User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2012/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foviance

It's perhaps a bit hidden, but somebody added Catriona Campbell to this AfD and that article still has an AfD notice on it. With greetings from a snowy Southern France... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I missed that one, it's gone now. With greetings from snowy North Holland, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool.213.132.171.210 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 213.132.171.210 (talk)

Please sign in with your user account to confirm this. The Helpful One 18:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I can mark this as 'whoopsy'. Confirmed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
In that case, account approved!
As part of this beta test, we'd like everyone to test every aspect of the tool. This includes acting as blocked users - we'd like each of you to file at least two appeals and respond to them as though you are blocked. Please try to act like a blocked user new to Wikipedia, unfamiliar with common terms and probably a bit frustrated at the situation.
When reviewing appeals, please act as though you are reviewing real blocks. You should be able to comment on any appeal, regardless of who has reserved it; reservations only ensure that reviewers don't send conflicting emails.
If you encounter any bugs (things not appearing to work right, and especially error messages), please file a bug report on JIRA. You will need to register an account there. New features can be suggested there as well, but please add the "after-beta" label to these so we can easily prioritize between bugs that must be fixed and features that can be added later.
Thank you again for volunteering to beta-test. The Helpful One 12:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mitchsdiamond (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Variable Length Flexible Stylus

The article had been rewritten to hopefully address the issues, but did not display in the articles for deletion for the benefit of the editors; I am completely confused as to when to delete or what to delete or where to delete and edit so the changes are available to the editors. I posted the changes to my talk and to the articles talk page, but it never showed up and a decision to delete was apparently made against the old text...am I correct?? Am I supposed to edit out the old text and replace it with the new??? {{help}} Mitchsdiamond (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nulled your helpme request as it appears you are trying to get the attention of Martijn Hoekstra in particular, but you used the helpme template. When you use this template it calls everyone who monitors the helpme category to wherever it is placed. It is thus only for use when you want some third party to come by. When you edit a person's talk page as you have her, that particular user will get an unmistakable day-glo orange bar at the top of every page they see telling them that they have new messages on their talk page, which persists until they visit it, so adding the template is not needed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you.. Was my article deleted based upon the original entry and not on the revised entry of February 4th (which has completely disappeard) that did not show up in the article for deletion?. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mitch, the discussion focused on the notability of the subject, and there was consensus that there was no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which makes it fail our criteria for inclusion. That phrase is Wikipedia jargon, and it's meaning is slightly skewed here and there, so before linking to all the relevant pages (which are all quite long, detailed and possibly confusing), I'll try to do it quickly in my own words. There need to be sources independent of the subject, which means no press realeases, nothing written by a parent company or partner company (the independent bit). These sources need to have an editorial board which accepts or declines submissions. This is what makes it count as a reliable source for wikipedia, which i think is a bit of a misnomer, and is confusing, but we're stuck with the name. Wikipedia doesn't fall under it (wikipedia has no editorial board), nor do forums, self-published sources or other wikis. These have to discuss the subject (in this case the variable length flexible stylus) in detail.
The outcome of the discussion was that there were no such sources, and thus the subject is unfit for inclusion. A re-write of the article would therefor makes no difference, since the lack of those sources still stand.
If you still believe I didn't properly close the discussion, you could take it to WP:deletion review. I would advice against that, as I don't think it will change anything, but I'm not stopping you from taking it there. If sources do still turn up that meet the above criteria, you're always free to recreate the article. If you would choose to do so, it is probably worth it to do so via articles for creation. More seasoned wikipedians can help you out there, and point you towards problems before the articles goes 'live'. However, it will still need those sources.
As a last note, I'm going to link some wikipedia policies. They are generally long reads, but they go in more detail than my answer here.
First off, the notability guidelines: WP:N. This is the most important one here, and will also link to the others I'm listing here, others I'm listing here, reliable sources: WP:RS, the independence part, best discussed in WP:PSTS. WP:42 is a slightly condescending (my apologies for that), but still very clear description of the same thing. I hope that clears things up, regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Martjin, all of your points are well taken and the time you spent is appreciated. At some point in the future, I will readdress the subject of the VLFS either as a sub-topic of silverpoint or via articles for creation. ..silverpoint stylus...to include the advancement of the VLFS. The silverpoint stylus has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and adequate materials independently supporting this subject should meet the criteria for inclusion you enumerated for Wiki. Regards. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to your suggestion

