's for some of these simple species. My class is now finishing so you should be able to find some former stubs that could be upgraded after polishing by a chemist: Carbonyldiimidazole, Copper(I) iodide, Dicyclohexylcarbodiimide, dimethyl sulfate, guanine, Imidazole, isoquinoline, Magnesium carbonate, Mercury(I) chloride, Osmium tetroxide, Perrhenic acid, Silver bromide, Sodium pertechnetate, Tantalum(V) chloride, uracil, Yttrium barium copper oxide. Also the following have been tweaked bromoethane and Gadolinium trichloride. I wonder why diethyl sulfate and dimethyl sulfate separately made the work list. Best wishes,--Smokefoot 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Very nice work, Smokefoot. Compliments to your students (and yourself I see). All these articles have all definitely grown from Stub to Start level and quite some directly to B-Class level. The bromoethane article was meeting old friends, as I myself created that last year to Stub level and quite lost track of it. I have now assessed all these articles and adjusted the notation in the WP:Chem worklist accordingly. This gives a nice dent in the Stubs-group! Thanks. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Hi. I have a question at User_talk:Mathbot/WP1.0#May I request an enhancement. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making Eagle Scout rank (Boy Scouts of America) a Good Article. A lot of work has gone into it and we're glad you like it. I'm the coordinator of the Scouting WikiProject. Maybe we'll try to make it an FA next. I think you may be from Holland. Lovely country. I lived there when I was 11-12 years old (a long time ago!). Yours in Scouting, Randy Rlevse 10:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• A LOT of work has been done on this article this week as we prepare it for a per review and then FAC submission. If you're not watching it, you may want to. Thanks again. Rlevse 10:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Wim: thanks for your help on this, you've made some fine contributions and I hope to work with you more. But we did have to make one factual correction: Scouting is not fully coed in the USA, so females can not earn the Eagle rank. In the USA, girls earn what is called the Gold Award, the equivalent of Eagle Scout in the Girl Scouts organization. Rlevse 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed and Wim: I'm going to list the Eagle Scout article for a formal peer review in a few moments in the hope in about 2 weeks to list it as a FAC. Based on my experience with other FACs and one of my own successful FAs, I think there are two things people may object to: a) is the lead long enough? and b) are there too many lists? Please think these issues over. Thanks for all the help, Randy. YIS, Rlevse 11:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wim: As you're a Crown Scout and already such a great contributor to the Scouting Project, why don't you add your name to our member list (on the Scouting Project page where the new articles are at, but more in the middle of the page)? Yours in Scouting (YIS), Rlevse 23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, Rlevse. Thanks for the invitation, but I'm already involved in the Chemicals wikiproject. When that one will be finished, then I can always still join the Scouting wikiproject. But I hope contributing is allowed nonetheless ;-). 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC).

Wim,

You left an edit comment with HCl in the table suggesting that you were unclear on how to judge this. I would ask you to judge importance in terms of WP:Chem, don't try to judge it for WP1.0. As chemicals go, I would put hydrochloric acid as "Top-Class" myself, I would put it in my top 50 (maybe even top 20) most important chemicals (note that the CD release of 2000 articles from the whole of Wikipedia included it). If you think it's ranked more like #157, then by all means put it as "High-Class," if it's more like #532 then it's probably "Mid-Class" and below #1000 it's probably "Low-Class". When we look at whether or not to include any given article in a WP:1.0 release, we will judge based on the importance of the subject area (here chemicals, so it's incredibly high of course!!) and the importance of the article within the subject area/wikiproject. Thus a high-class chemistry article may take precedence over a top-class article from the KLF microproject. Thanks also for all your help tagging these! I'm amazed, though, the military history folks started tagging after us, and they've already tagged 2000 articles, quite amazing! Hope this helps, if you need more elaboration let me know, Walkerma 16:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Martin. I'd think that such an approach would be workable. And what amazes me most is that they have found seven thousand articles on Mil Hist. I wonder whether we would be able to find 7000 articles on chemicals. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

I will not be adding the NFPA 704 images to IMD. I thought that since we have an NFPA 704 template, the images would be pointless. Thanks for proving me wrong. :) --Evan Robidoux 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, Evan, You're welcome to my support for that ;-). I hope my information was presented suffiently friendly. At least it was intended that way. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Hi, WVD: added a Scouting stub to it. Thanks V. Joe 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fully correct. You're quick! Thanks for your help. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Wim: are you sure Crown Scout is a merit badge vice a rank? Rlevse 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm aware, both in Dutch scouting but also in English scouting there isn't much about ranks. It is all earning a badge. Ranking is only wrt patrol leaders, troopleader, etc. I chose the wording of 'Crown Scout merit badge' intentionally, indeed to differ from the BSA approach. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC).
  • PS: Please consider formally joining the Scouting Project. Rlevse
    • Thanks for inviting me again, but no thanks. I'm merely enjoying myself with just the Baden-Powell House article (and some editing to the eagle scout thing thrown in), but I would like to focus on WP:Chem. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC).
  • PPS: I added Crown Scout to the new Scouting articles list on the project page. Rlevse 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC).
  • No problem, just glad you've been so helpful. Rlevse 15:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Which CD publication? {{WPCD}} is for a specific CD already released. You might want to nominate it for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 or Wikipedia:Version 1.0. 0.5 is currently open for nominations (and hydrochloric acid has already been accepted), but 1.0 won't be ready for some time. --Rory096 19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see {{WPCD}} is now being used as a way to make something a candidate for the next CD by Bozmo. I'll put the tag back on. --Rory096 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wim: It amazes me that articles like this: Karl Wilhelm Gottlob Kastner, where it only says he was a professor and doesn't mention awards, can stay for almost two years but Dipics wants to pounce on Haddoch within an hour. There are lots of articles like Kastner, many in even poorer shape than his. Someone just happened to notice Haddoch--that's all this boils down to. Oh well-;). Rlevse 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See talk input by User:Lincher on the talkpage and email I sent you. Rlevse 14:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wim, I've done a copyedit on the article, please can you check that the facts are still totally correct. Did I interpret the meaning of "current days" correctly, or is "Current Days" a scouting term (it's not a phrase I've ever heard before). Walkerma 23:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course you can! On your monobook.js page (User:Wimvandorst/monobook.js) add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js}}. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla/Safari: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera/Konqueror: press F5. While in editing mode, look at the "log out" link in your personal bar and there should be a "peer review" link right next to it; click on it and the suggestions will spring up (in template form, though). Andy _t 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out; IE seems to just ignore the problem. I (hope at least) fixed it. Andy _t 00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

javascript:if(km.test(theText) || mi.test(theText) || ft.test(theText) || yd.test(theText) || cm.test(theText) || nm.test(theText) || inch.test(theText) || dm.test(theText) || lb.test(theText) || ton.test(theText) || gram.test(theText) || mton.test(theText)){alert("yes")}

• The nbsp comment drove me crazy once also (along w/ the spelling of units) because they kept appearing when it was obvious there were no units; since then I think I've cleared up most of the problems. Chances are it is being thrown off by either "# in" or "# gram". If you type the above into your URL bar after you execute the peer review, it should give you an alert saying yes; from there you can slowly use elimination to determine which one is setting off the problem. (like slowly making it smaller to javascript:if(km.test(theText) || mi.test(theText) || ft.test(theText)){alert("yes")}. Andy _t 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • GOT it! Indeed an 'in 1994 in someplace bla' text. Thanks for helping me out. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

