User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archive Oct 2007

GS IV
Why did you post a deletion notice on the GemStone IV page? I assume it was some sort of a mistake? Marieblasdell 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is part of a large cleanup based on notability and references. The deletion discussion can be found here. Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD) Martijn Hoekstra 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I apolgize for the tone and abruptness of my comments--I was startled, and at the time I checked the Articles for deletion page it only mentioned Avatar, which confused me. Marieblasdell 23:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, at that time the rest wouldn't be in the AfD yet, as I got your message on sabving the page with the rest. It seems that GS IV has indeed been an oversight. My oversight to be exact, as I placed it on the Non-notables list in the first place. I got a little lost in all those claiming to be the oldest something, without properly checking, and realising that 1988 is, indeed, old. It's as much a let down for me after the hours of hard work we had put in the list, and have something like this make it look like we haven't done any checking -at all-. I'm not on some crusade against MUD's or anything, actually, I play quite avidly Martijn Hoekstra 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lumping this AfD in along with other AfDs all at once prevents editors from having a chance to carefully consider each AfD nominee on its own merits. While some of the AfDs might be worthwhile, at least one (GemStone IV) is not, in the view of most editors in the discussion. I must say that I feel very strongly that this is the wrong way to go about conducting an AfD. Unless the articles (and their subjects) are substantially identical, group AfDs are not warranted. As you stated, you got a little lost - it might take longer to nominate each one individually, but it's the right thing to do.
 * There is also a question as to whether there really was any discussion leading up to the deletion. The Non-notables list you refer to is itself obscure and another editor only found five people active on that list at the time, and furthermore when I looked it seemed that you added all those items to the list without consulting others. I'm not saying you shouldn't ever do things yourself, but keep in mind that until you have an open debate (such as you're certain to get at AfD) that you might be surprised to find out what others think.
 * All that said, I wish your AfD project well. We'll have to see if some of these MUDs aren't indeed non-notable. I'll hopefully get a chance to check out my source tomorrow (actually, today, by the clock). Best wishes! --Edwin Herdman 05:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your comment. I might have a bit too fast indeed, and been too careless in the listing, resulting in the listing of gemStone IV. In that particular case it has been the IV part that threw me off, and where they assert it is the oldest continious running commercial MUD, I merely took it for a decendent of it. Further, I hadn't realised that a consensus is needed even before an article is AfD'd, because of Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. In the articles for deletion page. I may well have underestimated the gravity of AfD. It's a little putting off that all the work I and other editors have put into it is being negated by a rash action by myself. Also, some more work should have been put into the AfD itself. There is the impression that there have been no guidlines as to what is notable and what not, while we have tried to stick to WP:ORG as a notability guidline. I personaly haven't found any sources for for example gemstone IV that prove notability in this case, but I might have had to look better. For a massive AfD, and I still believe there should have been a massive AfD, if we had kept the list to the likes of NannyMUD, it would have been a much clearer case. I was going on for a bit longer, as there are several other points are in order here, but I'm just writing a response on a talkpage, not making the elaborate statement I should have made at the AfD. As a last note I would like to point out that most comments on the AfD do not cut much wood. Like "Keep All: This may be the stupidest AfD I have ever seen. LPMud is not notable? From about 1991-1996 it was the single largest base of mudding. And several of the muds mentioned for deletion are among the most significant examples of LPMud. Xinconnu 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)". Note that he gives as a ground for Keep All that LPMud (which is not listed) was the largest base of mudding between 1991-1996. Or voting for delete per the unrelated WP:WEB. Martijn Hoekstra 12:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd respond to that on the AfD page itself; most people haven't heard your reasoning and a few of them have jumped to conclusions (although I'd ignore Atari2600tim's comment "if this is a serious nomination" - of course it is, you just made some small process errors). Again, I think that there's nothing wrong with AfDing any and all of these MUDs (although I would have to vote keep on at least one of them, and maybe more), but they should be listed separately. AfDs can drag on for a while so I wouldn't nominate more than a few at once.
 * I'm new at this too, and actually your use of the template worked better than my first attempt . The only problem was that an actual category wasn't selected; I replaced "MU* games" with "G" for games. Another issue that came up in AfDs I've recently run across (not yours) is "AfD is not cleanup on demand." I think that covers about all the tricks in the process I know so far. Good luck, and I'd encourage you to re-list the AfDs separately (although only a few at a time). --Edwin Herdman 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy
Hi, sorry this took a while to respond to, I've been busy packing all my stuff to move back home. Anyway, can you provide a few diffs of the fancruft you've spoken of? If the article is being repeatedly degraded by fancruft, I am willing to sprotect it, provided it is significantly affecting the quality of the article. So, can you provide a few diffs? Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a few. All good faith, but... Martijn Hoekstra 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Ed%2C_Edd_n_Eddy&diff=prev&oldid=137810886 Hey, thats no annon... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Ed%2C_Edd_n_Eddy&diff=137868403&oldid=137833489 thats a good example too. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Ed%2C_Edd_n_Eddy&diff=prev&oldid=137793681 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Ed%2C_Edd_n_Eddy&diff=prev&oldid=137790710 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Ed%2C_Edd_n_Eddy&diff=prev&oldid=137678893 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Ed%2C_Edd_n_Eddy&diff=prev&oldid=137470417


