User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2008/May

NTWW 12
See this discussion: --Filll (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha Mediation
Martijn, thank you for your willingness to mediate. I would be more than willing to participate, however, I should mention that the editor that filed the mediation request(s) is a sockpuppet. Please let me know what I need to do. Thanks-  Ro   Bo   Tam   ice 01:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000

KingofCute (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically ❌ and no geographic relationship to MKF's usual stomping grounds.


 * Ecce signum, eo ipso, eo nomine res ipsa loquitur . -   Ro   Bo   Tam   ice 03:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to mediate this. However, as stated before the mediation has been filed by a banned user.  m ir a nd a   17:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox dancer
Hi. I'm not into dance, but I notice that there's one or two fields in Template:Infobox dancer that seem a little "unconventional", such as club number - was it adapted from a football template? You might want to edit it a little more. As an aside, I suspect the reason that only 3 articles use that template is because it wasn't in Category:People infobox templates so people couldn't find it, and it didn't have something that people could easily copy and paste into articles. I've now corrected both of those omissions, but I thought I'd mention it for future reference. FlagSteward (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, it was. I was enthausiastic, but knew nothing of dance, or infoboxes, so I took a stab at it, and asked at the portal:dance what those people would like to see in such an infobox. Noone has yet responded. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I'll have another go over on the Project. FlagSteward (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know how this translates to dancers around the world, but I'd look at the pages for professional dancers from shows like Strictly Come Dancing to see the information that would be required. Presumably things like "titles won" would be applicable for a dancer.  [Jam] [talk] 14:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working that out! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya
Hi there! I remember you from the Simple English Wikipedia! I am starting to edit more here, so I hope you look for me! Cheers, Razorflame 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

NPW status?
It's been over two weeks since reports started coming in that NPW was no longer functioning properly. It's been four days since the last post on the NPW talk page with no response. As of this evening US time, I can log into NPW, but the list of new pages still will not populate. MartinP23 is on a wikibreak and Snowolf has quit the project entirely. If no fix is forthcoming, has NPW been killed off? DarkAudit (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I can't find a fix, then yeah, that sounds like the end of NPW. We still have Reedy and myself who may be able to fix it. Reedy knows the mechanism that fetches newpages better than I do, and if I can find the time, I will take a look myself, but at the moment I'm swamped with a load of things in real life. I certainly hope we can fix it though. You are free to take a look at the code yourself if you think you may be able to do something about it too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew M. Roberts
I understand the worries surrounding this article, but I have found it very difficult to reinforce the details online. I work in the finance sector and so have used my own knowledge. However, as I have mentioned in the article, he is an incredibly reclusive man. I am at a loss as to what to do. Fuzzybuddy (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, without reliable sources that verify the contents, we do have a problem, as all articles should be verifiable per WP:V]. Do note, that it don't have to be web sources though. Newspaper articles, biographies, or magazine articles can do the trick as well, and if they provide significant coverage, that covers [[WP:N as well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

I have found a newspaper article and his information on the art gallery mentioned, that both reinforce the article. Is this enough to prevent it from being deleted? Fuzzybuddy (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

stupid deletion template this is about the fourth time this has happened
I'm about halfway through the second paragraph of an article about this house and this stupid deletion template comes up. Please stop this. The same thing happened (not your fault this time) with Villa Cetinale. Hinnibilis (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hinnibilis, I tagged the article for proposed deletion, because at that time, there was really no information there, and with that, no indication of notability yet. If that happens again, you could either choose to put an indication of notability in the article, or alternatively, you could leave a note at the talkpage of the editor who placed it, or, like you have done now, remove it yourself. I understand that that's a bit of a hassile, but if you would go over special:newpages, and take a look at the unpatrolled pages, you might get an idea why a lot of hard work needs to be done on newpages. Another option is using an inuse template. Still, a PROD is not really a big deal. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but it was only a minute after I was into the article. I will use the template you suggsted.  Sorry I lost my cool but you messed up quite a bit of work.  BestHinnibilis (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that. If there is an edit conflict though, you can use the content from the second window, and paste it into the first. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! You helped me alot by editing my article on aorexia mirabilis, but I do have an important question- I have never posted to wiki before- can you tell me how to refer to one of my BOOK sources?? I wrote it in manually, but I'm not certain how to show that I got it from the book I use as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmeralda.rupp (talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Esmeralda
Please please help me figure out how to link from one portion of my article to a book I mention at the bottom. I cannot figure out how to do this and am getting extremely frustrated. I cite this book "fasting girls" at the bottom- but I don't know how to "attatch: it to a passage I make earlier in the entry. PLEASE help- I am cursing loudly and tossing things about the room.

