User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2007/December

St. Timothy Elementary School (Burlington)
Thanks for cleaning up the St. Timothy Elementary School (Burlington) article. It was in need of any help it could get. Mindraker (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gamma Delta Psi/Gamma Psi
Are you sure these are notable? Because I'm having some serious doubts about them, but maybe I'm wrong. Your opinion? -- Isis 4563  02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, if you want to take it to AfD, I have no direct objections. I'm a bit of an inclusionist myself, and if an article is not 'bothering' me, I never bother to go to AfD. If you think the article shouldn't be included however, I have no objections to AfD (or maybe even PROD). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Archiving
Heh, yeah, I've been putting that off for a while. Thanks for finally spurring me to action. It's a pity, though; the welcome message from 2004 was rather nostalgic. ;-) —Caesura(t) 16:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't archive that one then ;-) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Good call
Thanks. I figured that it'd be better to guide him along. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) suggested to be deleted??
Hi there,

I am a student in university and I do not have time in the next week to edit the page, but it is not intended to be advertising. PLAR is a process used to help adults achieve credit for life learning, and is not something to make money from. Please reread and let me know exactly why you think it to be advertising?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanlawrie (talk • contribs) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Susan. I tagged the article to be speedily deleted because it is written in a way that seems to be aimed at promoting PLAR as a process. It doesn't matter here if it is for-profit or not. to quote WP:CSD: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." The whole structure and the content of the page reflect the violation of this guideline. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A Second Opinion
Martijn,

I disagree with your assessment, and feel that you were too hasty in deleting an article on this topic. The concept behind PLAR is fundamental to the education of adult learners throughout the world, and should be described in Wikipedia. PLAR is the term used in Canada; in Australia, if memory serves me, it is called "recognition of prior learning" (abbreviated RPL) and in Britain it is called "recognition of prior informal learning."

There is a problem with the article, however, in its being heavily focused on the Canadian context. This problem can be fixed with editing, but does not mean that the article is "blatant" promotion, nor a violation of NPOV.

130.179.184.28 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Sorry--I forgot to sign in when posting the comment above. Here is who I am:

KelvinSeifert (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your comments, and your commitment to make WIkipedia better. I have no objection to the inclusion of an article about PLAR. The content of the article in the state that it was when I tagged it for speedy deletion was such, that a complete rewrite was neccecairy to make it into an encyclopedic article. The administrator who noticed the tag, user:Kwsn, apparently agreed with this assesment, and deleted the article on those grounds. That doesn't mean there can't be any article about PLAR. As long as it is well sourced, and written in a neutral tone. You can find some help in creating articles, and what to do, or not do, here: WP:1ST. Hope that helps. Martijn Hoekstra 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks mate!. The link really helped

-- Ankithreya!  11:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Let User:WLU know too, he wrote the essay. I'm sure he'd love to hear possitive feedback. Or just any feedback. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re. Admin coaching
Hello Martijn and thank you for your request. I'm not accpeting new coachees these days, but I've decided to open an exception for you, for two reasons: 1) I had seen you around and think you're doing quite a good job; 2) You don't need that much admin coaching anyway. :-) So, if it's okay with you, I'll make an extensive review of your contributions, and tell you any recommendations I find pertinent. I may even offer to nominate you for adminship if it becomes clear that you are more than ready. So, what do you say? Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. It all sounds good, with the caveat that I will not be actualy accepting adminship untill I finish this dreaded mediation I'm involved in. It's already a delicate balance, and although it shouldn't make a difference, and probably won't make a difference either, the offchance of this blowing up the mediation is just not worth it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to echo Husond; I really don't think you're that far off from being a good admin... which is why my "adoption" has consisted largely of me doing jack and squat. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion almost every editor could benefit from adoption, experienced or not. Even some administrators. I believe only oversight, ArbCom members and burocrats should be so experienced they have no benefit in having an experienced big brother/sister to look over their shoulders once in a while, or can be used as a soundboard when in doubt. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro Military Gaming
Why would you put an afd tag on an article that already has a speedy deletion tag? Corvus cornix talk  19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I wasn't looking when I came from the talkpage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actualy, it was a twinkleconflict. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Hm. Twinkle needs tweaking. :)  Corvus cornix  talk  21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

tekphoto
Hello Martijn Hoekstra, This article (Thomas Krueger)is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. It no longer Fails WP:BIO. The references have been added to the page making it and the artist notable. This is simply a Biography of the artist. All of the references and External links verify this artist.