 * Your wish came true. Sprotected for two weeks. --Deskana (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * whoopy! Martijn Hoekstra 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

El Difrawi dispute
Hey kaaskop Martijn WTFLMAOLOL! I suppose you may have not have read my remark on Talk:Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi‎, since it had been removed by some Defrawi supporter. The dispute about the article Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi‎ is mainly about wether Defrawy really changed his life for the better after he got out of jail, or if he kept scamming like he used to. I am convinced that the latter is the case and his version is p.r. gibberish containing several unreferenced half-truths and outright lies. Also the majority of references given, are his own press-releases. On the other hand several allegations made by the people who started the article have no strong enough references. I think Difrawi is not worth an edit war and therefor it would be best to either remove it, or redirect to Louis Pearlman. If you feel like rewriting you could give it a shot, the article just shouldn't be longer than say five lines then, imho. Groeten uit Groningen. --SooperJoo 00:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I share your sentiments, I don't see much notability there. Tomorrow I'm going to put up a notability tag, and if thats still there after a few days, without any assertion of notability, move towards merging the article into Louis Pearlman, or AfDing it. Martijn Hoekstra 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The information currently posted is being done by a person who is basically cype-stalking El-Difrawi. There is no evidence whatsoever that El-Difrawi has had any legal issues since 1991 (the 1995 conviction was for a 1991 offense)

The current post also accuses many other of operating a scam operation, racketeering etc, for no reason at all.

El-Difrawi’s only involvement to Pearlman was that he sold him a company which he was never paid for making El_Difrawi a victim of Pearlman.

The following are facts

El-Difrawi testified against Pearlman over a dispute with the modeling company in a civil suit in 2006

The Florida Attorney General cleared the company of any wrongdoing in 2003 http://tolner.com/docs/2006_02_03_10_27_41.pdf

