User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2007/November

On the new citation in File allocation table article
Hi, just a thanks for quickly converting my ref. to the GOOGLE book (Forensic Computing) about '4078' as the max. clusters under FAT12. I'd run out of time on my work break, but wanted to leave what I could. Glad you picked up the ball and scored! Daniel B. Sedory 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats the fun thing about Wiki, you can leave a ref in whatever state you have time, knowledge, or energy for, and someone will go and pick it up, and improve it. If it hadn't been me, it would have been someone else. But thanks still! Happy editing! Martijn Hoekstra 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Current issues
I am contacting all those involved in the mediation @ Pro-pedophile activism who seem to have missed one or both of these issues. Hopefully, with more editors voicing their opinions, we can approach consensus on these taxing questions. The Blocking of A.Z Merger for Adult-child sex 85.10.140.167 07:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm aware of both issues, but thanks for dropping a note. Martijn Hoekstra 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mtvalogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mtvalogo.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 16:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Arctic Shark
The question is, what users are looking for serious information about Arctic sharks? Would a page on the Arctic shark be acceptable if it was made clear the shark is a fictional character, thus making the information an accurate description of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartwexford (talk • contribs) 14:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That would really depend. In this case, I don't think the 'artic shark' would meet the criteria for inclusion. For example, it is policy that all articles have proper sources, that make all information verifiable. If the subject of an article is notable, and the contents of the article can be verified, then it's fine. I don't think the 'artic sharks' is notable fictional character though (opposed to, for example, Micky Mouse, who is also fictional, but quite notable). Martijn Hoekstra 14:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hassocks Golf Club
Do you mind explaining why you decided to tag for deletion the above with no discussion at all? I joined the Wikipedia golf project this morning - created an article on a golf course that I have no connection to this afternoon, and you decide it should be deleted! It was not intended to be an advert but if you thought that it was just common courtesey would dictate that you dropped me a line first and I would be pleased to discuss the article and change it where required. Paste 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for speedy deletion on the criterion that the article was written purely in the form of an advertisement (how to get there, prices, etc). I left a comment on your talkpage that is was tagged, and what to do about it ( putting a tag under it, and explaining the rationale on the talk page. ). If you take a look at other golf courses articles, you'll see that the entire structure is set up differently. The administrator that looked at the article agreed with my assessment, and deleted it accordingly, see the deletion log |here. If you believe that the the golf course meets the criteria for inclusion of notability and verifiability, you can recreate the article, taking care that you write it in an encyclopedic fashion. Starting out, you may want to use the drawing board to give it some more form before creating the article. I hope you do stick around, and if you have any questions, ask me, or ask the helpdesk. Martijn Hoekstra 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

AbunaiCon
Hoi Martijn. Kun jij alsjeblieft stoppen met de artikel AbunaiCon voor deletion te zetten. Dit wordt puur een informatieve page over Abunai! Convention welke none-profit en in Nederland gehouden wordt. Ik heb er momenteel naar mijn weten zoveel mogelijk informatie neergezet en ik laat de stichting houder nog de pagina editten met enig andere informatie. Dank je wel alvast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.94.150 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Zoals ik op de talkpage van het artikel gezegd heb, het gaat niet alleen om de informatie, het gaat vooral om de externe bronnen. Ik heb via een google search naar AbunaiCon geen externe bronnen gevonden die de bekendheid van AbunaiCon aantonen. Ik krijg wel hits, maar dat zijn voornamelijk forums, en die kunnen niet opgevoerd worden als betrouwbare bronnen. Ook als ik de links naar AbunaiCom en de organiserende organisatie volg, vind ik op die