• I caught the small alphabetizing error; rather than split it to two lines, I'll probably fix it to specify if it was cats, ils, or both. As for the bullet layout, the bullets were there originally to make them distinct from the PR nomination information. Now that my suggestions are poured into WP:PR/A, your layout does look better - thanks for the suggestions! Andy _t 00:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you already noticed I started a rating system and you obviously are familiar with it from the Chemistry project. Cool. I hope you don't mind I volunteered you to answer questions on the announcements page. If you know someone who knows how to set up the automatic statistics, could you ask them to help? Rlevse 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Did that, on Oleg's talkpage. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
• Just a few small changes on your categories tree, and now it should work. We'll see in this night's run. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
• Wim, thanks for putting tweaks on the setup and asking Oleg to add us (glad you knew what to do). I left this on his talk page: "::*Oleg, I am the coordinator of the Scouting Project. Thanks so much for finishing this setup. What you've done here with the automatic, sorting, logs, etc is truly impressive. Many thanks." Many thanks to you too. Even if you didn't join the Scouting Project, I consider you a defacto member. Sorry about your FAC. My first FAC (on MB history) failed after 3 days, but I worked on it and it eventually made FA. Rlevse 11:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Randy, good to give a kind response to Oleg. And thanks for your kind words. I already have written other articles to FA status, e.g., hydrochloric acid so I'm not new to the process. But it is a pity that the peerreview process doesn't come out usable. The script answers are useful, but it can give a technical answer only and not interpretative knowledge. We'll now have some good and interesting items to work. Perhaps I'll even have to go to BP House again: it has been a while since I was there last time. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

I replied on my talk page, to keep the conversation in one place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure with some more research etc. it will make it next time, I searched today for the name of the architect but couldn't find it anywhere. I only noticed it had already failed after I expanded the architecture section, revert if you don't like. It does need some better images from various angles, and a little more about what goes on there; but it will always be a difficult subject to FAC Giano | talk 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The architecture is indisputable fact for that particular style of modern architecture, take a look at the links and you will see what I mean. Failing that you can liken it to a Britisj telephone exchange! I see the painting of Baden-Powell has re-appeared - believe me it is superfluous there is am image of him in a badge, his image is in the statue, a further painting is entering the realms of self indulgence this is page is about a building not Baden-Powell himself, it is not his mausoleum. It is picture of the building which are needed. Giano | talk 21:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for elucidating on the architecture text. I'll use it unreferenced then. The painting is famous in scouting, and its presence in the Baden-Powell is pivotal to the collection. Hence my re-inclusion: it is not 'a picture of BP' but a 'notable painting by Jagger, mainpiece of the collection'. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

Then, if I were you I would expand hugely on not just the painting but the rest of the collection housed there, have a whole section on it, and its importance to the scouting movement. Giano | talk 08:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wim: I just got back from being gone over a week. I should get to the FAC tonight or Monday. Rlevse 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wim, I'll get to this over the next day or two. You must be watching my edits or something. Rlevse 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, not your edits, but your user talk:Rlevse page is on my watchlist (after adding something and too lazy to remove). And there it showed something totally un-understandable Boomibool or something, and that tickeled my interest. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Cool, my wife is Thai so I have interest in Thai stuff and the king just got the Bronze Wolf, so that is how this round started. Could you run the PR script on Scouting? I just nominated it for GA. Rlevse 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw this on WP:GAC and it doesn't have a chem project tag. It may be GA, but there are lots of formulas and you are more qualified.Rlevse 21:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wim, in case you are not aware, GA nominations can only be on hold for 7 days. Please fix your concerns by then as I'd prefer not to relist it. If I can be of any help at all on this, let me know. Rlevse 23:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Randy, I'm not planning any editing of Scouting myself at present. The whole idea is that an independent person, not significantly involved in the editing of the article or the WikiProject, is to give ithe verdict of GA or not. As I put it on-hold, that would be me. The improvement recommendations are for the person(s) who nominated the article and thus have taken the responsibility of responding to the recommendations. That would be you: segragation of duties. So, as indeed there are only seven days of on-hold, your active support is eagerly expected. (PS Be Bold, there's quite some change needed). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

I know, but the ideas are yours, not mine, so I don't know exactly what you want. You could edit it and then let someone else decide on the GA status, or tell us in more detail what you want. Rlevse 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• The details of the needed improvements are mentioned on the talk:Scouting page. If I could spare the time now, I would indeed help you out. The recommendations are not mine only, as they are explicitly supported by another user. Are they not clear enough? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

I'd dont' mind making the updates, but more detail would be appreciated. For instance, saying including the Scout method is a start but what else are you looking for? I just don't have a warm fuzzy on what you're looking for. Rlevse 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I did lots of work as I understood what you and Jergen wanted. Most of it on Scout method, which was a major good idea. I think perhaps the uniform section should be a subsection of the Scout method section? I did little to the breakaway part because I think that's historicaly important. Let me know if you have more thoughts. Rlevse 17:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we won! Thanks for the message - It was a thrilling time, a highlight of my life, and BP House is not looking too bad either ;>) Giano | talk 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Italia deserved it, this time. Next time, we'll win again ;-). Would you care to add anything to Baden-Powell House, or is it now FA-ready? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

Of course you will, I have no doubt. BPH is looking good too, I'll try and find some further refs for the architecture section tomorrow - to be honest I'm stll not sure (IMO) it is FA standard - but as I have edited it I can't vote, can I? So best of luck with it - let me add those refs first though! Regards Giano | talk 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'll be looking forward to the refs. They'll nicely wrap up the architecture section, IMHO. And sure you can vote on an article to which you contributed some 10 edits out of the 300 or so. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

It has been edited significantly since I proposed it for FA two weeks ago. Feel free to provide recommendations of further improvements. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

Very substantial improvement. I'll make some more detailed comments in the near future. Af the moment I am CFRing "Scouting in the UK" to "Scouting in the United Kingdom" in line with a recent consensus on WP:CFD to expand country initialisms like U.S. and U.K. but hopefully that will qualify as a "speedy". TheGrappler 21:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is now much better, bit still need a wrapping up - concluding section, at the moment it ends far too abruptly - perhaps a final section on mentioning haow many stay there. modern adiministration - finances (or lack of finances) that sort of thing, to bring the whole thing right up to date, and conclude the story. Giano | talk 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• The intention is to have exactly that in the section on Part of The Scout Association, but apparently that isn't obvious. Would another section title help? Or moving the section to the end? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 06:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

I just feel the page need a satisfying concluding section which it does not at the moment have, perhaps the modern refit and a few final facts pabout the house topday could be shuffled about to create such a section, just a couple of paragraphs will do - you know waffle a bit about the importance of the place to the modern scouting movement, the role it plays today etc etc etc. I had no idea poor of old Monsieur Le Corbusier was Swiss - one learns something new every day here! Giano | talk 09:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• All the info you mention is already in the Scout Association section. I now switched them around (and retitled it a bit: you'll see), to give the article the suggested wrap-up. It this what you propose? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