Thank you --Tekphoto (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the sources, and stand by my opinion. I have made note of your new references on the AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Leerdam Crystal
Beste Martijn, wat is dan naar jouw mening een reference of source in dit geval? Beide websites met het laatste nieuws staan er op. Moet ik de New York Stock Exchange aanhalen of zo? Met alle veranderingen die er de komende maanden aan zitten te komen in Leerdam kunnen we beter even afwachten. Ik heb wel slechtere artikelen gezien en zonder references. Groetjes--GerardusS (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hoi Gerardus, een goede referentie is een onafhakelijke, betrouwbare bron. (zie ook WP:RS). Het doel van deze bronnen is niet alleen om de inhoud te verifieren, maar ook om het belang van het bedrijf aan te tonen (WP:V en WP:N). De richtlijnen voor belang van bedrijven zeggen ondermeer: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject."'(nadruk eigen). Royal Leerdam en Royal Delft zijn bekende bedrijfen, en nog wel onderdeel van de Nederlandse cultuur te noemen. Een oproep om bronnen te plaatsen, zoals ik boven het artikel heb geplaatst, kan het artikel alleen maar ten goede komen. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Martijn, kijk ook maar eens bij Kosta Boda, als je even de tijd wilt nemen. Moet je template daar ook niet staan? Cheerio--GerardusS (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ja, ik heb een template geplaatst. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Martijn, de vraag om een template bij Kosta Boda was ironisch bedoeld.
 * Zoals Kosta Boda heeft Royal Leerdam in en-wikipedia heeft zelfde probleem (ondanks je kerstpakket op mijn discussiepagina!).
 * Wat zijn referentie/bronnen van puur traditionele bedrijven als voorgenoemde in een engelstalige setting. Het gaat in beide gevallen niet om de bedrijven, althans mij niet, maar om de koppeling met trends in de glaskunst en de benadrukking van het ambacht c.q. de historische groei.
 * Die mergergeschiedenis is over 14 dagen over. Ik kan hoogstens de beide websites toescherpen op de pagina's t.a..v. de rijke historie (engelstalig), maar daar ben ik eerlijk gezegd niet zo goed in. Pers praat alleen maar de websites van de bedrijven na. Literatuur/bronnen zijn uiteraard slechts nederlandstalig. Wat stel je toch een eis. Graag reactie,groetend--GerardusS (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hoi, Gera Gerardus, Ik had wel zon flauw vermoeden dat de noot over Kosta Boda ironisch bedoeld was, maar in essentie heb je wel gelijk. De pagina had geen referenties.Nederlandstalige bronnen zijn geen probleem als die niet in een andere taal beschikbaar zijn. In het geval van media die de website napraten, zijn die bronnen nog steeds verkiesbaar boven de eigen website van bedrijven. Als je wel bronnen hebt, maar moeite hebt om die te verwerken, kan je ze altijd los in en sectie References kwakken, of op de talkpage zetten. Dan kan ik ze wel tot inline quotes in wikiformaat omtoveren. Over het kerstpakket, voel je vrij om die van je talkpage af te halen als je hem daar niet wil hebben. Een andere optie is om hem op een subpagina te plaatsen, als je denkt dat het wel nuttig is, maar je hem niet zo in het zicht wil hebben (bijvoorbeeld op User:GerardusS/welkomlinks). Ik hoop dat dit wat helpt, maar aarzel niet om meer dingen te vragen of op te merken als je nog meer puntjes hebt. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vindex - heavy metal band
Hello Martijn!

Vindex is the name of an established heavy band in Slovakia, which deserves a place in Wikipedia. The band has released two albums, while on one of them even the internationaly highly acclaimed musician Victor Smolski guested. The band has already been mentioned twice on Wikipedia, apparently. Once as a band coming from Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Slovakia), without any further reference and for the secind time as a band Victor Smolski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Smolski) guested. Unfortunately, the link there directs you to the page concerning Roman governor Vindex. I think this needs to be fixed.