websites ook geen links naar andere bronnen over AbunaiCon. Ik heb het idee dat AbunaiCon niet voldoet aan de criteria voor opname in de Engelse wikipedia. Daarom heb ik de AfD opgezet. De gemeenschap kan nu naar het artikel kijken, en beslissen of het voldoet of niet. Iedereen kan zijn mening geven, ook jij. Als je dat doet, zorg er dan wel voor dat je laat weten dat je een staffmedewerker bent, en dus een 'conflict of interest' hebt. Als het resultaat van de AfD 'keep' is, dan blijft het artikel. Als het 'Delete' is, en je bent het niet eens met de gang van zaken in de AfD, je denkt dat de admin die de AfD gesloten heeft gemaakt een fout gemaakt heeft met het inschatten van de consensus, of dat er andere fouten kan je vragen om herziening van de beslissing. Ik hoop dat ik je zo genoeg informatie heb gegeven. Martijn Hoekstra 11:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fan Dub
Hello. Thank you for being so helpful. Is there someone you can recommend who may help me modify my Fan Dub page so it meets Wiki standards? Also, who can I ask to have fandub redirect to Fan dub? Thank you for your time.Qtktbug 16:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I put up a post on the talk page of Voice acting about the redirect, but nobody replied so far. Because fandub is a current redirect. I'll list Fan Dub in the requested moves to fandub. There, an administrator is able to conduct the move. If you want to know more about the process, have a look at the link, to see how that works in practise. I could already move this page to Fan dub (the proper capitalistion), but because Fandub is preferable over Fan dub, it makes more sense to just ask for an immediate redirect there. If there are still problems with that, (though I doubt it) it can still be moved to Fan dub without any help from an administrator. Martijn Hoekstra 18:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hlep; it is much appreciated! *^^* Qtktbug 21:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When the move is done, the article still needs some work. I'll be happy to contribute, but don't be all too shocked if it doesn't turn out quite the way you had in mind. verifiability policy, together with notability guidlines and the manual of style tends to leave people slightly shocked at the result at times. I'm not saying that that will be the case, but it might well happen. Just a heads up to prepare for it. Martijn Hoekstra 21:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Agreed, I'll keep an eye on the page and protect if they keep it up (they'll probably get bored and wander off, at least I hope...) Peace,  delldot   talk  21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he did. It was actualy most likely a continuation of vandalism from an IP. (see Gmail history). Anyway, as long as it stops it's fine by me. Martijn Hoekstra 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome tagging
That sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the heads up. SWik78 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Top Cat articles
While the AFD discussion for Choo Choo (Top Cat character) (which you nominated) was ongoing, the same editor created the Top Cat (character), Benny the Ball, Choo Choo (Top Cat character), Fancy-Fancy, Spook (Top Cat character), Brain (Top Cat character, and Officer Dibble pages. Thought you might want to have a look, as I don't think these are any better than the Choo Choo page. - BillCJ 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea following the result of the Choo Choo AfD, to merge them all into a new list of Top Cat characters, or maybe just all into Top Cat. Martijn Hoekstra 12:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No. 264 Squadron RAF
Hi, for your interest, this one which you just marked as unwikified and unsourced, is now at CSD for copyvio, as are many of the creator's other articles. Regards, &mdash; BillC talk 14:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, copyvio is an easy one, it should be speedied at all times, unless someone refactors it really quickly. The licence under which Wikipedia is released does not allow for any copyrighted material. Martijn Hoekstra 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Crowded images.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Crowded images.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Racking (graffiti)
I agree that this article probably should not exit, I just don't like deleting other people's work so I moved the section in the Racking article to this page. It's totally repeative of it's entry in Graffiti terminology. I will start a speedy deletion process. Earthdirt (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 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) 10:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help...