• Yes, that is exactly what I meant. I've just changed the headers a little (quite bit actually, revert if you want) I think the others were too long. To my eyes the page is now vastly improved - I stll think it lacks oomph! - but we shall see - other people seldom agree with me, so it will probably pass this time - I certainly won't hinder it! Giano | talk 22:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better! I saw these (maybe you can have one more run-through, and then ask Tony to look again):

• Afterwards, after which the Queen toured the house with the Chief Scout and the president of The Scout Association, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, her uncle.
• There's some inconsistency throughout with respect to italics. At the top of the article, I find Last Message to Scouts is not italicized, but later I find a sentence with several words italicized: Since Baden-Powell House was intended as a tribute to Baden-Powell, a notable collection of Baden-Powell memorabilia has always been on display for visitors in The story of B-P exhibition. This includes many drawings and letters by Baden-Powell himself, such as the original of his Last Message to Scouts, Laws for me when I am old and several first editions of his books. I'm not sure which is correct, but they should be consistent. (I find all of the capitalized words distracting, but nothing can be done about that :-)

Please leave me another message when you've been through it, and I'll be glad to update my vote: nice work. Sandy 10:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me know. My house was hit by lightening, and I'm having technical difficulties still, so ring twice if you get lost in the shuffle. Sandy 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I did half an hour ago. It is number 48 on your talk page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

CONGRATS, it's FA now!Rlevse 23:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping by and wishing me happy birthday. It didn't occur to me that I would be receiving such a positive responce for creating the Scouting user templates category. (If that is how you found me, and by the articles you have edited, I think so.) :)
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, that's how I came by, and read your biography. And realized that it is (nearly) today that is your Birthday. Best wishes. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

I've increased the size of the image in the Infobox. Please let me know if this is ok for you now. --Mcginnly 07:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• We might well be able to increase the width to that of the table (on my monitor it actually looks like this), but it's beyond my limited coding skill. If you could find someone to do it that would be great for everyone.--Mcginnly 10:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your chemsitry project may want to put project tags on Dudley R. Herschbach and Peter Agre. Both are Eagle Scouts and Nobel Chemistry Prize laurettes.

• Thanks, Randy. Done. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Nobel prizes only get you a mid-rating? Interesting. Rlevse 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No, Dutch Nobel prizes get Top, of course, but US ones... Well, what can one do? ;-) Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

Hi Wim (of mag ik 'goedenavond Wim', zeggen),

I know you are very busy assessing the quality of many chemical substance pages, so I hope that you know an answer to my question. Lately I have been going through a fair number (approx. 2400) of chemical substances, cleaning up links to chemical suppliers etc., and adding a link to the Wikipedia:Chemical sources page to them. During that sweep, I saw many pages which are way below level (to say the least, but well, they at least exist, they will expand in time, I hope), but, more important, also many that were not categorised. I am now running an WP:AWB sweep through all the pages that I added the ChemicalSources template to, and adding at least one category to them. But do you know tricks to find as many 'chemical substance pages' as possible? Up till now there seems to be no existence of a 'clean' category that only contains (pure, identified) chemical substances (e.g. the category:organic compounds contains also other pages, related to organic compounds, e.g. functional group), let alone that there are (nearly) complete lists of chemical substances. The list of organic compounds and the same have a list of substances, but well, far from complete, I guess. Any idea's?

Met vriendelijke groet, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Dirk, goedenavond, indeed we could follow one of several languages (NL/DE/FR/SE) but they will flummox the general visitor to this talk page, so we'd better not.

To put the word out: there is no list of all chemicals in wikipedia. Latest estimate that I recall is some 2 to 3000 with your 2400, I'd say you have a reasonable coverage. The most reliable two lists are list of inorganic compounds and list of organic compounds, which I recall were given a good once-over by Martin Walker, and may IMHO be considered Best in Class. For the WP:Chem, we took a totally different stand: we decided to define a limited goal which is doable within a certain time constraint. As you can see in the project's statistics we have improved the most important chemicals from a low class or even 20% non-existant to now 90% Start-Class or better. It was here that the classification system was designed, btw. And this worklist already contains all of the Top-importance class articles too, even when the importance wasn't even thought about. So, I can't give you a more comprehensive list or category, but I can give you the top of that very very long list. Succes with your work. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC). Hi Wim, too bad. I was only looking for a list that would be clean (I know, complete is a different question). I will just add the ChemicalSources template to pages about 'defined chemical substances' that I encounter, and in that way keep a quite complete record (can always use the 'what links here' to the template to get a complete list). But thanks for the answer! Keep up the good work! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you take a look at User:Gadget850/Sandbox2 and see if you still have the issue with table widths? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wim: These articles are on the same place. The photo and text in Hong Kong Scout Centre show Baden-Powell International House is only a part of the whole center. I'm putting merge tags on them. Rlevse 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, don't be so quick. Just read the new article I'm writing now! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC).
  • I didn't notice it was yours, so I'll undo. But I don't see how they're so different at this point.Rlevse 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The BP International is a huge standalone hotel, and has nearly nothing to do with Scouting. It is a commercial venue, creating revenus. And the Scout Centre is the real headquarters, located in the off-side buildings. Give a few days (weeks?) and it'll show. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

OK. In the meantime, can you give me some ideas on what you feel Scouting needs to be A-class and I'll work on it. As it's our grandaddy overview article, I want to get it to FA. Rlevse 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's on its talkpage. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

Tony removed his FAC objection, which he rarely does, congrats! Suggest you take the "The" out of that 21st Century section heading or rename it to "Future" or something similar. Rlevse 02:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

Thanks for correcting my mistake in my 2a article. What a klutz I am. Tony 09:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• As you have provided a valuable support to my B-P House article, you're highly welcome to my humble edits. And finding silly typos in your text are for getting revenge on your finding still (after all my meticulous re-re-reading) a double word (price price) in my BP House article. (just kidding :-).
  • Ps. I definitely like your 2a-article. It was very useful advice. Please keep on.
  • pps. I couldn't help reading, under the B-P House header on your and Sandy's talkpages, your appreciation of my responsiveness to you IMHO very useful feedback. It was definitely my pleasure. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

Wim, see Wood Badge, in the 4th paragraph, it says "Baden Powell Building". Is this the same as Baden-Powell House? Rlevse 11:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• hi Randy, Although it is definitely sure that the only Baden-Powell building in London is Baden-Powell House, I have insufficient data to confirm that those beads are actually in its collection. Considering the importance of beads as well as collection, this does ring true. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Good enough for me, I'll change it. We'll let someone disprove otherwise.Rlevse 12:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • When Baden-Powell House has become FA (eventually), how about a meeting there for corroboration of the facts? Are you rich enough to pay for a weekend trip for both our families? And if you are really wealthy, you may throw in an invitation to Tony, Sandy, Giano, and TheGrappler as well ;-). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC).