NPOV on Battle of Konotop
I do not understand why Alex Kov clears away the tag POV. --Russianname 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. As there is a dispute abpout the neutrality, the neutrality is clearly disputed it seems. My advice is to just shrug it off, and wait untill we finish mediation, which I have good hopes for to end in consensus. For the duration of mediation it may or may not have an NPOV tag, but that is only for a limited timespan. Martijn Hoekstra 12:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, Martin, I srug it off. But I need to see your point of view. It is clear that all thoughts have their authors. So we ned to indicate that some idea belongs to Witness, Solovyov and Markevych (and every person can make a mistake). This was your proposition and I edited in this way. --Russianname 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My view on the matter is that all notable opinions should be represented, and presented in a way in which it is clear that they are their opinions, and the final judgement is open for the reader. Does that clear things up, or can I explain something further? Martijn Hoekstra 13:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Martijn, thank you for trying to mediate this dispute. You have been doing an excellent job so far. However, may I suggest that we move this mediation to its proper place - MedCab? Right now it is very disorganized and haphazard, bits and pieces are all over the page. Besides, some users not involved in mediation started the revert war. Unfortunately Russianname chose to engage in it and started changing things around before a consensus was reached. What is the purpose of mediating if one can just muscule his version of events in the text. That defeats the purpose of mediation. I requested full protection for the page and hope the dialogue can restart at MedCab and we can come to a solution, which in my view is not hard to reach. We only need to agree what to add to the text and how to explain things and opinion of authors. This is not hard to achieve, provided there is a will to negotiate rather than revert. Thanks. --Hillock65 13:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (resetting indent) I made a note on the talkpage of the article to move to the MedCab page. And just as I advices russianuser, you might have to content with a page that doesn't reflect consensus for the duration of the mediation. Thats exactly why I would like to keep the NPOV tag on the page for the duration. Martijn Hoekstra 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now Hillock put pressure on the grounf that I began revert war. This is unclean, unfair play. This is dirty. Alex Kov and Hillock himself made first reverts of the tag. Now I added info from various sources with refences, this is according to all rules. And still we do not have any good will from the side of Hillock and Alex Kov. --Russianname 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check the edit history. I only edited 2 times and was trying to put a stop to the revert war that was getting out of control and was pleading several times on the talk page and the discussion page. Engaging in revert wars in the middle of mediation is unacceptable. That's why people mediate, so that they don't revertwar. --Hillock65 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not try to stop revert war, you waged revert war. And your colleague Alex Kov reverted tag "POV" three times today. Now, when I showed my good will you continue to use unfair means in discussion. --Russianname 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care who started, who continued and who ended the revertwarring. As long as you all stop doing it, I'm happy
 * When we start getting underway with proposing and improving actual text (that is, when not everybody agrees with the current version, which I hope they do, as that means the conflict is over, but quite honestly, I doubt, and we start working more towards a solution than trying to figure out who is right, the hostilities will probably lessen too. In all fairness, all parties have made accusations, assumed bad faith, and/or blanked out comments on talk pages at some time. It'll blow over. I generaly ignore all comments about editors, and just focus on the article. If you feel someone is trying to put pressure on you, just consider it moot, as it's not about the article anyway. Comments about a person are always annoying, and don't help in a cooperative atmosphere, so it's best to just ignore them, and let those comments die out, instead of feeding them more. Every reply causes another untill one decides to not comment. The previous is pretty much directed at both parties. Martijn Hoekstra 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
Hi!

I saw your proposed merger on WP:PM. I think the discussion about it died a long time ago and may have to be restarted. Some related pages have also come up, a few with some (maybe) salvageable content. At the moment, I think these are the pages which could be merged together-


 * 1) Sound reinforcement system
 * 2) Public address
 * 3) Live sound reproduction

Just wanted to know your opinion about this and whether I've left anything out, before I reopen the discussion. I know you've got a lot going on at the moment, but I'd be grateful for any feedback.

Much appreciated, xC | ☎  18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination
Hi there! I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing Harold Pinter for GA-status according to the criteria. You can check out some of my other reviews by looking at the chronological list on my userpage. As we speak I'm just finishing up another review and reading the article. Don't hesitate to get back to me with any comments or questions you might have, VanTucky  (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Heya
If you need any advise or help on the CUPS article to assist with your review, or you can offer me any constructive feedback, I'd much appreciate it :-) It was a FA article before, but got defeatured. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the first GA candidate I'm reviewing, and I'm working a little slow on it, but I do want to do it well. There is such a backlog on GA candidates that every help would be appreceated methinks. Thank you for the offer, and if there is anything, I'll let you know. Martijn Hoekstra 09:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Organized crime
Mr. Hoekstra - I got your message. I won't tell you I'm 100 percent knowledgable on Wiki policies, however, common sense would seem to trump verify. (I.E My gravity comment ) DOn't you agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Common Sense should in my oppinion always trump guidelines. However, there is in fact plenty written about organised crime, and there is a lot of information available, that can be used to source the article. (just search for 'organised crime' at amazon for example, or search for organised crime on google scolar. You will find a lot of reliable sources that treat organised crime. Articles should stick to the content of what reliable sources have already published. Why? Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopedia that you can trust. Howerver, since anyone can edit information on wikipedia, it is not always reliable. That is why all statements should be properly sourced. A user can then find information on wikipedia, and verify this information using the sources provided. Martijn Hoekstra 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)