Some other metal bands from Slovakia (even some less known) have their place in Wikipedia and so can Vindex, I believe.

Thanks for understanding!

Best wishes, Tommy (Metal Vindex) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal Vindex (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the speedy deletion notice, and put it up for the more extensive debate at Articles for deletion/Vindex band. I don't believe it satifies the Notability guidelines, as set by WP:BAND. I'm not at all against keeping the article, or recreating, when those guidelines can be met. As for the other, less known bands, I'd like to point you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on a treatment of that argument against deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vindex updated
Well, here are my arguments against deleting:

Concerning WP:BAND:

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Luděk used to be a drummer of the well-knowned Czech rock band called Premier.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)

A sample from Read The Stras has been frequently aired as a part of promotional tv advertisment announcing a new Slovak rock magazine Rock Planet.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Having Victor Smolski from Rage as a guest on the CD is a priviledge beyond any local standars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal Vindex (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

tekphoto Re: Thomas Krueger Article
This artist has been "published" in JPG Magazine which is distributed nationally in major bookstores (Barnes & Noble, Borders, ETC) as well as on Filemagazine.com which the artist has no primary control having his/her work on that site. --24.17.238.9 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Expert systems for mortgages‎
Hi, Martijn Hoekstra

I would like to share my opinion about this article. I think it will be very interesting for those who are going to work in banking area or just want to take to possess credit using mortgage loan. I've wrote an introduction to the article, used information from reliable sources and expended the article with new part "Goals and Objectives". What do you think about removing the notability tag? Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, interesting is not the same as notable. If you can sufficiently establish that expert systems for mortgages are notable, then the tag has no place there. This is usualy done by providing independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, Martijn Hoekstra :). Your criticism made me expand and improve the article. I think that now it looks much better Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And if things are right, it will continue to expand nd look better, untill it's a featured article. At least in theory. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Karlin-Stolin redirect/deletion move
Thanks for the tip. Not sure I used it correctly. Can you take a look at: Karlin-Stolin (the redirect page) and let me know if I added it properly?

Thanks again!


 * looks good to me. Because housekeeping can have many reasons, it's usualy a good idea to leave a note on the talkpage of the article to why you are requesting deletion. In this case I did it for you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again! Looks like it may have been overlooked... some time went by without action. Am I impatient? :-) Joseph (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like they are a little behind. Speedy deletion is by far one of the shortests lists for admins, so it should be done sometime. Don't fret too much, there is no real hurry anyway. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Vikramdhembare
I removed this report from WP:UAA. The name is actually distinctly suggestive of an individual. An individual, in this case, who seems to enjoy creating advertisements. If you notice any further abuse, scale up the user warnings and report them through WP:AIV. But this is not really a username issue IMO. Mango juice talk 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it got my attention that he used a 'we' form in his advertisements. I just wasn't sure if WP:UAA was the appropriate venue for group accounts. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, thanks for dropping the note! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I might have agreed, except that it was only a "we" speaking on behalf of the company. If I had seen the user saying "we" in actual discussion with others, that might make me more suspicious.  I think role accounts are sufficiently rare that if one does crop up, reporting at WP:ANI makes the most sense.  Mango juice talk 19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Another day, another thing learned. Thanks again for the information! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD of Jankers
Hey Martijn Hoekstra, for what it's worth, that particular user has a somewhat sketchy history of attacking the nominator in AfDs instead of being constructive. Hope you didn't take it too personally. Cheers, and happy editing,  Keeper   |   76  23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Doing new page patrole, I'm quite used to something. I might have overreacted a little. maybe I should reread this section on No angry mastodons again. On that note, I'd better stop editing for now. Night! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PrimeHunter RfA revisited
I think I'm interested this time, but still thinking. Thanks a lot for the offer. Can I come back to you within a few days? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's now or never ;-). Sure, think about it for a few days, and let me know if you want to accept. Nothing is more embaressing then an AfD nomination where the nominee doesn't accept the nomination. I hope you do, I think Wikipedia will be better off with you as an admin. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your kind offer to nominate me for adminship. I have decided to accept. First, you may want to know that in the past I have added computer verified prime number records by myself to Wikipedia, sometimes with my own prime record website http://hjem.get2net.dk/jka/ as reference. None of these additions have been removed or questioned but I will mention it at RfA for full disclosure. I have not done it for a long time and will not do it again, except to update listed but obsolete records. I may instead make talk page suggestions like at Talk:Emirp. The former additions are primarily in Cunningham chain (original diff), and the creation of Primes in arithmetic progression, commented at Talk:Primes in arithmetic progression. If you reconsider your offer in view of this information then it's OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a reason to reconsider, or why the RfA might fail. Afterall, nobody expects administrators to be perfect, and even if they did, one can hardly expect editors to be perfect from day one. That dif to Cunningham chain indicates that for a very long time, you have been doing things very right in respect to COI. I'll go prepare the nomination now, it should be up in about an hour. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will write the answers and accept formally later today. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have accepted formally in Requests for adminship/PrimeHunter. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing is more embaressing then an AfD nomination where the nominee doesn't accept the nomination." You know, I think if articles-for-deletion nominees had to accept their nominations, there would be a lot fewer articles deleted. ;-) (Sorry, I know you meant RfA, but this typo really amused me for some reason.) —Caesura(t) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I really should stop doing that. That's the second or third time I said AfD instead of RfA. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Adminship for Discussion? Makes sense to me. ;-) PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to my user page
Hi Martijn. Cheers for dealing with the vandalism to my user page. [Jam][talk] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! --Elonka 07:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 2
Sigh, you're probably right. I've removed that comment. It sucks that opposers etc. are OK to do it, but yeah... &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