Congratulations on Baden-Powell House reaching FA status. Would it be possible to include the Longitude and latitude of the building using a template such as {{coor title dms}} so that it can link to Google earth etc? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind words. And the coord are up. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

Wim, that is so very very kind and thoughtful of you :-) As you can see, one gets a bit beaten up on FAC, and it's very nice when the work is appreciated :-) Now, who is this person inviting us all to where in the section above? I could use a nice vacation :-) Congratulations on a fine job!! Sandy 20:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• The invitor is Randy, of the Scouting WikiProject. Unfortunately, he hasn't confirmed the invitation yet ;-). And the meeting place will of course be Baden-Powell House in London. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Now I'm going to have to visit ! Sandy 21:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! thanks for the barnstar, I've never had a scouting badge before. Pleased to see it passed, look forward to seeing it on the main page Giano | talk 21:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm glad you introduced the starting parts of the architecture section, so you well earned your badge. And I'll have it proposed for home page soon. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

• This may be a little late but I would like to offer my own congratulations as well. TheGrappler 23:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

An even later congratulations for getting Baden-Powell House to FA status. It should be possible to make it work based upon local language; I'll work on that as fast as possible. AZ _t 00:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears from discussion threads on this article that the writers question whether to include the section on B-P's sexuality at all. The discussion centers on Tim Jeal's writing on this topic in his book, THE BOY MAN (Century Hutchinson Ltd. 1989 in UK and William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1990 in US) later issued as BADEN-POWELL (published by Pimlico and then Yale). (Pardon the bibliography, but elsewhere there seemed to be some confusion about various editions of this book.)

Please consider the following:

1. Writers should be clear about what Mr. Jeal said. In reviewing the close relationship between B-P and his best friend, Kenneth "The Boy" McLaren, he concludes that it was "physically chaste". [p. 83]. He summarizes his other work with this: "I found evidence to support the morally neutral idea that he had indeed been a repressed homosexual;" [Tim Jeal, "Baden-Powell at Mafeking," in THE SIEGE OF MAFEKING, p. 226 (Johannesburg: The Brenthurst Press (Pty) Ltd., 2001)].

2. Mr. Jeal's work in the area of sexuality is not authoritative. I have never found any biographical sketch of Mr. Jeal that gives him credentials in psychiatry or psychology. He cites one serious source explaining any reason why B-P's behavior might be consistent with repressed homosexuality, Freud's CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS. [p. 101, fn. 98] After almost a century of extensive writing on psychology, and several decades of scholarly work on homosexuality, one would expect Mr. Jeal to present more science in support of his argument.

3. The entire field of psychohistory is debated among historians. There does not seem to be a concensus favoring it as a useful field for historical work, though it has some devoted adherents. With a few notable exceptions such as Erik Erikson and Peter Gay, both of whom studied psychoanalysis professionally, most of the proponents of psychohistory are historians, not psychiatrists or psychologists. For a summary of the case against psychohistory, see David Hackett Fischer, HISTORIANS' FALLACIES: TOWARD A LOGIC OF HISTORICAL THOUGHT (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), ch. VII.

In general, I believe Scouters are much better served by reading William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt's BADEN-POWELL: THE TWO LIVES OF A HERO. It discusses B-P's life and times, without the amateur analysis of B-P's motives. (I should mention that I am the managing trustee of the Hillcourt Trust, and proceeds from the sale of the book benefit the trust.)

Without criticizing Bill Hillcourt's book, Mr. Jeal suggests his work is superior to Hillcourt's because he is writing independent of any outside influence, such as Hillcourt's close relationship with B-P and Lady B-P (she was listed as co-author in the first edition) and his lifelong career as a professional and volunteer Scouter. [p. xi] Mr. Jeal takes the same tack in his biography of David Livingstone, pointing out that the famous missionary's other biographers had been clergymen. [LIVINGSTONE (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1973), p. xii] Since Mr. Jeal - who has written more works of fiction than history - is not obligated to B-P's family, or the Scout movement, or the academic community - it would appear that he is responsible only to his publisher and his readers. As such, we must be careful and critical.

I do not frequently read the comments to Wikipedia. If anyone would like to correspond with me on this topic, please contact me at nblock@winstead.com.

Hello Wim,To put this in context I am researching my family particularly a branch who were manufacturing chemists in 1855-1875 in Lancashire. They were coal tar distillers and brimstone refiners. Lead Nitrate was presumably one of the products of one or both of these activities. Almost nothing re this product in chemical ref books other than use as a mordant for the dyeing trade. Other products listed zinc sulphate, copper sulphate, sulphuric acid carbolic acid, benzole.--Bostan 15:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, mordant would be the typical application at the time. And the other chemicals sound pretty old fashioned as well. Nonetheless, such research can be quite facinating. Good luck with your search. And if you happen to find interesting titbits about Pb(NO3)2 feel free to add to wikipedia. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

What is your rationale for changing Gold Award to High vice Top? They are both the highest awards in their program.Rlevse 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I find the Eagle Scout overrated too: they are merely awards in a badges scheme. They are not what defines Scouting. But feel free to revert (I won't start a revert war). Personally I find way too many articles rated as 'High' too: all those 'Association of the ...': they are IMHO merely covering grounds in the wikiproject, and thus ought to be Mid. Several such as the BSA, the Scout Association, and other major ones: they ought to be high.
• Out of all articles on the wikiproject, I'd think 5% Top, 30% high, 40% Mid and 25% low. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

If I went through the ratings again, I would change several of them. A huge percentage of our articles are national associations. One problem is, is it fair to say the association of Bolivia (or whatever) is less important than that of Canada (for example)? Food for thought. Rlevse 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Very true: we mustn't do this just like that on an subjective basis. To get it measurable (SMART), how about taking the top 15 in size of the list of Scouting organizations for High, and the rest for Mid? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 07:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

I learned a lot about the articles we have doing this, who works what areas, ones we had that I didn't know about, found several untagged via being mentioned in a tagged one, etc. As for the national articles, they must make up 40% or so of our articles as some countries have more than one (boys, girls, defunct ones, competing ones, etc). The same problem with association articles arises with the highest awards, things like Bronze Wolf, etc. Let me mull this over. Rlevse 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

down to it for ratings

Let's use 900 articles as a rough average...I think for Top 5% is OK (~45 articles). For Low I think 20% is OK (~180). That leaves 675 for High and Mid. I'd say 35% High (~315) and 40% Mid (~360); making it look like this (Top to Low): 45/315/360/180. Right now it's actually 16/682/122/74. More need to go to Top (liked you moving Wood Badge there) and to Low. I don't want to do this en masse like the first round (too intensive), a slower approach will let us keep a good handle on it. Let's start with picking out a) more obvious Tops and Lows and b) the 15 countries we and to leave in High (I'd count both BSA and GSUSA for example and count it as one country). I'd also count the UK and Canada (2-4 associations) as part of the 15. That leaves 12 more choices--you pick some. Let's move this to a more appropriate spot, the assessment talk page....Rlevse 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

...PS seems this would be the 15 in the Scouting article.Rlevse 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

...I'm not so sure Neckerchief should be Top, but I'll leave it to you-;) See talk and project pages of Assessment. Rlevse 02:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

...I just added a bunch to top, there are 41 right now, about where we want it. A few more would be okay, but not too many.Rlevse 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• We need some more non-BSA focussed, so I added Herman Hui (there wasn't even an article!!), and I'm thinking which persons else to add. The neckerchief definitely stays in, and therefore probably needs quite some 'scout'ification, and I'm thinking about woggle as well. Then there are some major sites too (Kandersteg, Gilwell, BP House) which may well warrant Top too. What do you think? And I can't think of more just now. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