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_mirabilis


 * Look though the history of the article, I made some improvements to the referencing formatting. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are extraordinary and wonderful beyond all measure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmeralda.rupp (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on your measure. You just wrote a better article then I ever did. Everyone has things they are bitter or worse at. Formatting at least is something you will learn. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
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) 06:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maulie & Friends
I'm not a regular wiki user/editor so I really don't have the time, to rebutte every single instance or ocurrance on the page. If it's selected to be deleted and I have no confirmation as to what needs to be done/corrected in order to fix it then I am not going to bother with it. Looking over at some of the my-talks on here, I don't feel like utilizing every single legal term I have in order to justify why the page should remain. When it becomes a bigger internet meme than Chris Crocker, then I assume someone will probably make one themselves seeing that no page for it exists. But for now I wash my hands of it, if its selected to be deleted then so be it, there is myspace, forums, and a variety of other mediums to be used in order to allow readers see what is going on.
 * Date for archival Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused
Hi Martijn, Thanks for your message, I'm sorry, being new here I'm not hip to the protocol. I'm further confused by your welcome message. There is little to welcome as "Longhair" (Admin) deleted my page as soon as I'd saved it. My original message was my reply to Longhair. There are a lot of guidelines and recommendations and I seem to have fallen foul to one of them. Bearing in mind the infinite number of persons on Wikipedia I wonder if all administrators are as particular. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble, but I understand I'm deleted. Regards G

(At least I've learned how to sign)

Loxford (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Prod on Levity Heaven
I just wanted to let you know that I deleted the prod you placed on Levity Heaven because the article was already in the Article for Deletion process, Articles for deletion/Levity Heaven. Aspects (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thaites
Thanks for that Martijn. I see the tag was automated but similar problems have not been.The problem is we all use the same literature and everyone plagiarises (endlessly repeating the same info). I have gave doubts about this species. I think the illustration fanciful but I have not seen the fossil itself.It is difficult enough to work with modern material though. Thanks again Robert aka Notafly (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Using information from another source is not a copyright problem. It becomes a copyright problem when actual wording is copied, and there seems to be too little phrasing to actually own the copyright on that one. The issue of the actual existance of the species is a different issue. per WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. If you have some sources that doubt the existance of the species, then it would be nice to add those in as well. Just keep up the good work! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about a recent AfD close
Hi - I had a question about your closing of the  Andrew J. Moonen AfD. The reason you provided was that there is ongoing coverage of the subject. Could you point out where some of this ongoing coverage may be? There have been no new references placed in the article, and all the existent references seem to date back to October 2007. I haven't been able to find any sources that make mention of him since Oct/Nov 2007. I'm sure I'm missing something, but since you closed the AfD citing this, I had hoped you might be able to point me in the right direction!