Hi--thanks for fixing up the article. I'm sorry for not quite getting the format or understanding how this works. The reference cites two or thee pages. I quote the source almost directly. To add context, this should be categorized somehow as another pagan oriigin for a Christian festival. It's importance is that Cerberus isn't yet defined and Someone out there might have more information about the origin of this festival per Christianity. Hopefully the stub will get people looking for this material. Carl Jung described it in detail. Having read about this my gut tells me that it's a roman festival possibly pushed into Europe. Then christianized. I'm hoping to place this out there and the community can help flesh it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustynyfeathers (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it's not really complicated, but you have to get the hang of it before it starts making sense. I only now see the rest of of the sourcing, which was on page 258, which I hadn't looked at. I fixed the reference to include that page as well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Gothika11

Dear Martijn

Hey my apologies to you if i have offended you as you may have known i am new to Wikipedia messages and the Speedy Deletion. Could you please explain to me in detail how can i edit my page but at the same time do not remove the Tags attached to my page. I do not wish to offend you or for that matter any of the moderators and even i am against disruptive editing. I have read the guidelines but still i feel i am overlooking some key issues for it catching attention of the moderators because of my mistake.

Regards Amigo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothika11 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gothika, starting with a new article is actually one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and I strongly advice you to get the hang of editing first, maybe correcting some typos, fixing some other things, making some small additions (for example, take a look at CAT:COPYEDIT for articles that are in dire need of some cleanup). To test things out, and try editing, you can always use the sandbox WP:SAND. Here you can try whatever you like. Once you feel completely confident with editing and how things are done here on Wikipedia, you could start a new article. WP:AFC is a tool you can use to get some feedback and help with that, though you really should feel a bit more at home here first. As a guideline for when you are ready: 1. You should be able to follow and understand our deletion discussions. If you understand what's going on on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_February_3 for example, you'll have a better understanding of what is generally kept, and what is deleted. 2. You should know how to make properly formatted text in wikiformat. Just practice with that. I hope that helps,
Kind regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Stefano Passarello‎‎

I'm curious about your "no consensus" close of WP:Articles for deletion/Stefano Passarello‎‎. Given that there were no policy-based !votes in favor of keeping the article, and that the article itself is an unsourced BLP, it seemed to me to be an uncontroversial delete. Can you explain your thoughts on this one to me? Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 10:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll look in to it now, and come back to it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at it, I see your concern. I'd like to note that it's not an unreferenced BLP, but more of a badly referenced BLP (not that that is anything great, but it wouldn't be a BLPProd). Since the AfD was relisted twice indicating that the people relisting it believed there was no clear consensus on it yet, closing it as delete after a new comment that at least didn't support deletion - even if there was no argument to keep - seems to go against the judgement of the earlier relisters, who were already in agreement to relist. That said, the case made to keep was very weak, hence my explicit inclusion of the no prejudice against speedy renomination. A case could also be made to have it close as a soft delete. I would not completely oppose that. As always, I'm up for having any and all of judgement calls reversed. I'm still thinking about the proper way to do that. Would you be opposed to me mulling it over for a bit (an hour or so?) I'm thinking about either DRV (though that might be a waste of resources, and is a horrible process in general), soliciting a 3rd opinion by an adminhelp template here, or reversing it myself, but I'm not quite sure if that's the proper course. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Having thought it over, I think getting a third opinion from another admin would be the best idea. Is that OK with you? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
That would be fine, and thanks for your thoroughness and flexibility! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 21:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for a third opinion on the above close. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have deleted it. I don't think it was egregiously wrong to close it as no consensus, but I think based on the discussion itself there was no argument to keep it. A person simply saying "keep" without justification is a vote, which shouldn't hold weight at AfD. The article was previously proposed for deletion, and that proposal was opposed by Graeme Bartlett so I'll admit it wasn't exactly uncontroversial to delete either. I think it's a shame that Graeme wasn't notified of the AfD discussion when it was created, because he clearly felt that the sources justified keeping the article based on his comment when he removed the prod tag. But the way things turned out, he didn't participate in the AfD, so his argument was not available.
So my opinion, if I was the one closing the discussion, is that the article had plenty of time for more participation and keeping it open longer would have been redundant. Among the two people contributing to the discussion, the one who argued to delete made at least an effort to appeal to our inclusion guidelines, and the one who argued to keep made no argument at all. So I think a "delete" closure would have been the appropriate thing to do. -- Atama頭 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Than delete it is (thanks Atama). I'm going to delete slightly out of process, and use a permalink here as some sort of substitute for DRV. No use in dragging along even more process while the AFD has been relisted twice. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Atama, and thank you again, Martijn. I appreciate you both having taken the time with this. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I suppose I should add a comment here. The argument by deathlibrarian was clearly invalid as there were references. Some of the references were reliable if not independent. I was not in a position to argue much about notability only to disagree with some of the claims. The article was a COI writing. Few people are aware of WP:REFUND so do not expect a request. I think that a comment should be added at the AFD to explain the delete since it has happened so soon after closure. I was a bit surprised to see this close as a no consensus, and if closing myself would have concluded delete. So I am not stressed about the delete, and will not be undeleting off my own initiative. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The deletion log clearly points at a permlink to this talkpage. Anyone looking at can simply find the reasoning and what's happened, I don't think we really need an amendment on the AfD, but let me know if you feel strongly, then I'll change it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