I've made a start at a controversy section. However, I know nothing about the international side of it. Right now, it's mostly the intro from the BSA controversy article. Could you copyedit and put an international flavor on it at: User:Rlevse/sandbox. I think putting the co-ed part as a subsection would be fine. Thanks. After this, I'll probably split the Scouting article and start the international Boy Scout article. Rlevse 13:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Attaboy, Randy. That's progress. I'll be going on vacation after next weekend, but it is clear that you have a summertime full of editing before. Good ideas!
• Unfortunately, (fortunately?) the whole controversy thing doesn't have an international side, as far as I know. Definitely here in Europe the mainstream Scouting does not have such controversies: we've been co-ed for ages, atheism and agnostics is absolutely a non-issue, and homosexuality is not flaundered about as being an important topic in Scouting either. Our Scouting focuses on camping, woodcraft, teamsport, etc. After I'm back (after FOUR weeks!!!), I'll sure give you a hand. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

Then I'll just leave it at coed in Scouting as the rest seems mostly BSA specific. You'll be gone for 4 weeks?Rlevse 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Jealous ;-)? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Of course!Rlevse 22:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I sorta know what you look like as I saw that pic you used to have on your user page, but it was a bit of a distant shot. Rlevse 22:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with this bein Top, but only because he's currently in the top job. I feel we should rotate him out and the next guy in each the person in the job changes. Rlevse 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) PS, every time I put an attention tag on a page, I put a reason in the talk section so people know what to work on.

• Hi Randy, yes, I agree with a rotation scheme. Fortunately, we'll have years of pleasure of a good article on him, as he'll be around till 2008. And smart thinking of the talk page notice. Although is must hit anybody straight in the face what this Top article lacks: content. I think this must be the most meagre Top-importance article that I have seen for quite a while. I was thinking about a Chief Scout article in the Top-range as well, but I can't get a good feeling about it. There's the Chief Scout (United Kingdom) article already. We may move that or so. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

If it's UK specific, I'd only rate it high, if it is global in nature, yes. The current Chief Scout article is UK specifc, so I'd leave it at high. Rlevse 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the point: Chief Scout was 'World' for B-P, and 'British Empire' for the next two or three, and then 'United Kingdom'. And I agree that UK-only is merely High. But perhaps we could work the article out a bit, to include also the other Chief Scouts (there's one in many Scout Associations, e.g. the well known J.J. Rambonnet as Chief Scout of the Netherlands in 1928 till 1938, and the BSA has a Chief Scout still, don't they? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

For the current article, I was referring to the fact it says it only applied to the Commonwealth, at least that's the impression I get. For the BSA, yes, but I think the BSA title is called Chief Scout Executive now. If you include all countries, wouldn't it get to be a big article? as every association has a person in charge, whether they're called Chief Scout or some other title. On a side note, I just can't think of anyone but B-P in the role of Chief Scout of the World, no one has been like him since, but that's just me=;) Rlevse 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some, trying to get it to B-class. Could you add to it for this effort and when you're done, put notes on the talk page about what's left? Rlevse 22:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nice job, I've submitted it for GA as by the time it works its way to the top, we'll be there. I'd also like to find more refs.Rlevse 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you do the required editing, I'll grant you the GA (but you know I'm picky). I'm off to bed now, as it is 01:28 in the very very unDutch-ly hot night. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC).
  • I don't mind you being picky, you're very good at article quality and that's my main overall goal for the project now, better articles. I think we have a good base and the project has greatly helped us get organized and get more editors, so my focus is quality and structure now. I'll work on this over the near future. Rlevse 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've finished with the association and other articles importance assessments. There's a bulge at Mid (see after bot runs our use cats to count up)--wherever we put the bulk of the association articles will have a bulge. I do not want to put very tiny countries (ie, Lesotho) into Low. I am also comfortable with how we grouped them for ratings on importance. Top and High are right about where we wanted. Unless you have a strong objection, I'm changing Mid to 50% and Low to 10%, which will line up the article count. Rlevse 13:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pls look over Boy Scouts. I'd like to get GA for it before you leave. Are you going to be using wiki while you're on your vacation? Rlevse 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, Arthur Rose Eldred, the first Eagle Scout, is number two on the GA list. Would you look at that too?Rlevse 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some guy just failed Eldred. I addressed his issues in 35 minutes but he refuses to put it on hold or look it over again. I do not feel I should have to wait another 3 weeks by resubmitting it. What do you suggest? Rlevse 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Randy, it is evening here, so it must be morning at your place? Are you always on? I'll give the Eldred thing a look, and see what he says. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

I'm on the East Coast, it's early afternoon, yes I spend all day on a computer and check wiki frequently, my job is systems engineer, so I have easy access. Don't forget Boy Scouts too. thanks again.Rlevse 18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I did both the Boy Scout and the Eldred articles. I'm sure that the former is going to make it, just as sure as that the latter isn't. So effort can be directed here: priority setting should be recognizable to a systems engineer (ps. Nice quotes in the SE article. Not that I get from it what a systems engineer does, though). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

Thought you may want to check this out-new on 28 July. Rlevse 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You recently voted on the FAC of Atomic line filter, which I nominated. As I believe I have dealt with your inital objections (see the nom and the article talk page), would you please reevaluate it? Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well done. I left further comments on the FAC page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

You made an objection on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bricker Amendment. Some changes have been made and I wonder if they satisfy your objection enough to change your vote? Thanks for your scrutiny of this article. PedanticallySpeaking 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How was vacation? See announcements on project page. I took Gilwell Park from a stub and listed for FAC. RIght now it has 4-5 supports and no objections. I also helped with Bhumibol Adulyadej, the king of Thailand and it's listed as FAC. It's all supports but there's been some vandalism because some Thais think only good things should be said about the king. One of those guys has been blocked twice.Rlevse 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Double refs

Can you look at this and see why each refs are showing twice? Even #2 & #8 double for each usage (Rogers). I can't figure it out. It did this to me last night and is still doing it. Before it started on the Gilwell Park article, it did it to me on Donald Rumsfeld, but stopped after awhile. I don't know why that one started working right. If you click on the article tab, it does this; but if you go to history and click in the most recent date time stamp, it displays correctly. Rlevse 10:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to work now, at least at work. Will check from home later today in case it's something with my home 'puter.Rlevse 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Works fine at home too now. Go figure. Rlevse 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Don Potter

I've only found info on him being a life-long staffer at Gilwell, and four things he made there: The Jim Green Gate, Gidney Cabin, the Leopard Gates, and some totems he carved for the 1929 Jamboree. Nothing on sculptures per se.Rlevse 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

this guy really wants to delete my recent additions for illustration-Image:LaszlonagyU.jpg‎, Image:Laszlonagycarlgusta.jpg‎; and Image:BoyScoutsofNippon.jpg, please help me save them from him. Chris 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, Chris, I hope you won't hold it against me, but I think that Carnildo is right in pointing out the missing information:
  • source information for the Nagy picture. Please add, as I really like this picture, and do see that this picture would be a real asset to the Nagy article.
  • arguments that the Japanese boy scouts picture would be unique enough to claim fair use. I just see a couple of boys being active at something. Carnildo is right that such a picture without copyright would be quite readily available or could be made so.

Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

I've now responded to all your objections. Only for a few could I not find info about. Please review and advise. The search for a camp photo with tents is still not fruitful; I found one that would be okay but all the people were older than I am and one was great but it was not of Gilwell Park in England but a Gillwell camp in America. Thanks for all your great help and advice. Rlevse 00:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Still can't find a good Gilwell camping photo. Any FAC concerns left? Rlevse 02:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just dropped a custom infobox into Gilwell Park, let me know if it's better with it or without it. I never found one I liked, so I combined features of a few. Rlevse 13:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the current ScoutOrg infobox. Whoever put that in sure was enlightened :-). Needs a better picture, though, and perhaps we ought to do something about the template itself too, e.g., adding a few fields to make it even better applicable to campsites. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Yep, the pic is fuzzy, will work on this. Rlevse 16:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See email I just sent on footnotes, something's amiss.! Rlevse 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• No sweat, just a very minor one-character error. Solved. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

• Looks good. I think we only need some more on Dorothy Hughes Center and whatever your Thurman and Jeal books may offer. Rlevse 02:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• FA TODAY! YEAH! Many thanks good buddy, your help was crucial. You know, I read, but can't recall where, that there is now a 5th Scout Activity Centre in Britain. Also, isn't it interesting that of those centres, the two whose articles are FA were primarily authored by non-Brits-;). For Scouting to get FA, I think the first thing is to change Girl Guides to Girl Guide and make it girl-oriented like we made Boy Scout boy-oriented. Right now Girl Guides covers both the girl and the movement. That leaves the question to make Girl Guides a movement article (Boy Scouts is a redirect to Boy Scout) or merge that part with Scouting. I say set them up just like the Boy Scout/Boy Scouts article. Thoughts? Rlevse 10:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Congratulations to ourselves. Thanks to you as well ;-). I would suggest to not start doing this kind of major reshuffle just by ourselves, but to first suggest a structure of the various articles, and explain why they ought to be moulded differently. If you just do it boldly, I'm afraid either is is considered vandalism and reverted, or not understood. I'll ignite something on WP:Scout. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

Do you have anything more you can add the the Dorothy Hughes PHC of the article? I'd still like to add a bit there, but I haven't found anything more. Rlevse 15:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I left a simple invite to join the project on Erp's page. Rlevse 01:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has responded to my new idea for the Scouting article structure. Not sure what to make of that one. Rlevse 12:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I wanted to react, but the wikipedia database was locked whole last night. Just give it some time. ps. I'm still for two: BS and GG. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Jawohl, there are certainly many different opinions on this, doubt we can make everyone happy. I'm for two or just Scout (Scouting). Erp is the only one wanting a merge so far. We'll see. Rlevse 15:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for that one Horus Kol 11:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

On 21 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 3rd World Scout Jamboree, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Yeah! A DYK can beat a WP:PR. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your note re ISO format on the 3rd Scout Jamboree page. However the style guide does actually suggest that they are to be avoided if possible (see below). PS sorry if this is the wrong place for this comment - still new to process. Cheers Fauxvegan 10:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ISO date formats

ISO 8601 dates, for example 1958-02-17, are unambiguous. However, they are not common in English prose, and are therefore unfamiliar to many readers. Accordingly, they should generally not be used in normal prose. This applies even if they are in a link: although the software will convert such dates according to users' date preferences (for example, 1958-02-17 → 1958-02-17), new users and unregistered users do not have any date preferences set, and will therefore see the unconverted ISO 8601 date.

This advice only applies to dates in normal prose. ISO 8601 dates may sometimes be useful elsewhere; for example, they are useful in lists, tables, for dates of birth/death, for conciseness and ease of comparison.

• Hi Fauxvegan, this is indeed a good place for comment, otherwise just below where the original comment was put. And after re-reading WP:MOS again, I agree with you that for prose a non-ISO notation may indeed be preferred. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC).

What do you think now? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks great, thank you, brother! Chris 20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you help in the fight for Image:BoyScoutsofNippon.jpg? Chris 02:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of Carnildo can perhaps be refuted by playing the game, with

1. provide a good source: where did you get this picture? Made it yourself perhaps (then change the tag)
2. provide a good rationale why you think this picture is required in this article. It may be as part of a national activity? Which is obvious that it can indeed not be redone
3. provide the link back to the image rationale in the article

If you need help with that, just let me know. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

It was tagged with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media #3 - Improper license. Take a look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and you can ask the guys at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. They are very helpful and will be able to give advice as to the correct tagging. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's strange and it appears that it's not the only delted image with the same problem. It would appear that selecting a particular type of licence (probably the non-commerical licence) puts the image in a speedy delete category. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. If you select the non-commerical licence tag it gets tagged as a speedy delete. Now I know that I will slow down on deleting those images to give the uploader a chance to get a better tag put in. If it's fair use then I suggest that you re-upload the image with that rationale. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's back now and I retagged it with {{Promotional}}. I think you will need to provide a fair use rationale. There may be mor information at Wikipedia:Fair use or Wikipedia:Publicity photos. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I say, that picture you 'created' and gave to the public domain? You can't do it like that, man! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

I kind of figured I shouldn't, though I trimmed off the edges for the 'pedia. What should I do? Thanks, and I meant no ill intent. Chris 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the same as I proposed for the Japanese boyscouts picture: it's copyrighted, so give the copyright notice and the source on the image page. Then declare it Fair Use in the Piet Kroonenberg article (it is, IMHO), and write some rationale text explaining why this is an appropriate picture for it. Look at image:conf_hui_142.jpg of the Herman Hui article to see how I did it. And this use hasn't been contested... If you need a hand, just holler. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

I got this just now "Image:PietKroonenberg.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PietKroonenberg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. Abu Badali 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) - Abu Badali 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"

How do we fight this? Chris 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Abu, for giving notice of your deletion proposal. It shall of course be contested, and I hope it will be given enough notice to finalize the discussion. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Wim, Well, you asked for it to be COTM, I hope you'll be pitching in to help! This is your chance to make it an FA! I will contribute some stuff this coming weekend, hopefully. Walkerma 21:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Aye, Sorr, Geordie. I did some more bits to it, and I'll be looking forward to your contribution. For a product with such a long history, it appears to be one of the major unknown chemicals of the WP:Chem project, so any contribution will be an enhancement. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

Wim, I chuckled when I saw the Tropical cyclones newsletter tonight - doesn't that progress table look familiar? Cheers, Walkerma 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sure looks interesting. And I'll take this gentle nudge as a reminder to really do something about the WP:Chem progress table that is getting a bit backlogged. Either I'll re-introduce the {{chemicals}} template of PC's with an automated wikiproject counting in the mathbot, or I'll simply do the count of the table again (which hasn't been updated in eons either). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

Hi Wim, can you go into this article and put the template in? An anonymous user made some edits and messed it up, but it was an early version of the template back before you did all the cool stuff to it. There are five articles like that, all countries starting with 'A', as I was going alphabetically. Chris 03:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

the others I messed up (I'm not good with this type of template) are

• Scouts Musulmans Algériens
• Scouting in Andorra
• Associação de Escuteiros de Angola
• Antigua and Barbuda Branch of The Scout Association
• Scouts de Argentina
• Hayastani Azgayin Scautakan Sharjum Kazmakerputiun

I was just going down the list from the Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems. My eventual goal is to get your good, corrected template on all national articles, using that list as it incorporates all Scout organizations, not just WOSM and WAGGGS ones. Chris 03:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

