User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2011/March

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Account creation interface request.
I am, in fact, me, who requested. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process.  D u s t i *poke* 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Huge thanks. I know I was especially hostile when we first met. But that was more frustration that I had been blocked, whilst in my view I had been targeted by others. And for having dialouge with not very helpful admins. But you are a top man you gave me a way back thanks. I have left a message on the ANI and I will be taking up Rod's suggestion. As well as exersizing my right to responed when I want to and not be harrased as in the example I left on the ANI. So once again Cheers. KnowIG (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. The trick is trying to remain cooperative even when you disagree, or are under stress, or are feeling frustrated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pages I've Deleted

 * Restless Spirits (show) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rats-Pasngeld Rennab (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Vespas
Hi Martijn

I have edited the page, just to see what you think now?

I believe that my subject is very important as there is no main band from the coatbridge music scene on wikipedia or anywhere for a matter of fact. The Vespas are the leading band from Coatbridge at this moment in time and i think they deserve a place on the page. There is alot of interest about the band and they are constantly playing gigs in and around the UK music scene. Also more interest would develop if you could type the bands name into a search engine and for a page to come up for the band on your website as your website is the main thing people look for on the internet. Coatbridge used to be buzzing with bands from one corner of the town to the next, for example, Band of Joy, played in coatbridge in 1968, Band of Joy now known as Led Zeppelin! but now theres nothing apart from this band and i think there should be a place for them. Feedback would be greatly appreciated Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeyDornan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please remove the AfD tag Thanks Craigster92 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Parents Via Egg Donation - a page you deleted, can you please help.
Dear Martijn,

Hello, I this finds you well. I am the Founder, of Parents Via Egg Donation (www.pved.org) which is a USA based nonprofit service organization. We assist thousands and thousands of people a year through the field of Reproductive Endocrinology (infertility) through egg donation. We are the only organization globally of its kind.

Toons one of your Wiki editors was kind enough to begin our page for us, as we didn't know how, but were encouraged to begin a Wiki page because it was felt we were Wiki worthy. After our page began I attempted to edit it and got into hot water with Wiki as I didn't realize that was against your rules. Thankfully with Wiki's help we worked it out, and I learned the rules and agreed not to edit my own page again.

Toons shared with us that we needed to gather more newsworthy information through media interviews, radio spots, etc...to give our organization more credibility and so we took his advice and over the past two years we did. Because I couldn't edit our page ourselves we found a delightful writer with Wiki experience who took interest in our organization and chose to write about us. Since that time there's been a fluerry of activity, the page was taged for a speedy deletion:

This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it does nothing but promote some entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. If promotional content was simply added to an existing article, do not mark it for speedy deletion; consider marking it with the tag instead, or improving the article yourself. See CSD G11 If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add: hang on

I believe we followed the instructions because we felt we did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion because we are not attempting to promote a person, or a product. We are simply an education organization that provides support and education to egg donation patients. We are no different than The American Heart Association, The American Fertility Association, The British Medical Association except of course we are much much smaller.

Please let us know how we can work with you, as as the founder of this organization I'd hate to lose a page in Wiki because of a misunderstanding. We help thousands of individuals free of charge not taking any monies from our patients.