Darío Fernández Jaén

I just started a Wikipedia page on Darío Fernández Jaén for a project in my Intro to Mass Communications class at the university I'm attending. Posting our sources was the first step our professor wanted us to take, that's why that was all the article contained.

108.86.196.254 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Best thing you can do, is to make a userspace draft first, until it contains key information. For some help on the process, see WP:USERDRAFT. If you have that up, and don't have the references quickly available anymore let me know, and I'll restore them for you to your draft. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RE:External Links

Hello, Martijn Hoekstra. You have new messages at ReelAngelGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for the help! :) ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Speedwellbus

You've just closed this debate as a keep, is it possible for you to weigh up on the points raised - I don't see that any of the keep votes have shown that the company was notable (only 1 mention in local not even regional news) outwith the coverage of the single event of their demise (which surely would make that event notable long before it made the company notable). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Stuart, if you don't mind I'll comment tomorrow. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
So, here we go. When I look over the AfD, I see your nomination, and four editors arguing to keep. Rcsprinter asserting that there is notability without giving much information, Pontificalibus who believes that the two sources presented are sufficient for the notability guideline (I note you disagree with that), Thesteve who argues weak keep based on the same sources, and Alzarian16 who presents additional material that he believes proves notability.
I take note that you disagree with all of their reasoning, but, in agreement or not, all of those explicitly indicate they believe that the article meets the GNG, and, with the exception of RCsprinter, give expanded rationales for that. I can easily conclude that there is consensus in the discussion that a. the article should be kept, and b. the article meets the GNG. Closing the discussion and concluding there is consensus to delete the article would do no justice to the discussion, and would not be interpreting it correctly.
As always, you are free to take this close to WP:DRV, and at times I can see the merit in that. In this case, I have no question that the close will be upheld, as I'm positive that this is a correct interpretation of the discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually I would be inclined to ask for relisting for wider community input rather than overturning to Delete; - As you sum up Pontificalibus, and Thesteve believe that the two sources presented are sufficient for the notability; this is despite the relevant notability guideline discounting that argument. In previous AfD discussions with them; both Pontificalibus, and Rcsprinter tend to see an inherent notability in Bus related subjects that isn't represented in Wikipedia policy or guideline and they tend to accept poorer sources as a means to represent these subjects as passing the GNG; indeed in the past the argument has been regularly used that it[a list of bus routes] is notable because it exists and/or that it must be notable because we have lots on others. The only reasonable position I see being put forward is that by Alzarian16 who presented the additional material and I would like to see whether the wider community outwith those who focus on bus related articles agree with his assertion that these confer notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Though I think there has been adequate responses to gauge consensus (for as far as that goes on AfD), I can't stop you from starting a new AfD on the subject. If you do, please make clear why you believe there has been insufficient input on this AfD in your nominating statement. It might also be time to consider (at least for now) to drop the stick. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My deleted page

Dear Martijn, I am the administrator for the subject page "TigerHeat." I see recently that my page was deleted under the code "G8: Redirect." I was hoping for a better explanation. Wikipedia suggests that I contact the administrator to find out why. I would like to correct the problem and get my page reinstated, if possible. Please respond.

--George, Feb. 6, 2012 TigerHeat (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi TigerHeat, the article TigerHeat was deleted after this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TigerHeat by another administrator. If I deleted anything under G8, it must have been a redirect to the deleted TigerHeat page, but I can't quickly find which one. Anyway, the reason for deletion is the link above. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

International Otter Survival Fund

I cannot understand why you have deleted our page. You say copyright infringement but we have copyright on everything there. Can you please explain.