... on Rémi Gaillard. Man, been around for so long, still, I can't seem to create a perfect page on my own. Anyway, thanks a bunch. *thumbs up* aenariel (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, all small things. And anyway, helping eachother out making better articles is what Wikipedia is about, so really, quite welcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-speciesist egalitarianism
Hi Martijn, thanks for your message. The article does indeed address animal rights, but if I can't find a suitable title for it (I've asked Keeper if "Non-speciesism" would be acceptable; please see my message to him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeper76 -- what do you think?), and if turned into a mere paragraph, it should probably be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism and then linked under See More at the Animal Rights and Human Rights pages -- I would appreciate your help in resolving this. I truly appreciate it. My email address, if you prefer to write me directly, is [...] -- Kind regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To keep track of things, and keep all debate public, I usualy prefer to keep all discussion on Wikipedia. I don't think the title of any article should be a neologism, I would even prefer "equality of humans and animals" (even if you would object that that humans are animals, just to prevent awkward situations, that I'm sure you can imagine with the alternative versions of this title). I've got a guideline for you to read through though, as it may be closely related to the difficulties in this subject. WP:NOR, and specificly WP:SYN. I also have a 'what not to do'. That would be flooding wikipedia with alternatives of your page. It would be disruptive, and could even be seen vandalism, as it is trying to 'sneak an article through', ignoring consensus and process. That is the last thing you would want. I'll give you a hand here and there if you want, and if you have specific problems, and you think I can help you with that, just let me know. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's alright, let's do the talking here. I appreciate your help immensely. Could I call the article "Animals and Egalitarianism"? If this is not also considered a neologism, it would be a good alternative. If this is acceptable, how should I proceed? I know you suggest I don't create yet another article; could I change the title of the current article? Thanks again for your help. -- Kind regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * as a courtesy, I'm providing this link to my talk page so you can see a similar conversation with user:Shousokutsuu (Stig) in regards to this topic.  Keeper  |  76  22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * sounds good to me. I'm going to be offline for about 48 hours starting in about 2 minutes.  Tomorrow is an American holiday.  Cheers,  Keeper  |  76  23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martijn -- thank you very much! If both 'Vegalitarianism' and 'Animal Egalitarianism' do get deleted, please help me with the correct procedure in establishing a modified version of the article titled 'Animals and Egalitarianism.' Soon; and thanks again! -- Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martijn, I read your comment at the Animal Egalitarianism AfD; I'm not familiar with the procedure you suggest, but it sounds like this is the way to go. I had barely started on the article when it was tagged for deletion, and without knowing about Wikipedia's policies against neologisms I chose the wrong title. Can I delete both Animal Egalitarianism and Vegalitarianism right away and then do as you suggest; or do we need the agreement of the editors engaged in the current AfDs? Or is it best to wait for the verdict? (After all, a some editors say "if" the article(s) are deleted, not "when.") -- Cheers, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The if/when issue is mostly formal. It is impolite to assume the article will get deleted, so people say 'if'. In fact, it is almost certain that the article will be deleted. Userfication is the process where an article is moved from the main space to a subpage of your talkpage. You can further edit it there without the risk of deletion. I'm not quite sure what would be needed to move it back to the mainspace once it's done. A simple move could be in order, but maybe a deletion review is preferable. (I'll check up on that process). If you request deletion of the page, you can put at the top of the page, with a request for userfication under it, it will be deleted very soon after that, and moved to your userpage by an admin. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add the following:

(without the 'no-wiki's)

I ask that this page be moved to my personal talk page for userfication to allow me to edit the page and give it a title that is not a neologism; "Animals and Egalitariansim," perhaps. -- Cheers, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Information you requested
Read here between 1849H and 1859H on 23NOV2007 Mindraker (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Take it back to admin intervention. Mindraker (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Page Patrol