Thank you for your time -

Marna Gatlin MDG 00:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Marna, I'll review my deletion, and let you know. As a note, it is also possible to promote an entity that is not for profit, and if an article is written only to promote that organisation, then it is eligible for speedy deletion. I might have been too speedy though, and I'll give it another look. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I have restored the article, as there are at least versions in its history that are not promotion only versions of the article. I'll take a look if I can clean it up a bit. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Martijn - Thank you very much. Can you tutor me perhaps and let me know what's okay and what is not okay to have on our page?  We have gathered media and  other type of information per Toons suggestion and request.  I almost feel as though I need a manul to nagivate all of Wiki's rules.  I appreciate your time. MDG 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnad1963 (talk • contribs)
 * I understand your sentiment. Though we strife to be an easy and accessible place, this is hardly the case at the moment. I'm going to dump a bunch of links in your lap for now, which are all long tough reads, yet all are important. The best advice I can give for this moment, if you are close to a subject, like an organisation you work for or founded, don't edit it's article. It is going to be really hard to edit the article from the perspective of the encyclopedia: What edits will improve the encyclopedia rather than what do I as an individual want this page to look like. Our guidelines on the subject can be found on WP:COI, and they basically boil down to 'obviously you can edit any article you want to, as long as you comply with all guidelines, but our experience is that this rarely works, and we advice you not to'. One thing you can always do, is adding references to the article. It doesn't even need to be accompanied by prose, you could just put them into the references section. Good references that can be easily used by our editors are independent reliable sources, that give significant coverage to PVED. This is a phrase that you might encounter more often, and I'll explain them a little. Independent to us means that it is written by someone who is independent from PVED. This basically means self-published material is out, press releases are out and own website, brochures, or other organisation produced information is out. There is some leeway here, but I urge you not to take it. It's complicated and nuanced, and hard to get right. (For example, sourcing the location of something in an infobox to the own website is okay, but referencing a section on a mission statement only to self published sources is not. Threading here while having a conflict of interest is unwise, and will most likely go wrong). Reliable sources are to us sources that have editorial control over the content. It shouldn't be user-submitted pieces, but some editor who answers to an editor in chief should have created the content (note that this also rules out Wikipedia itself, as we have no editorial control). For significant coverage, broadly speaking, a paragraph dedicated to the organisation should be enough. Anything less would be called here a 'trivial mention'. This whole story is mostly covered in WP:RS and WP:V. If you need some more hints, just let me know. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ADMINBACKLOG
Thanks for the hint :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in the dashboard already though, yet it felt like a nice addition ;). If you are looking for stuff to do, may I suggest subscribing to unblock-l? At the moment it pretty much consists of Shell, more hands are always welcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was planning to get round to that when I've got a bit more mop experience, and for now stick to just CSD and vandal-blocking as far as admin work goes - I'm checking in on the CSD backlog from time to time and doing what I can to clear some. But if we're short-handed, I'll look into it - might at least just subscribe for now, and watch and learn. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First thing you'll learn is that rangeblocks hurt ;) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello Martijn Hoekstra. As the person who unblocked I thought that you should be aware of the thread started here Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. While some of KG's work since the unblock has been constructive, sadly, the need to disparage editors that he is in disagreement with has returned. Also worrying is a wikiquette thread that he started and then deleted here. I hope that he can move away from making personal attacks when things get difficult but I fear that closer monitoring is needed until that occurs. MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that I am not asking for any drastic action but I do think that this editor needs a reminder of the guidelines that were set forth for his/her unblock. The personal attacks that s/he has engaged in are unwarranted. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On my unblock I made it very clear what the conditions were. Those were clearly violated. I have reblocked indefinately. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for re-blocking of User:KnowIG
Hello Martijn, as you were the one who unblocked the user KnowIG, I'd like you to reconsider your action as he is now out of limit. He is using racial slurs against me "stupid indian" diff1 and indulge in edit warring. He even accused me for being racist and started wikiquette thread diff2 against me without even notifying me for that and when he was criticized by User:Looie496 for using obnoxious language, he deleted it because he knew he was wrong. I've started an ANI against him and his disturbing acts. I'm appealing to you now, as another admin User:Rschen7754 stated on ANI that the quickest way to get a block is to get your attention (the original admin who unblocked him). As I said on ANI, I humbly request you to apply "further difficulty, regardless of good intention, should result in another block." and "violations of WP:CIVIL are out of order, and can result in an immediate reblock". Thanks  undefinedBill william compton  Talk   09:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin Bill has been just as bad as in throwing racist terms about. I made one term the rest weren't. As you can see Bill has tried in several places to get me blocked. I think Herassment and Idon't like are in play here from Bill. The issues happended from days ago. We appologised and dropped it but he is now h=bringing it up cause he Hates me doesn't like what is going on as he doesn't understand Wikipedia and is going around trying to get me blocked cause he doesn't like it and wants to throw his toys out of the pram! KnowIG (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bill also has a problem as that comment of mine came after this Only beacuse your British since when has nationality got anything to do with me getting involved in an article! At the end of the day that was racist he didn't like a response we both appologies and now his bringing it up with WikiIdon'tlike. I#m fed up with wiki and am considering taking a break to let little morans like him do what they like cause I couldn't give a shit anymore. KnowIG (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appealed here because User:Rschen7754 said so, he'd take action but he is also involved in ANI. And I won't give any explanation to you for my innocence. I'll answer to Martijn only, till than you are free to accuse me.  undefinedBill william compton  Talk   10:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah whatever. The point is there was an applogy on the 21 you brought it back up on the 23 despite editing on Wikipedia for over 24 hours since, you stirred it up, acccepted the appology and tried to justify your self with I'm better that you and can't be racist because I have a British flag on show (wow!) Then dropped it and carried on again being obnixous and trying to stir on the 24th by bringing this all back up. Point been an appology, Bill has been just as bad. i applogiesd it was accepted, don't see why this is beeing brought back up, smells like herrasment to me. KnowIG (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Bill couldn't even be bothered to invite me here, meaning I have to go round looking at contributions to know whats going on. From that I think it gives a big hint to his agenda, that he has been just as bad and wants to do me when I am not looking. Sorry for keeping on but still. Not quiet as clear case as he thinks KnowIG (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note See here for more. I didn't file that! KnowIG (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reblocked, see my rationale on ANI

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on Quick Scoping
I appreciate you letting me know! Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's actually a javascript automation thingy that helps me with that, but I'm still willing to take full credit for it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)