Grace Yoxon, Director IOSF

Hi Grace, the short: while you own copyright to the text on that website, we can't check that, and by placing the same text on Wikipedia, you release it under a licence for re-use which is not the original licence, but see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
The longer: organisations creating their own articles is rarely a good idea. I'd firstly like to point you to our FAQ: Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, and my own personal essay on the subject: User:Martijn Hoekstra/Editing for organisations. If, after reading those two, you still think creating an article about the International Otter Survival Fund is a good idea (and I think it isn't, but I'm not going to stop you if you insist it is), the best way to create it is probably trough the new article wizard and wait for feedback from more experienced wikipedians to help you out.
Let me know if you have any more questions, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks Martijn But then surely you should be removing the RSPCA page amongst others. On their page it says:

"This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications."

So what you are saying about us is the same.

Grace Director IOSF

The RSPCA page is far from perfect, that's for sure, and could do with some additional sourcing, as well as copyediting. The difference when it comes to speedy deletion on criterion G12 though, is that none of the text on that article as actually copied from the RSPCA website, though it uses it as a source in many situations which is far from perfect, it is not a copyright violation. It makes for a nice use case though. I still get the feeling you are here on Wikipedia to establish the presence of IOSF rather than to write a free encyclopedia, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Though the RSPCA article currently relies to much on primary sources, that's something that can be fixed, as plenty of third-party publications can be found. Often, Google Books and Google News can be helpful with that. Some sources that I have quickly found using google books search are [1], [2], [3], [4] (looks very promising). I did this with a search for RSPCA, but the same could be done with Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals possibly yielding even more results. Seeing if any of these sources could be used to replace the references to self-published materials from them would be great. If that works out, and you can find similar sources for the IOSF, I'm more than willing to help you out with creating a new article on the IOSF from those sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Martijn, but we are not trying to establish the presence for IOSF as if you Google otter on its own we come up second, only after your own Wikipedia page. So if people want to find us that way they can easily do it, but an encyclopedia is meant to be a source of information on all topics and organisations and this is why we want to be included.

We have many links through different organisations, including RSPCA, Scottish SPCA, IUCN Otter Specialists Grou,p and looking briefly through Google Books I have found the following:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JnZ7ZBArzvEC&pg=PA63&dq=international+otter+survival+fund&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mokyT8moKIKSOpbOzPMG&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=international%20otter%20survival%20fund&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6YY_kdYH-q0C&pg=PA56&dq=international+otter+survival+fund&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mokyT8moKIKSOpbOzPMG&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=international%20otter%20survival%20fund&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6nXO9LWhAS8C&pg=PR55&dq=international+otter+survival+fund&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FIoyT6XaDs2WOui84egG&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=international%20otter%20survival%20fund&f=false

So I do think it is valid to have a page.

One problem I have is that I can't actually see what we put in the Wikipedia page now to see how we could alter it?

Grace Yoxon Director International Otter Survival Fund

Well, that's a start for sure, though it's a bit of a stretch to call it significant coverage. The first has a line that says "The otter is a well known charismatic species seen in advertisements to raise funds for conservation, with bodies such as the International Otter Survival Fund dedicated to ensuring its survival in the UK", which doesn't tell much apart from that the International Otter Survival Fund is an organisation for otter conservation in the UK. The second one only puts the fact out that the IOSF once funded a research programme that put up camera traps, proving there are hairy-nosed otters in Vietnam, and the only thing the third one really says is that you are of the IOSF.
These sources (especially the first two) can, and should be used to verify information on an article, as required by our policy on verifiability. What they don't do is help answer the question: Should we have an article on this subject. This questions is generally answered by our notability guideline, and in this case particularly the guideline for organisations. This calls for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Based on the sources above alone (and only those sources), I'd say the IOSF fails that criterion. Compare it to the RSPCA, that have national newspaper articles dedicated to them, several books that devote paragraphs if not chapters to it.
If you would write a new article, not copying it from anywhere, but start back from scratch, then it won't be deleted as a copyright violation (because it isn't), and I can't stop you from doing so. But I think it's a bad idea. The reason I explained the above, is that if you do, I don't think the article has a snowballs chance of meeting the criteria for inclusion, and that the article would quickly be deleted on those grounds. If I would not point that out, your efforts on writing it would be wasted, and I'm here to write a free encyclopedia, not to trick you into wasting your time.
Summing it all up, yes, you can recreate the article if you want, making sure it's not copied from anywhere. If you do, keep in mind there is a very high chance that it will be deleted again soon. To end with a line from my own essay linked above: "I strongly urge you not to edit subjects you are close to, especially companies you work for. You are allowed to as long as you follow all guidelines, but it very very rarely works out. Most of the time by far it ends with the content you worked so hard to create deleted." Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