Hi, Rudget. I'm a little concerned about the swiftness with which you mark newpages as patrolled. For example, Paleolith,  Not Real , Squier Stratocaster Alexander custom ,  True broadband ,  Kaukonahua River , and others. I appreciate the hard work you are doing, and there is an enormous backlog on unpatrolled pages, but I believe that is more important that the patroles are done well, then that the backlog is diminished (or it's growth slowed down in any event). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk ) 19:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what I've done incorrectly. I understand and appreciate your comments, but to be honest, swift patrols are needed in my opinion. The users which consistently recreate pages that have been deleted is quite a problem. All of the articles you've quoted, although only a few, haven't been deleted. I maintain strict policies on what pages I judge to be articles that will get deleted and which won't. Marking "bad" pages as patrolled is what I do, and all articles which I have patrolled and been deleted, are as a result of my patrolling and flagging. If I see obvious vandalism pages, test pages, advertisment pages etc. I definitely flag them. NewPages is a good way to sort these edits, and so swift patrolling is needed. Regards, Rudget . talk  19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since patrolled pages are so new, there mights till be some room for interpetation on when a page should be patrolled. I think our oppinions differ a bit on that one. I see a page should be marked only as 'patrolled', if it is 'wikipedia ready' so to speak. Tagged with the proper tags (for example unreferenced, tone, wikify, etc). The pages I mentioned all had some major issues that weren't adressed in tags. When patrolling newpages, I more often slightly clean up an article, and tag them with relevant further issues, then mark for deletion (in whatever from, CSD, PROD, or AfD). Marking pages that don't meet deletion criteria, but are lacking proper improvement tagging leads other editors, me for example, not to review them any further. So personly, I much prefer to see them left marked unpatrolled if they have issues that haven't been tagged, even if they are not clearly deletable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples where I have cleaned up the page as a part of the patrolling process:
 * Strange Weather (disambiguation)
 * Mavis Evans
 * La Familia P.Luche
 * Http://www.runescape.com/ - (which has now been salted per my request at RFP)
 * GenoPro
 * Cardinal electors in Papal conclave, 1922

I also looked back at my contributions to see what had changed since my last edit, (as I always do) and found that Mutual Fund Directors Forum had been put up at AFD, at which, I've commented. These are only a few examples of where I have done what you say I haven't, by which I quote "...issues that weren't addressed in tags". Which my examples disprove. Regards, Rudget . talk  20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you are certainly doing good work with your edits, I'm not denying that! It was just a note to keep us all sharp. Don't feel attacked by my remarks (as a non-native speaker my words may have been harsher than I meant). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reasoning in this situation. I am grateful we have users like you patrolling pages, having a difference opinion helps in my opinion (because it helps to drive projects forward, although it could be seen as the opposite aswell). I only hope we come across one another once again, and our actions can help to patrol new pages in a better manner. Thank you. Regards, Rudget . talk  20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself
Speak for yourself, Hoekstra. Mindraker (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am speaking for myself. For who else would I be speaking? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 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) 08:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sarah Van Patten Page
Please explain why Sarah Van Patten bio page was deleted. She is one of fewer than 100 female principal ballet dancers in the United States and Wikipedia has a section for ballet dancer bios - which was where this page was headed. This section already contains lots of bios of dancers with less experiences and less achievement than Sarah. Thanks for your response.Jimvanpat (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim. I did not delete your page, but I suggested that it was speedily deletable for no assertion of notability. The reviewing administrator, user:Random832, reviewed the comments on the talkpage of the article, and agreed with you that "principal dancer" is an assertion of notability, which makes the article ineligable for speedy deletion. If you have any more questions about deletion, the special flavours of deletion, or other questions regarding wikipedia, feel free to ask me, the WP:HELPDESK, or per helpme tag. I placed a welcome template on your talkpage that contains some usefull links. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help (and the great examples of reviewer's comments!) I have some reviews already but aren't sure how to use them. What is the best way to share these reviews with you so I might benefit from your experience?Jimvanpat (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If they are websites, just dump them here, or on the talkpage of the article, or even better, in a reference section of the article (if there isn't one yet, I'll make one).Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. leave them at the comment.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the website. I've tried to re-load the image with the GFDL self-made license (I took the picture) but it refuses to re-load a file with the same name. I'm stuck again. Please help!Jimvanpat (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you take the picture that is already uploaded, or are you talking about a new picture? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the picture and was trying to re-load it. But I think I figured it out, and correctly added the license notice. Now, how do I add the picture to the page? You have been great, by the way. Thanks so much for the help!Jimvanpat (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, wikipedia may be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but getting into things, and getting your edits from being reverted is a whole other story. Unfortunately, guidelines and policy, not to mention tools and wikimarkup tend to be a little opaque. Fortuantely, the Wiki community is based on helping eachother out, and impriving eachothers contributions. The image is on the page now. You can add a caption by adding another "| the text of your caption" inside the image link. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin - In a related matter, I was checking the Ballet Dancer page and noticed that some of the dancers are alphabetized by first name and others by last name. It probably could use a quick cleaning, but its beyond my skills.Jimvanpat (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the category. (category:ballet dancers). It is generated automaticly, and seems to have something to do with how the names are formatted (a quick glance gives the idea that those who are sorted by first name have something odd in their name. A special character, or a middle name). I don't quite know the solution to this one either, but I'll drop it at the helpdesk. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can follow the discussion here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it, use the pipe to sort. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Don't sweat it (God is Dead)
Thanks for the kind words. :-) Take care. —Caesura(t) 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, Happy editing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RyanP on ArbComm
Yes, I saw that. my Approve is already prepared. Couldn't happen to a better feller Tonywalton | Talk 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do support him, but being currently involved in an MedCom he mediates, I feel I have somewhat of a COI to approve there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your UAA report
S.trehub has now been blocked as a vandal-only account: he turned from writing attack articles to vandalising existing articles, so the impersonation issue was overtaken by events! Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So I noticed. Another one down. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark Price
Please explain why you are deleting Mark Price rather than just deleteing it - thanks hes is a senior figure of the a very large and expanding supermarket! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanityFreeZone (talk • contribs)
 * I tagged the article for speedy deletion, because the article does not indicate why Mark Price is a notable figure. You can find the criteria for notability in general on WP:N, and for persons in specific on WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mettrup (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now Pluvial
Why would you want to delete the Now Pluvial page? It's an important part of the bands discography since it's their first release


 * The article doesn't indicate why this album is important. There is hardly any content on the page, and if the EP is only notable because it is the first release of a band, the information would be more suited to the bands article. If you leave out catalog number and tracklisting, the article isn't more than the paraphrasing "In October 2006, they released their first, self distributed EP, Now Pluvial, of which 500 numbered copies were released". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mulkear article
Hi Martijn, this is in response to your question - I was working on the original Mulkear article which is a river where I'm from. I noticed that rivers are typically preceded by River in the title so that is why I then created the second article (River_Mulkear). The original that is now blank can be removed.

Thanks for checking and apologies for my error.

Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfokeeffe (talk • contribs) 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I actualy made it into a redirect, which seemed to be better than complete removal. Someone searching for Mulkear will now be routed directly to river Mulkear. I was just wondering, doesn't Mulkear river or Mulkear (river) make more sense? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I take your point, I guess it's a matter of opinion and depends on the local culture also. The standard does seem to be preceding with "River" for the Wikipedia pages. Dfokeeffe (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The WP:MOS indicates that the most common local name should be used, unless that leads to problems. If this is the most common name, I suppose it's fine. You'll know better than I. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone Constandi
Yes, mea culpa, undeleted. IceKarma&#x0950; 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel like a terrible wikilawer now, cause I'm tagging it A7 again... I was just huh'ed for a moment there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan Butler
Thanks for correcting me on the closure of this AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * np, I was actualy trying to manualy close it myself (which, as it turned out, is rather complex), which is why I checked the deletion log. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

???
what the heck man, I started to make an article about the biggest law firm in Indy and you reported it in like 1 min???? Now I can't figure out how to edit it. Whats your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmorris0 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When I tagged the article for speedy deletion, it made no assertion as to why it is notable, the notability guidelines say that an article is eligable for speedy deletion if doesn't assert notability. You are free to recreate the article if it has been deleted. If you make sure it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you can take some time to work on it. Alternatively, you can work on it on a subpage of your userpage, for example user:Atmorris0/draft and move it to the main space later. If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed the article isn't deleted (yet), but it still doesn't assert notability. You can still edit it as earlier. You'll notice I added a hangon tag for you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment.