An appeal (I think)
I took a little lunch and surf break and noticed that a new tag has been added to my new page here -- Gallery of Hieracium anatomy. I then attempted to write my first appeal, and it would be nice if this one could be read before the page is deleted. So if you have the time and the inclination I started the appeal on the Talk:Gallery of Hieracium anatomy discussion page.

Also, it should be noted that while I was writing this here it seems that you were writing something there. Heh, thank you! -- carol 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ps. I tried to wikilink the discussion page and failed -- do you have a tip for that? -- carol
 * Talk:Gallery of Hieracium anatomy should work. Anyway, while I'm writing this, i'm actualy reading what you wrote, and noticed that you are probably replying on Talk:Gallery of Hieracium anatomy. I'm not opposed to having the discussion in either place, let's just keep it in one place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application
Dear Martijn Hoekstra,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

 Snowolf How can I help? 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

End - To - End Reconfigurability
Hello, End-to-end Reconfigurability is a European Commission funded Research Project. We fail to understand why you think it is an advertisement. Please, let us know what you needs us to do, in details.

The E2R Article Author Team (17:30 14 Dec, 2007)

signing for archival Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of en.wikipedia to commons.wikimedia and species.wikimedia
I had a template on my User page that claimed that I was a sockpuppet of commons:User:CarolSpears simply because I had bad dreams (ideas) about a more general use of the term and I did not want to make another page the one that is there now.

Instead of suggesting that I make pages there, perhaps you could revert the change that removed that template from my page instead? I was told that it was an administrative thing to put it there in the first place.

Also, I am wondering the reason that you presented the idea to me that the different wiki were (or are) different. For one thing, they all display the same thing at the top about fund-raising. To me, that means that they work together especially if they are dipping into the same funding. Can you clear this confusion I am having up? -- carol 02:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppet template was rightly removed. A sockpuppet template usualy indicates that the user is abusing a second account. There are several ways to do that, like using multiple accounts to vote, using a seperate account to commit vandalism, using a new account to get around a block, etc. You are not one of those editors. You have a different account on commons, which is no problem at all.