That thing we discussed

Hey, I did a little (ok, a lot) more work on my background write-up. Take a look at your leisure: User_talk:Ocaasi/An. I don't think I missed much, and although it probably needs an edit here and there, think it conveys most of what I've experienced here. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 07:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow up to my TigerHeat page deletion

Thank you, Martijn, for the explanation regarding my TigerHeat article's deletion. It seems they feel my sources are not credible. I do have a new source to add to my article, which is below if you could take a look. Is this a better source? Also, I noticed a few of my previous sources were links that no longer work so I am looking to update those. With that said, what are the chances of getting my page reinstated with this new source and correcting a few of the others? When an article is deleted, is that a "done deal" or is there ever a possibility of getting it reinstated? What are my chances?

http://www.frontiersla.com/Features/Highlights/Story.aspx?ID=1651187

--George TigerHeat (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

From Branko (BR) refering to your support

Dear Martijn, thank you very much for your support. I am a complete newcomer, so I do not know, whether this is the correct place to answer to your questions. Yesterday I had to leave. By the way, I live just 25 km south of Darmstadt, Alkmaar's partner town. I spent a day at Alkmaar. Lovely place!

Now to your questions: 

   Article title: Elsass-Lothringische Privatsammlungen (Sammlung Spetz-Isenheim)
   Periodical: Das Kunstgewerbe in Elsass-Lothringen
   Pages: 43-44, 109, 111-112, 124, 131, 140
   Publisher: Ludolf Beust, Verlagsbuchhandlung, Strassburg i. Els.
   Issue: 1
   Date: 1901
   Author: Anton Seder, Friedrich Leitschuh

Confusion came from the online bibliography of the uni Heidelberg. Now, I looked through the periodical itself. The Isenheim above is that of the famous altar painting by Mattias Grünewald.

--BR.ST.MF (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'll use it to format the ref a little nicer. I'll do the same for the other refs (maybe I'll still have some questions, but we'll get there when we get there), and sling it on its way in to mainspace. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

Your Signpost submission

Greetings, Martijn. I have reviewed and responded to your submission at the Signpost's Opinion desk. You may wish to read and respond. Regards, Skomorokh 05:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mogilev State A.Kuleshov University

Dear Sir You have recently Delited my article Mogilev State A.Kuleshov University The idea of deletion was- copyright. It was mentioned that the article was copied from www.msu.mogilev.by You are right it was copied but!!! I was the person you wrote at www.msu.mogilev.by - I work at this University as the Head of International Relations Department - http://en.msu.mogilev.by/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=153&Itemid=297 so my job was to write the article about the university. and of course I put the same article at Wikipedia. Hope we can deal this misunderstanding. For prooving that I really a person fron International relations department - please contact me (there is a e-mail at the official page of the university - http://en.msu.mogilev.by/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=153&Itemid=297) Best regards and hope my article will be back soon Sergej Machekin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timon323 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sergej, I'll respond after the weekend because I'm rather under the weather. If, in the mean time it turns out I have any talkpage stalkers (I wish!), feel free to get this one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. As far as the copyright goes, if you wrote the website, they you own the copyright, but for Wikipedia to use the content, you must release it under a licence compatible with our own. This is extremely important, it is not the most difficult thing you'll be running into. The most difficult thing is dealing with your conflict of interest. Because you work for the university, it will be difficult to write in a neutral and unbiased way about it. We have our official conflict of interest guidelines, but I find this derivate clearer in most cases. Please read those fist, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your link on Jimbos talk

can you check your link about the t shirt I ask Jimbo about it is bad.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Though it's more of a joke than anything else. Thanks for the notification. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.


Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Que? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust Obfuscation

Hello Martijn. You've closed this deletion discussion. I have some concerns with the result of the AfD, which I discussed with the nominator. What do you think about my proposal? Thanks for any answer. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that. The discussion did not preclude that, so in those cases I'm always fine with a redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ... Actually, I'm making an unnecessary fuss about it, as the uncapitalized Holocaust obfuscation already serves as a redirect to Dovid_Katz#Double_Genocide_debate. I guess what confused me was the red link at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust Obfuscation :( I'm sorry for wasting your time. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem, if I had to pay Wikipedia a nickle every time I didn't see something that was right there, we wouldn't need a fundraiser. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions about AfC submission (Scripted)

The notice on my talk page said to bring any questions to you or the help desk, so ... first off, I am, of course, not an unregistered user, and in fact have created a couple articles before this; I clicked on the "submit" button on my draft without knowing exactly what it was. Is this a problem, or should I just go with it and be more careful next time?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you clicked submit, it was submitted for review. I reviewed it, and approved it. I don't really see what you did wrong there, unless you weren't planning on having it reviewed, but putting it live yourself, which in this case would also have been fine. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I just wanted to make sure. I haven't been at this for very long. My other question is, just as a start, what would you recommend to improve the article from it's current C-class status? I did read the criteria in the grading scheme, but I was wondering if you had some more specific advice.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 DoneMartijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out( :--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Casimer&Casimir

Thanks for closing the AfD. When you deleted, you deleted the original article at Casimer&casimir (note the lowercase second 'c'). Before or during the AfD, the article was moved to Casimer&Casimir (note the capital second 'c') and the original, lowercase was converted to a redirect. Long story short, you deleted the lowercase 'c' redirect, but the article at uppercase 'C' still remains. Care to delete it too? Thanks again! Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing deletion situation

Scottywong has tagged Casimer&Casimir for G4 speedy, saying that it was a recreation of an article previously deleted at AFD. I can find no evidence that this was ever at AFD — except for the discussion that you closed just today! My first thought was that someone had undone your deletion, but both log entries are speedy deletions from before the current incarnation was created. Could you look into this confusing situation, and then either delete this article or tell Scottywong why it shouldn't be deleted? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at the section two above this one. I was involved with the AfD so I'm familiar with the situation. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.


Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! :- ) DCS 01:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this message is meant for me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right.  I think maybe you cleaned up the article and then submitted to AFC.  When you click submit, your name goes in to the template as submitter.  After submission, you can manually edit the template by changing the "u" parameter to the correct user name.  :- ) DCS 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

hi

First I should say this isn't important. If you have other things to do please ignore.

I was reading your user page. Reminded me of an idea I had a while back.

Say, by lack of better words, we have 3 kinds of 'deletions': DELETE, KEEP and REDIRECT.

If the article is a keeper it either stays or gets another chance to be improved.

If it is to be deleted then access is restricted to administrators.

With redirects/mergers the history of the page is preserved.

The thing I noticed is that the deletion process was designed to clean up trash. It is really good at that, if it isn't a speedy delete AFD will kill the trash. However, the AFD process became a process used to judge content. Something it wasn't designed to do. There are articles that are kept while they should really be deleted and there are articles that are deleted while they should really be kept.

An AFD deadline is nice to stay productive but if there is reason to doubt the conclusion then both DELETE and KEEP are the wrong answer.

Such articles shouldn't be kept or deleted, they should be blanked so that other editors can work on them 10 years later. Could recycle material from the article. Even the talk page could be useful if some one has a great source for the future article.

After completely terminating a topic editors are discouraged from writing an article that doesn't suck. While KEEP would put the unfinished crap in the mainspace for god knows how long.

I think a closing admin could decide what to do much faster, more accurate and more efficiently if he could just wipe articles when in doubt.

A way to both delete and preserve doubtful articles.

You seem familiar with AFD, do you think this could work?

From the current afd's most would not qualify at all. But for example Jacob Biamonte could one day become some one. There is enough on the page to give a user in 2030 something to start with. He might become note worthy, perhaps we missed his most significant accomplishment.

Seeing the state of the article before it was deleted allows the editor to see if there is still hope for the article. The potential editor isn't going to ask any administrators for this. There is also no harm in having a constructive discussion about an article that was deemed not good enough.

  • jmcw writes about Ron Duncan: "Keep There's no doubt this article needs additional work, but I believe someone with access to old martial arts magazines would be able to find multiple mentions of him."

And when will that be? Do we need to hurry? Is there any reason to rush a final conclusion? Should we prevent the future editor from doing his work?