All taken care off. Feel free to point out more. PS: The use of the template is easy: just copy the example text to a new article; fill in the blanks and delete unused fields. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

• And doing this good turn, I just got over the 6000 edits. Wie goed doet goed ontmoet! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Hi Wim, would you weigh in on this discussion? Chris 22:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, I wouldn't mind, but I think you won't like it: The man is simply right. The picture is absolutely not notable or special enough to legitimize the use of it against copyright law. So, do the easy thing, and ask 'info@scout.mn' (see their website) to give you some free pics instead.
• And I got an answer about the Japanese pictures, which I haven't found the time for to actually properly read it (it wasn't a simple YES, nor a NO). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

Nice work, as always Wim. We have another GA! But I'd still like to see a line or two about the affect, or if none, so stated, about the return to communism had on Scouting there. I find it intriguing, but am happy, that a branch of British Scouting appears to be flourishing under communist rule. It's also obvious from the text that during WWII Scouting continued there, for whatever reasons, but I'm curious as to why. YIS, Randy. Rlevse 23:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, that more things can be added. I just don't happen to have the information. Thanks for the GA support. I agree with you that that is about the right level it ought to be assessed. And for A-Class and/or FA, it definitely needs work on more complete coverage, referencing (weak spot), and probably some further copy-editing as well. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
• I agree, GA is right. My questions certainly don't stop it from being GA-it's a solid GA article, but would be a FA-issue, maybe A-class issue. Rlevse 23:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Egel and Wim: I have selected this article as the Selected Article of the Month for the Scouting portal. As you two are our resident experts on this topic, please look over the article (Scouting Nederland) and its portal draft version (Portal:Scouting/Selected article/November), and edit as you see fit to improve them. Also, I have selected Piet J. Kroonenberg as the bio of the month. Rlevse 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'll give it a look. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
  • I added a bit, but it was already good, so feel free to revert if too long or so. Pictures? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Hi! I just decided to spam some people directly, who I know are very active on chemicals. There is now a wiki running on http://chemistry.poolspares.com (a site created by Nickj from the wikimedia IRC channel, the site will be taken offline again in a couple of weeks), where I have now hosted a small wikipedia. It runs two extensions I have written to the wikipedia software, a special page (for chemical sources, see also wikipedia:chemical sources and a chemform tag (for easy input of chemical formulae). Could you have a look, and comment on it (if useful I would like to try to let Tim or Brion enable it on wikipedia, though I feel some resistance there). Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Darthgriz98 asked me to help her get this to FA. I am having trouble finding what is still causing the PR script to say the date links are wrong. Can you help? Also, any input on getting it to A-class or FA would be appreciated. Thanks. Rlevse 17:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is great news. Please, make sure to forward the email you got from Slava Chernyh to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org" so that it get securely achieved. See WP:COPYREQ#When permission is confirmed for instructions.

I congratulate you for this work. I wholeheartedly hope you understand the point behind {{rfu}} now. The fact that Wikipedia refuses to use replaceable unfree images makes great editors like you to produce free alternatives. The free encyclopedia becomes more complete after each such step.

Let me know when you forward the email to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org" and I will remove the ifd nomination. Thanks again and keep on the good work! --Abu Badali 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The message has already been forwarded there. And let it be stated that, however correct it is that we should respect copyrights, I explicitly abhor your aggressive method of applying it in Wikipedia. I therefore request you to immediately revert your latest action on the Kroonenberg image page, and to remove any deletion statement that you may have put all over the place. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

I found it sad that you don't understand what really happened. I don't remember saying the use of this image was a disrespect of copyright. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is not about copyright law, it's about keeping Wikipedia as free as possible. And my "aggressive method" was what triggered the process that end up making this image free. And this image is not the only available success case.

That was what really happened. You produced a free image for something you believed to be impossible so.

Please, place the {{Confirmation}} tag on the image with the appropriate OTRS ticket number and the ifd will be gone. Also, consider posting the contents of the mail-exchange.

Best regards, --Abu Badali 21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under no impression that there could not have been produced a copyright transfer from the RUS. If you would have read the early image history, and the discussion, you wouldn't make such a wild assumption. And the only really sad thing that happened is that you got several people mad at you. The rest would have happened even without your intervention. And remove the stupid IFD and whatsnots as all that extra administrative waffle is not to the point. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC),

I regret having this wrong impression. I was based on you statement that "It isn't merely difficult, it is impossible..." but I certainly misunderstood you.

Please, avoid such language. The "administrative waffle" is important, and ifd is a Wikipedia process, not a "stupid" thing. I wish you were not "mad at me". Let me know if I can do anything about it. --Abu Badali 00:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You can do much about it: Don't revert anyone's absolutely warranted editing of the license of the image, because you think it important to follow an optional variation of the procedure; don't make a wide-off claim that you made it happen that this picture is now free of copyrights, as you didn't take any action in it, and don't quote wrongly as I am not mad at you. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Abu-Wimvandorst is absolutely right. You're an absolute dip about these images. Rlevse 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Could the lead be expanded to have a second para, perhaps covering apps and safety? Rlevse 22:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• thanks for the suggestion. Done. Good to see that a non-chemist can yet give very worthwhile advice, Randy. YIS. Support forthcoming? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC).
  • Yep. I'm about as much of a non-chemist as you can get-;) But I do know about computers and systems engineering stuff-;) The reason I noticed the lead is that it was only only para and hardly anything that's an FA should have one para. This article is 15K+ and that's right smack in the 2 para range. Nice article (even if I don't understand it). GSUSA is up for FAC too.Rlevse 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wim, thanks for the notice. I have read the article, and well, I can just say .. it looks good to me, can't think of anything that I miss, but well, I don't know a lot about lead nitrate (and most I know, I have learned from reading the article. But I will add things, if I encounter anything interesting, or remove, if I think they are not per Manual of style. Keep up the good work! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see now on some pages (the FAC and here) questions arising about the safety of the compound. I believe that we have to be carefull with that, I would say that this would not comply with wp:not. Pointing to external MSDS's should be enough. One could discuss the physiological 'function' of Pb-ions in a living organism, but that woul probably be more in place in the article lead itself or in an own article, since it is about lead-ions, and the source of that is then not im frage (lead-nitrate is a 'good' source for lead ions, indeed). The safety section as is is IMHO good enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've given the safety section an enhancement. Would this help?? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

Hi Wim, this is indeed as far as I would go for the safety section. When special:chemicalsources is up and running (if ever ...), the whole task can be forwarded to the chemicalsources page, where all the external msd sheets are available (or should be). In that case liability would go to the user, who has all the msds available, and s/he should make a judgement based on that (and not on wikipedia data).