I see that your name is 'Martijn', and that you are from the Netherlands... This does not bode well for your participation on Wikipedia. 194.72.81.141 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. Rest assured though, Martijn is one of the more common names in the netherlands. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha! In an instant, that statement has comprehensively dispelled any misgivings I may have had. I leave you, safe in the knowledge of your good intentions. 194.72.81.141 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that. As a second note, Vereniging MARTIJN, which you were probably refering to, was named after a boy one of the founders had a relation with. I am not that person, so that should clear up all confusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

System requirements (Spacecraft system)
Hi, could you take another look at the System requirements (Spacecraft system) and the nomination and give us some feed back what you think of the progress we made. Thanks. - Mdd (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article as it stands now is still in its developing stages. I also think the AfD might well fail. As for now, I will not be retracting the deletion discussion, because there is no clear consensus there to close yet, but when I see a flurry of keeps rolling in, I will see if it can be snowball closed. Don't let the AfD tag on the page keep you from working on it though. Hope that helps. If not, just ask me to clarify. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This article the notability criterea. Keeping the discussion open because the article is still in a development stage, is no good reason. More then 80% of all articles are still in a development stage. - Mdd (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, you probably misunderstood me. It is uncommon for a deletion discussion to close early. I am not withdrawing the nomination, because there is no clear consensus that makes me want to cut the deletion discussion short, not because it is still under construction (that was an unrelated observation). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wat bedoel je nou eigenlijk dat er geen concensus is? - Mdd (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dat er nog geen duidelijk resultaat van een discussie is (vooral omdat er nog weinig mensen bij betrokken zijn geweest) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weinig mensen. Er heeft zich niemand mee bemoeid. Sorry ik snap dit niet - Mdd (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Inderdaad. Als er nou, zeg, 5 mensen waren geweest met een keep, en geen met delete dan was het duidelijk dat Wikipedia vind dat het artikel moet blijven. Maar die mensen zijn er niet (niet voor of tegen). Ik denk wel dat de AfD sluit met het houden van het artikel, maar ik wil de nominatie niet voortijdig sluiten, iets wat ik eigenlijk alleen wil doen als het overeduidelijk is wat de mening van Wikipedia is, omdat terugtrekken van een AfD eigenlijk tegen de procedures is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Laat ik voorop stellen, dat ik er niet rauwig om ben dat je dit artikel meteen voor opgemerkt hebt. De schrijver is een gepensioneerde ingenieur uit de ruimtevaartindustrie, die de ins en out nog niet helemaal begrepen heeft. Ik heb de afgelopen week m'n best gedaan om hem te assisteren, met weinig succes to zover. Als ik A zeg doet hij B. Nou heb ik dus besloten om dit artikel op te poetsen zoals ik me 100 andere artikelen gedaan heb en ik weet dat het geheel er nu mee door kan. Volgens mij kan jij die nominatie nu gewoon doorstrepen. Of ten minste duidelijk aangeven, dat je ook vind dat aan de minimale eisen is voldaan. Als kij dit niet, vind zegt het dan. Dit soort zaken wil ik gewoon op de juiste wijze af sluiten want ik heb nog 100 andere dingen te doen. Die Oosterbuur maakt er zowie verder ook een zooitje van, dus is het prettig als er tenminste iets wordt afgesloten.