Thanks and sorry to trouble you about this! BWH76 (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I went back and reviewed the news coverage, and I may have actually dropped the ball on that one. I based it on this, which shows coverages in November, October, and Januari, but the Januari story on Fox is just one, and that makes it a little thin to call it actually ongoing. Based on the opinions offered at the discussion, and the coverage provided, including the januari piece that goes into some detail of the aftermath, I would still have closed it as keep, though I agree the rationale is somewhat lacking on this occation. In either case, you are free to take it to deletion review if you'd like the closure reexamined by a broader cross section of the community. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I was just thinking to update the article, but I couldn't find any current resources.  I'm not planning on putting it up for review; I don't feel any real need to.  I may nominate it for AfD again in a few months, though, unless there is any more coverage on it.  Thank you again for getting back on this so quickly!  BWH76 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi, you recently nominated one of my articles ( Class Act) for deletion. I was wondering if you could offer any suggestions for what I could do to get my article up to standards. I've actually been approached about this issues about a week ago, and I've slowly been making some changes to some of my articles over the past few days. I guess I haven't completely gotten the hang of it yet. Anyway, if you could tell me what you thought the article was missing, let me know and I'll try to fix it. Thank you!(Gala0008 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Hi, I am not sure of individual Happy Treefriends episodes in general meet the notability guidelines. Specificly, I haven't seen any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, that give significant coverage to individual episodes. To get a broader discussion and consensus on that, I decided to take one, and start a deletion discussion.
 * So to answer your question, it's not the writing of the article that needs work, but that there are no independent reliable sources showing notability. If you can find some of those, that would probably quickly sway the AfD discussion. (not that there is much discussion yet). I hope that helps, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions. I'll try looking for some independent sources and see if I can strengthen the article. (Gala0008 (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Goldeneye (nanosatellite)
Sir, I uploaded content, some of it unique for wikipedia, and some of it copied from our (me being part of it) research program at a public university. The page is in the public domain. I linked to the University's page and the Airforce's page and I was in the process of explaining this on the discussion page. . . when you deleted everything? What gives? I understand the whole public domain issue but I don't know how to sate your enormous desire to delete stuff without a discussion (I assumed that linking to a public research lab page implied the text therein was due to the page). If that isn't good enough, how do I go about proving to _you_ that the info is in the public domain? Do I need a signed affidavit from our principle investigator and the University lawyers? Sirmacbain (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sirmacbain. I deleted the article, because the link we found where the copyright was violated, http://www.aem.umn.edu/proj-prog/nanosat/mission.html explicitly claims copyright (©2006 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.) If you can show the text has been released into the public domain before that, let me know, so I can undelete the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To add to that, things like a signed affidavit would maybe be a little over the top, but a good start would be replacing the copyright notice on the website with a notice explaining under what license the text is released, or that it is released into the public domain, if the copyright notice is placed there in error. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm . . . I see. The basic webpage template puts the page content into copyright for the school. How then, do I reserve my rights as the page's author (rhetorical)? The university will not let us publish webpages without that notice because of their links (not the body of the page) etc. OK, I think the best legal (but most annoying) option is for me to rewrite any info for wikipedia otherwise I might have to talk with IT persons and school lawyers to resolve who actually owns what I wrote. Thanks. Sirmacbain (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems rather annoying indeed, but I don't see any other practical way myself. And if I were you, I'd have a serious conversation with the university, who are actually claiming your copyright. I would be rather annoyed by that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Of Space Is For Stars
http://www.torontomusicscene.ca/interviews/space-is-for-stars-lit-up-the-reverb-yeah-it-s-a-clich-title-but-what-are-you-going-to-do-abo.html

This is the link to the article cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyjellis (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Space is For Stars
Your rejection of the speedy deletion of this band's article (which was evidently overturned by an administrator, as the article does not exist now) cannot be easily explained. The band in question clearly did not meet WP:BAND. Please explain. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, with a reasonable asserting notability by providing an independent source. Therefore it shouldn't have been deleted. Please don't bite the newbies either. I found your remark on the creators talkpage hardly inviting for a new editor. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way, but I stand by my remarks. I guess I get tired of seeing so many garage bands that try to promote themselves on Wikipedia. (Honestly, how many bands can there be in North America?) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Recreation
Hi. Not to be rude, but what changes did I make that went against the consensus? If I did something wrong, I'll gladly not do that again. I'm sorry, but I am new here. Please reply at my talk page.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks


Hers fold  (t/a/c) 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. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * yay! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
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) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Juan Valdez rewriting
Dear Martijn: I will work on a more neutral version of Juan Valdez Cafe for Wiki. You're right. It seems biased. It has to be entirely written from a third-person point of view. That's why we are here. To write and rewrite so that Wiki has the best and most accurate information online. Many thanks. --Academie (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OfficeArrow
Wow, are you quick at deletion! Bearian (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You get that, patrolling new pages. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Dog
Actually, it's a real book. See here. --Gwern (contribs) 00:21 22 May 2008 (GMT)
 * Ah, I see. Well, if you want it undeleted on that ground, I can do that for you, and put it up for a deletion debate, where a wider discussion can take place. I don't think it stands much of a chance there, but since I deleted it out of process, let me know and I'll set that up for you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
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) 06:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)