 * About those different wikis: let me start by giving the similarities first: They are all run by the Wikimedia organisation. Then you might wonder why there are different wikis. That is because they have different scopes and goals. wikipedia is meant to be a free, online encyclopedia, nothing more, and nothing less. What wikipedia is explicitly not, can be read at WP:NOT. Wikispecies is an open, free directory of species' (according to it's main page). This is a distinctly diffent scope, as can be seen in WP:NOT. Wiktionary, an other mediawiki project, is a free dictionary. Commons is a repository for free images, wikinews is a news wiki, etc. You can see the complete list of wikimedia wikis on http://www.wikimedia.org . Some subjects might be more suited for some wikis, and some subjects may fit in several wikis. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My question was more along the lines of the working together aspect of all of the wiki that use wikimedia. The conversation between you and me, yesterday and hopefully not today has been you suggesting that I work on other wiki.  My goal has been in part to clean up and link to and do what I can with information that I find for articles here on the other wiki.  It is a huge task.  Images need templates and categorization and sometimes renaming on wikimedia.  wikispecies information does not seem to match the information presented here.  I have a bunch of synonyms for a species that I uncovered via research here and I am waiting for information about how to put that at wikispecies.  Wiktionary has almost all of the retired words to describe plant features that I found in my research, but not all of them.  The fact that I can cite my sources (and not the fact that I understand or have opinions about the science and how it came to be this way) is what makes me want to work together with all of the wiki.  This conversation where you are suggesting that I work on other wiki instead makes no sense to me and it tends to feel more like hinting than actual assistance.  Do you have one of those WP linkie things that clearly states that all the wiki are separate and must never share information?  I thought the list included in the interwiki linking howto was the most concise and least bias of lists of wiki which are working together.


 * Consider the reason I used that sockpuppet template as well. In a more broad sense of that weasel word, I really really really want to be my own sockpuppet.  On the otherhand, from the time you learn how to speak, you are learning a language that has a bias built in from the people who taught you.  I have had many years with a lot of shining examples and some incredibly wrong ones as well, and in many ways I hardly exist except for whoever is in my collection of examples I am using at the moment as a personal measurement of what to live up to.  Consider being your own sockpuppet that way, where you assume that you are one and control whose puppet you are.  I thought a lot about that template before I put it there perhaps even before I thought I would have a wiki user page(s) and well, I can't say before I had an internet connection at home because I had one in 1982, but one with memory on my side (instead of a noisy and not pretty TTY printer).  Consider being your own sockpuppet.


 * Also, consider how much more efficient your message would have been delivered and how you did not need admin approval to have made that more efficient message to restore that template as a message to work elsewhere and how confusing it is since they are all the same funding and have that interlink mechanism.


 * And here is a not preachy (sorry about that) real question. If Plant project templates get applied to pages I make but not by the plant project bot, do I take those templates seriously or do I remove them as possible vandalism? -- carol -- 15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Starting with the last: In the broadest sense: Wikipedia is a wiki, which means anyone can edit it. You should asses edits on their merits, and not who made the edits. In this case I think you mean either an infobox or a project template on the talkpage, and both work equally well when a bot puts it up as when someone else puts it up. If you believe anything is done in error though, feel free to fix it.


 * On the sock issue: I think I understand what you are sayeing (although I needed to read it about 12 times, and took a night to sleep on it). The problem with the sockpuppet template is that it raises all kinds of alarmbells and red flags around wikipedia. That's probably not what you want. You could however make your own template, and put it up there, as long as no confusion arises about violation of the sockpuppet policy.


 * On wikis working together: sure, there is no problem with that. A single subject could be covered in all wikimedia projects, as long as the articles fit within the scope of the project. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don Kosaken Chor
Dear Martijn Hoekstra,

The little article I wrote about Don Kosaken Chor is very important. The group is one of the most important choral group in the world (from 1930). I am sorry about the brevity of my article but there are many reason for this: 1st) I'm a not a native English.

Please try to search by yourself about the group throgh Google: you'll be very impressed by the many results! :)

BTW: this is a new account by me: really I've done a lot of important articles with other nicks.

Kosaken (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see the contents of the article anymore, as it was deleted, and only administrators can see deleted contributions. If you would like a review of the deletion, you can request so at WP:DRV. It's always a good idea to contact the deleting admin first, in this case user:Od Mishehu. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn
Could have sworn I'd typed it... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm, could have sworn I capitalised your V too, in my adopter userbox. nasty little things, letters. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah, ah yes. It appears we're even, then. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 01:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

infoboxes
Another editor removed your no context tag from John Jackson (footballer) & I agree--an infobox giving the content from which notability is demonstrated and an article written can be considered the equivalent of a stub. DGG (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. There were better things to do with that rather than tag for speedy deletion. I should edit less when tired. Thanks for the note! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)