Om dit verhaal dus kort te maken. Volgens mij kan jij nog best wat doen. Geef je mening in de verwijderingsdiscussie. - Mdd (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ik zal even kijken. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bedank. Je hoeft het overigens niet met me eens te zijn. Van tegenstand en opbouwende kritiek wordt elk artikel beter. Gegroet - Mdd (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * kan je hier wat mee? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bedankt voor die reactie. Helaas gaat nog geen 1% van m'n edits naar de "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" sectie. Ik neem aan dat we nu een administrator moet zoeken om de boel af te sluiten. Persoonlijk zou ik nu gewoon die verwijderings "template" verwijderen, en maar wachten tot een administrator me op te vingers tikt. Onwetenheid is hier soms ook een zege. Als je geen bezwaar hebt of iets beter weet, dan ga ik daar gewoon m'n gang. - Mdd (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Vrijdag komt er in principe een admin langs omdat hij dan een week gelopen heeft. Maakt dat je veel uit? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday is fine. Maybe he can also take a look. I don't understand what you mean that an admin is visting you, but I don't need to know. I just wait and see. Thanks. - Mdd (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He'll come by the article automaticly friday, not by me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, I'll wait and see.-- Mdd (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nogmaals bedankt voor je aanbeveling. De discussie is nu afgesloten en het artikel is voor het moment gered. Helaas is de Duitser tot de conclusie gekomen, dat Wikipedia wellicht toch niets voor hem is. Het artikel is opgenomen in de WikiProject Systems, die ik run. Ik zal de komende tijd (maanden) nog eens zien of (en hoe) dit artikel zich verder ontwikkeld. Mocht je nog vragen of opmerkingen hebben, laat me het dan weten. gegroet. - Mdd 19:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ik zag het. Het wordt een hele kluif om dat ooit een featured article te krijgen, maar een 'best okay' artikel moet wel lukken. Martijn Hoekstra 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ik zou het artikel niet opgeknapt hebben, als ik niet dacht dat het potentie heeft. Artikel in deze hoek zijn naar m'n ervaring overigens wel heel aantrekkelijk omdat de NASA een geweldige open bron van informatie en plaatjes is. Als werktuigbouwers is dit onderwerp echter net te ver van m'n bed om er dieper op in te gaan. Weet jij er zelf meer van? - Mdd 19:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nee. En het lijkt me erg moelijk om van een 'practijkvoorbeeld'artikel zoals dit, naar een algemener artikel te komen. Maar niet onmogelijk. Martijn Hoekstra 19:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dat is eigenlijk heel eenvoudig. De oorspronkelijke bijdragen moeten onderbouwd worden door bronnen. Daarom heb ik ook overal het Facts-gevraagd sjabloon opgehangen. Het zou in m'n ogen ook beter zijn als de opsommingen keurig in tabellen weergegeven zijn. En wat meer achtegrond informatie. Maar ja... binnen de scoop van de WikiProject Systemen heb ik een half jaat terug 500 artikelen geselecteerd, waarvan er 80 tot 100 ook in een echt slechte staat waren. Ik heb ze allemaal opgelapt tot een net acceptabel niveau. Die kan ik alle verder verbeteren, sterker nog alle 500 op een paar na kan ik verder verbeteren. Voorlopig ben ik weer op de Nederlandse Wikipedia actief, en daar valt ook heel wat op te knappen. - Mdd 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bernhard Eitel - speedly deletion?
This Gentleman, pal, is the head of Heidelberg University and an internationally renowned scholar. As such, he is notable enough to be listed here!!! Fred Plotz 14:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So I noticed, and I completely agree. What do I have to do with that? Martijn Hoekstra 14:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just got a message of an orphan bot telling me that you were the one who marked it for deletion, didn't you? Fred Plotz 14:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the article history, I didn't. I did, however mark the page as patrolled. Martijn Hoekstra 14:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then...all apologies Fred Plotz 14:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed so, I was the one who listed it as a speedy candidate, then removed the "hangon" tag once the speedy had been declined. Whitstable 14:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright Fred Plotz 14:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)