Congratulations Wim! Walkerma 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:Storkk#Scouts. Rlevse 12:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have requested a review of the fair use status of Image:Hclplant-udl.jpg, the entry can be found under Wikipedia:Fair use review#24 November 2006. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, got distracted by other things and almost forgot the whole thing. I did check in on it once or twise, but Megapixie have more or less been adressing the same things I was thinking so I felt no great need to jump in just for the sake of saying something. --Sherool (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check Talk:Girl_Guide_and_Girl_Scout#Confusion. Rlevse 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wim, now that we've saved Piet Kroonenberg and lead nitrate, would you help me save this graphic from deletion? Please see my talkpage, thanks! Chris 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, Chris, but I'm already fighting for my hydrochloric acid plant picture. And they have a point in putting up against any non-free picture, although I won't join them in the typical obnoxious, arrogant and stubborn discussions on their side. But for the Laszo pic, just do an update on the tag if you can make it hard that it is really free promotion material. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

Is this valid: index.php?title=List_of_notable_Scouts&diff=90981321&oldid=90259961 Rlevse 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, our royals have always been very active in Scouting. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

Could you give Scouting a good look before I FAC it? I'd really appreciate it. Rlevse 03:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nice job, as always. I put in a request for Religion in Scouting as it'd come up and Horus Kol started it. He made it TOP and I agree. Rlevse 11:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bphouse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Scout Association of Hong Kong has been listed for GA Review. I put a notice on our project page and left nasty grams on the GAR and GAR talk pages. They have a REAL BAD habit of not notifying on the article talk page. Rlevse 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've increased the refs from 4 to 18, with several used more than once. Pls look over to see if you can find more. Rlevse 13:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a look at User:Horus_Kol/Sandbox and User:Horus_Kol/Template:Scouting_Sections and help me work out what I've done wrong - I can't seem to get it to show the content of the variable section1 when I put it in the IF statement... cheers Horus Kol 13:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The important change was adding {{!}} for the indication that a table entry starts. Good luck with it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Excellent - thanks for that :) Horus Kol 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

First comment on a wiki page so hope this works. Regarding the very good profile on lead nitrate there is an error under the heading "Preparation" when it is stated that: "There is no known industrial scale production."

In China there is relatively significant production of industrial grade lead nitrate pwder. My rough estimate is that this could be around 25000 metric tonnes per year. Leave a response here if you would like more details from me. User: JontyEales 18 December 2006 10h00 UTC

• Hello JontyEales, if you can find a good reference for this statement, feel free to add this to the article. Just be bold!. Welcome to wikipedia. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Hello Wim Van Dorst. As you are one of senior editors on Scouting issues, could you help me to clarify some issues on World Scout Bureau document? I want to put images of a certicate and a letter for accepting new Scouting member organisations issued from World Scout Bureau. Under what license notices I could release them to wikipedia? Fair use? Public domain? or else? — HenryLi (Talk) 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Henry, using forms of the World Scout Bureau (probably WOSM?) will be VERY tricky: I think that they'll be highly copyrighted. And you may have noticed that there are a lot of idiots on Wikipedia who will challenge everything that is not really really (REALLY) free from copyright. Even a reasonable Fair Use clause will attract these negative zealots which, I'm afraid, will win out in the end, as they simply put the burden of proving that something is really FU on you. So, best is to first consider what the documents should show/elucidate/illustrate. If not totally clear and unique, I'm afraid that winning the FU-battle will be unlikely. Or you must have a very good reason to state that WOSM documents would be without copyright? (PS. Compliments with the HK Scouting article: you do good there!) Wim van Dorst (Talk) 11:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC).

...Moved discussion to talk:The Scout Association of Hong Kong. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Since Rlevse is on a wikibreak (I predict he'll come back-he's had an intense year afterall), I've been keeping an eye on this FAC. Some have helped. Sandy said she will but hasn't yet. I saw you gave it a good chop recently but was wondering if you have ideas on helping it get over the hump as it's now 2nd from the bottom of the list. Might you vote to support it? Sumoeagle179 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wim, thanks for your message. Although you are right when it concerns logged-in users, anonymous, casual readers will see the date "as is". A more textual formatting is therefore preferred. See also WP:DATE, which says: Do not use numbers to express a month, except in ISO 8601 format. Always express a month as a whole word (e.g. "February" not "2").. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PS, I just added the Geolinks map and aerial photo link to Gilwell Park. I've never used that feature before and haven't been to Gilwell, so could you look this edit over for me? Rlevse 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• While looking at the article with MSIE, I see it messes up the original coordinates listing in the toprighthand corner, and seems to link to a rather non-serious webpage. I'll look tonight again with FF: if OK, I'll reasses, if not OK, I'll delete. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Same problems with FF. RV'ed it. Give it another try, Randy. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

See email I just sent on Eldred. Rlevse 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• What do you suggest with this bozo anon on the Gilwell article? We can just keep reverting him but there are better things to do, but we also shouldn't give in.Sumoeagle179 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We'll just do that: in the end we'll win out, surely: there are too many of us. At last a wikifight we'll win, as a nice change from all those battles recently where we can't win (FU debates, non-notable declarations, and GAR the other day). No, we won't give in here. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

in the end we'll win out, surely

• I am afraid that you are mistaken. I take offence at the 'bozo' comment above. I find your views very sexist that you keep on refering to Scouts as 'Boy Scouts'. Hopefully one day the BSA will join the 21st centuary.--82.20.30.137 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wim, our anon editor who likes to hide behind an anon account and not ID-themself misses the whole point, it's not about gender, it's about keeping an international non-country specific focus to the movement when an international, highly visible topic is at hand, which is what Gilwell Park is. Coed Scouting is mainly limited to Europe. I find the anon editor very sexist and xenophobic. If said anon editor would read the Boy Scout article, they would find we discuss the coed aspect of quite readily, just as the GG/GS article covers both names, as not all girl Scouting organizations are Girl Guides.Sumoeagle179 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Much obliged as I am that you apparently take interest in my personal discussion page, I do hope you also take note of the common nettiquette and register for Wikipedia if you want to continue contributing. Smmultaneously, I hope you will see that unfriendly edit summaries to controversial edits have not gained you anything else than negative comments. And since your contribution to wikipedia have only been these last couple of days these for us unwanted changes, I can assure you that we'll win out this time: we are many more than you. Positively, may I recommend that you also take note of the structure on Scouting articles as has been well discussed and defined in the Scouting wikiproject? If you will have read that, I hope that you future contributions can be more in this line, and then will be highly appreciated after all. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

• Gilwell Park is a UK Scout Association owned campsite. Beaver Scouts, Cub Scouts, Scouts, Explorer Scouts, Scout Network members, Scout Fellowship members, Tiger Cubs, Joeys etc can all camp at Gilwell. To list all these would make the sentance far to long, therefore a word which summarises all these groups is needed. I think Scout is the best word as it is common to all sections, ages and genders within Scouting - the article Scouting explains this. The article Boy Scout (not helped by the inclusion of the word boy) refers to only those aged between 11 and 17. This is a specific grouping, and does not include those that are younger or older - Scouts does. It also does not help because 'Boy Scouts' does not exsist in the UK - it is therefore a confusing term.--82.20.30.137 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scout does exist in over half the world, you're being UK-centric again, so which side should we use? It is also nonsensical to put "Scout" and "Guide" using your own logic. You should have started a discussion on this on the article talk page instead of starting a revert war. Note the edit summaries, you are asked to do so many edits ago.Sumoeagle179 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In which case Boy Scouts does not exsist in the other half of the world. Scouts fits both halves of the world, and so therefore should be used. I did not start the discussion here - you did! I have moved it to the Gilwell Discussion page - Who is allowed to camp at Gilwell?--82.20.30.137 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC) No, I was talking to Wim and you jumped in.Sumoeagle179 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)