Also, if the reasoning doesn't match the criteria for note worthiness a user shouldn't have to be an admin to revert good faith AFD's. If the page is simply blanked no harm is done. The deletionists get what they think is correct and the user who wants to restore the article 2 years later also gets what he wants. If it still sucks we can help him, if that fails we can just delete it again. No harm done. Much better than having the turd in mainspace for 2 years?

The usual deletion debate isn't going to motivate anyone to re-create an article from scratch. It is unreasonable to demand that extra work from users if the article wasn't clearly worth deleting.

There isn't any way to tell atm. I've asked administrators for articles that had been deleted. They turned out to be so bad it was embarrassing to even ask for them. I've stopped doing that. If doubtful articles can be blanked there is no need to ask admins for "articles". If it was deleted entirely one can assume there was nothing there worth keeping.

What are your thoughts?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'll address a few of the points you make. First: blanking. That is really of no use whatsoever. A blank page is just as much use for starting a new article as a non-existent page, so blanking and deletion do not make much difference when it comes to how easy it is to write something. Then there is the question about really bad articles that are kept. Something complicated is happening here. When wikipedia started out, it wasn't very useful, nor was it an encyclopedia. It has always been meant as a means to write an encyclopedia. When it became useful, it suddenly became a way of distributing an encyclopedia too. This has sort of worked, since people find very useful stuff on wikipedia, but many processes still look at wikipedia as a means to write an encyclopedia. From that perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong to have a very badly written article in main space, since main space is the place where we develop content, beat it in to shape, and get it ready for some further undefined 'prime time'. No there is something to be said that we have become a means to distribute an encyclopedia too, and we should have some lower bar for article quality that is up in mainspace. So far, the current process has worked quite well for us, so there is a sort of 'if it isn't broken don't fix it' mentality around it (actually, come to think of it, in many regards Wikipedia has an 'if it is broken, don't fix it either' mentality, but that's a different issue altogether). The only reason for articles to be deleted if they are bad, is that they are so bad, the best way to develop the article is to blow up what's there, and start over (as opinionated in WP:TNT). Stuff really should only get deleted if there is nothing worth keeping. Blanking should never be used as a 'soft deletion', because the content is better kept where we can develop it: in main space. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2013 BCS National Championship Game

Just a thought, I didn't see consensus to delete 2013 BCS National Championship Game among the multiple nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 BCS National Championship Game, as a number of votes were "delete all but (that one)..." I agree the consensus was to delete all the rest. I think you could reasonably amend the close along those lines if you would consider it.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do see consensus to delete that one too, even if consensus is weaker on that one. If you want I can userfy the article for you, so that it can be used as a basis when more coverage comes up. Would that in any way help you? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but I really don't want it myself, someone else will probably create it while I'm not looking anyway, its not an area of real interest to me substance-wise.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, like like theworm777 is already going to DRV. I really don't see a consensus on the 2013 game, even before discounting the "me too delete all" votes, but oh well. I intended to !vote keep for that one only, but I can't complain since I didn't make it around to participating.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Though the notices are placed, the discussions haven't been placed. If they're not there in an hour or so, I'll complete the DRV nominations myself for him. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
He only has a shot on the one, though.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, process is important, and so are review procedures. I don't think I made a mistake here, but if I did, DRV will point it out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I deleted them again for now (see worm77's talkpage), but if you still look for review, feel free to add them for review. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2013 BCS National Championship Game should not have been deleted. I realize that there were a lot of "delete all" votes in the AfD, but they were, frankly, uninformed. This article seemed to get uncritically swept into a deletion tide with its co-nominees, all of which did deserve to be deleted. Or perhaps some editors were simply thrown off by the calendar-wrap of the college football season, i.e. the 2012 season extends just into January 2013. Please restore or userfy this article to my space. We've got plenty of other articles started for the 2012 season: see Category:2012 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jweiss, I userfied it at User:Jweiss11/2013 BCS National Championship Game. Would you like the other 2013 ones too? Martijn Hoekstra (talk)
Thanks. No thanks on the other 2013 ones because those are actually for the following season. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No Problem. Just see if you can get it back into mainspace when you get it beefed up a bit and referenced more strongly. Bulk AfDs are pretty much always a mess. I don't think I ever seen even one that worked properly, if it's not that the articles differ too much, it is that the discussion gets overwhelmed with so many subtle differences. If it were just the one article, then it would have been clear that this is current season, but with the bulk, there is no real saying if everyone really realised that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

MuZemikes Block

Greetings MH. Methinks you will find the block be due to our continuing 'battle of wills' with some of the 'Uber Nerds' ! Bullocks Coaches be well known to moi, but, the manner of our edits be not to the liking of the sadder Uber Nerds. Our edits though be true to life. Guessing those saddo's wish only to deny knowledge to others. As for our piece on the talk page of that article, well, the clue be in the title - TALK ! They will have to keep trying their damnedest to deny others our knowledge ! Why Uber Nerds ? Why Saddo's ? - if you click onto their contributions register you will see these Social Inadequate's appear to spend all their spare time 'policing' Wiki-world - they obviously have no life ! 92.40.51.75 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Grammatophyllum wallisii

I guess you didn't read my comments on the talk page. I haven't edited the article before.

Grammatophyllum wallisii is a different species of Grammatophyllum speciosum. Two different species can and do have separate articles.

Could the page be restored, so I can help the creating, new editor clean up the page. Bgwhite (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite. The first line of the article read 'Synonym = Grammatophyllum Speciosum', and the references also all point to Grammatophyllum Speciosum, which made me believe it is the same species. Are there any references on Grammatophyllum wallisii? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You are correct. I will get the trout ready for you. I'll explain it the the creating editor. He is new and I'm trying to help out. Bgwhite (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, trout. Good idea for tomorrows dinner. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Spotware Systems Ltd

Given that result was "delete", may be you could also delete the previous revisions of User:Omahacrab (a mirror of the article) in order to complete the move? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dmitrij, I'm not fully compelled if deletion there wouldn't need a seperate MfD. Userspace and article space are obviously distinct, and, with the content no longer there, I don't see a problem with the way his userpage is now, (though I haven't checked the history of the pages, a copy-paste move fix could be the solution for that possible problem). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Content is still easily available via edit history (thus deletion not requested by user), and it is subject to WP:CSD § G4. I'm not sure whether it is the case for MfD, as there is no legitimate reason to delete all revisions – the current blank one violates nothing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced. Had he requested me to userfy it, I would have done so too. If I see this as a userfied and then blanked page, I'm ok with it too. I'm just not seeing the point of deleting this from the history of a userpage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Martijn. It was nice to have someone welcoming me to wikipedia. I needed some help and there is no one else I could find. Can you explain to me how I can add pictures to a biographical page?(Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

For that, I think I can best refer you to the picture tutorial: WP:PICTURE. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

AfC: MovNat rejection

Hi there,

I've read the rules of notability and I've used several existing Wiki pages as examples, so I'm confused why this keeps getting rejected. MovNat is part of a global movement centered around ancestral/evolutionary nutrition and exercise. This page is more robust and cited than several other pages of people included in this movement like Robb Wolf and Mark Sisson. Further, Erwan Le Corre is highlighted in red on the Paleolithic Diet page as someone who should have a Wiki page. He is quoted in the Parkour Wiki page. He's presented to NASA and he's a visible figure in evolutionary fitness. He's been featured in dozens of magazines around the world.

I'm at a loss here. If I could get some specific feedback, it would be much appreciated.

Kcbphelps (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Kcbphelps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcbphelps (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kcbphelps, notability is not the problem of the article, that's fine. At the moment it's getting close, but it's mainly an editing and tone issue. Right now, the article reads as a promotion of the fitness style. The history section could use a lot of work, and the certification and mission parts could probably be removed altogether. The literal quotes don't read all too encyclopedic either. Brush it up a little, take care to write in an encyclopedic tone, and it should be alright next time round. Regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

2013 BCS National Championship Game

Can you have a look at the above, you deleted/userfied it following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 BCS National Championship Game and it was then moved back again 17 hours later without another edit. Mtking (edits) 20:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey MTKing, thanks for bringing it to my attention. The AfD was a bit problematic, since it looks like not everyone realised that this game (counter to all other games in that AfD) is part of the current season, making it less of a WP:CRYSTAL problem. There was in my view consensus to delete all, though consensus to delete this specific game was significantly weaker. You could nominate it again, as a single article, quoting these problems and the events that led to renomination. I don't think it's a good idea to G4 it, in light of the possible confusion of seasons on the AfD. Kind regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably not worth the time for another AfD, it might be better if you adjusted the close of AfD to make that point clearer ? Mtking (edits) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I made some additional remarks on the close. Thanks again for bringing this here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martijn_Hoekstra/Archives/2012/February&oldid=1145841765"