User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2011/May

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martijn
sorry posted about g11 - found it now - clearly need to rewrite and improve on -thanks again. Dated for archivebot: 18:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Joseph Fleisher talk page.
I reverted the banned user blanking his page because the user was obviously trying to conceal his trail without regards to it being undone. I had to revert this user and some of the IP addresses that he posts from on the iO Digital Cable page since that was one of the pages that user was regularly vandalizing. Since he is banned, he most likely will continue his vandalism through IP addresses as he did in his previous banning. Although of late, he hasn't damaged the iO Digital Cable page, he has been vandalizing pages on highways, computer programs, and Nickelodeon cartoon series. I just felt that the user should be trying to hide evidence that he is being disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingonli (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Being blocked indefinitely should be enough of a sign of having caused disruption. Since the account is unable to edit anyway, his userpage shouldn't be attracting much attention, so there is really no reason for more of a sign of disruption to be included. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Mrtony35
I very rarely advocate for blocked users but indeffing User:Mrtony35 for vandalism may have jumped the gun. His addition was correct but not quite correctly sourced. His last addition was correctly sourced after I told him what bits of info the source needed. -- Neil N   talk to me  20:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Neil, you're completely right. I didn't see the replies on his talkpage, nor did I see the ref he added. I'll go look for a trout now to walk into. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a second look. -- Neil N   talk to me  20:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Gravity
See comment to user: 43?9enter You have requested contact re reinstatement of a previously deleted subject. be advised. It appears a previous article was not competent, and may also have been subject to editing malfunction. I was not a party. The subject was ultimately redirected. Nevertheless, the subject redirect is and remains technically incorrect as it is to a related but distinctly different concept. I am competent in the field (physics) and propose to remove a redirect and supply a simple but appropriate article on the deleted subject. Be advised these are good faith efforts to improve the wikipedia. Thank you for your comment. dated for archive bot: Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi GenKnowitall, sorry for appearing a little dense, but I'm not following you. What would you like me to do, or would you like to have changed exactly? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the editing actions which you and another took to delete my previous draft. Even granting the article was incomplete, many to most articles begin in a rough state and are improved, but that is not grounds for summary deletion. The actions violate wikipedia rules on summary deletion and trampling new submissions.  You ask on your cover page if you should be an admin. Let me explain my thought on that... Your admin authority is given to protect and improve the Wikipedia, by maintaining the rules, and if you don't use your privileges properly then perhaps you shouldn't have any privileges. So there you are on that.
 * Now no real harm was done, since I was persistent, but it could have been otherwise. A revised article has been submitted, replacing a truly hopeless debacle by some earlier authors, an authorship and editing malfunction beyond doubt. You are invited to examine the new article and offer suggestions for improvement, as any other, but are also specifically encouraged to help protect it from vandalism, as it has an active editor who, for a reasonable period, will help defend and improve it. I may also call specifically for your assistance as an admin if there is cause. I monitor daily, approximately. Thank you in advance. GenKnowitall (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gen, As you can see if you follow the link, I am open to be recalled, if you believe I'm not doing my job as an admin well. Note though, that what I did, was delete a redirect to an article in your userspace. We don't keep redirects from articlespace to userspace. If the article had been to be reinstated into article space, the redirect should have been deleted anyway (because it's history had moved with it). If there is anything I can help you out with, just let me know, but the deletion of the redirect was really just standard procedure, I doubt any admin would have acted differently (or that any admin should act differently). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have noted your reply denying, from your viewpoint, all impropriety. I think my comments show I understand how to proceed with an admin recall if I so intended. However, I do not suggest your recall, that is an unpleasant business rarely necessary and generally unsuccessful, I suggest instead an appreciation, including by you, of how your actions affect the quality of the wikipedia from the point of view of new article authors, particularly where an article has been subject to previous editorial malfunction.  In effect, and whatever others might do, your actions (with others) obstructed an improvement of the wikipedia, which is not the desired goal. That is what I think,  I offer my view to you for what benefit it may have, hopefully to encourage a closer look at actions (and procedures) that constructively delete articles that do not meet the deletion criteria, especially those by new authors who are effectively shut out from participating in wikipedia.   I do thank you for your courteous reply, and will call for your admin assistance should that be needed.  GenKnowitall (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back at me. It's quite true that admin recall is generally unpleasant for all involved, and that it's rarely successful, though I believe it is rather important that the possibility does exists, and there are as few bumps as possible on the road there as possible, and the unpleasantness here should, in my opinion, take a backseat to the ability to request recall. Back to the point in question though, could you help me out here? What do you believe I should have done in the situation. I'm not trying to call you out here or anything, but looking at things from the 'inside' can skew ones perspective, and I'm genuinely trying to see the other side here (yet not succeeding). If I try to recreate the situation: an article you worked on was moved to your user space, as an editor believed it was better to keep it there for further improvement for the time being, leaving behind a redirect from article space to user space. I deleted the remaining redirect, with no further involvement on weather or not the article should be in user space or article space. I saw there was already some discussion going on on your talkpage to where the article should best go, but didn't go in to that discussion at that point. Should I have joined in the discussion there? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and courtesy. The combined action which you participated in constructively prevented me from objecting and reverting an undiscussed,  summary, article deleting action by an editor of presumably equal stature. Deletion is the most serious action taken, is sometimes necessary, should not be taken summarily or lightly. Hopefully that is more clear.  Let us move forward. As I anticipated an problem has arisen and your assistance is now requested. I'm not adept at the editing process or technology, so appreciate your offer of assistance.  I engaged you especially because you are an admin and took action on my submitted article. The article is in the subject of physics but I do not care one whit whether you know anything about physics, prefer you didn't actually, because that's not what is needed. Understanding and enforcement of process is needed. In the present case I anticipated a problem with certain editors who were involved in a previous editing debacle, a rather patent and biased trampling and eventually deleting an important article.  The article became so tangled and incompetent that even I would have agreed it should be deleted, if I had been there, thankfully I had nothing to do with it. Now they are back, defending prior turf, but misbehaving. They may or not be competent in physics, so far they have not done so well. I have repeatedly called for some authority for propositions made, with none provided or discussed.  They do not engage in good faith debate, one tagged the article as disputed without engaging in any discussion or providing support for a genuine dispute, the other engages in discussion but fabricates authority, simply making things up,  does not give responsive replies when answered and has now, while supposedly engaged in discussion, has disengaged and replaced the simple article with an extensive article of his own, with some merit but also replete with problems, and has entered a dispute tag on his own article.  A DATA DUMP is not good faith discussion or editing.  Disputing his own article?  That is way out of control. Both are anonymous, but publish unsupported material as though we should treat them as authority, which to my eye they are clearly not. Perfection is not expected, but this subversion of process should not be permitted.  As I said, I reviewed the prior work and anticipated this problem, and sure enough, here it is. This cannot be the wikipedia process.
 * It is my intention to IMMEDIATELY AND FULLY REVERT the recent extensive article revision made by author Melchoir in article " Center of Gravity, which have some merit but which also contains material with substantial objection, and in any event subverts the editing process, and call upon him to engage in good faith review and discussion to add to and develop a good article in an orderly manner.  Otherwise if process is not followed and enforced wikipedia will not advance, it will be harmed by bad articles, and by a chaotic process of summary action and reaction. I intend now to enforce a process of review by revert those changes promptly. If you see my action as abuse, then you should so inform me an I will voluntary withdraw from the article editing. If you see my action as proper to protect the editing process you should protect my revert and encourage good faith engagement to improve the article. I tell you again, the action of these editors raise doubt as to their competence in the field, although that is not for you to decide, but in any event raise questions as to their functioning as wikipedia editors, which IS presumably within your competence to decide.  It is a personal embarrassment that this non-collegial conduct should occur by physicists, but the field is inclusive and math and engineering often engage, even where they are not specifically qualified by degrees in the field. That can be a problem where discipline biases collide with ego or incompetence on an open forum like Wikipedia. I now call on you to intrude, to protect merit by protecting the PROCESS,  to support my revert and call to orderly and disciplined editing. I am proceeding forthwith, but will disengage if the process is not functionally enforced.  I will not seek another admin, as far as I am concerned you are the first and last line of wikipedia defense, and the results will stand or fall on your actions. Please take the action you see as right. GenKnowitall (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A second a major reversion to the previously reverted article was made without discussion. Please attend.GenKnowitall (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Zeg, Martijn, even serieus nou:
First of all, you didn't try, you succeeded (a beautiful FP). Second, lots of other things get archived too, including fine beers and baconalia. Third, the Crested tit isn't really common in my neck of the woods (we have the Tufted Titmouse here, an adorable creature), so I wasn't sure how to take your Kuifmees--it could have been a stab at my Androgenic alopecia. Fourth--where am I supposed to store my tits? Drmies (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fist, I tried, and succeeded both. Second, first, tits trump fine beers and everything Kevin, second, second, those shouldn't be archived either. Third, it might have been. That's no reason for archival though. Fourth, anywhere but in a musty dark cabinet in the back of your usertalkspace. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright then, kaaskop, you win. Is this a good time to say I never cared for Alkmaar? I was a fan of Kees Kist once, but in "AZ" I only paid attention to the "Z" (which is where I grew up). The kaasmarkt in Hoorn is perhaps inferior to y'alls, but should you go, you can see my mom in a fake medieval/renaissance costume. Perhaps she'll give you a nice piece of Beemster. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, now the top of my userpage is all messed up. Can you fix it and make it look good? Pretty please? Drmies (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did the best I could. There is an alternate version in the page history which uses a different layout. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dutch IPA check
Hello, I've never done IPAs before. Do you think you could check if the IPA on the Yde Girl page is correct? I'd really appreciate it. Thank youj, --  Gourami Watcher   (Gulp) 12:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the "Y" pronounced as Dutch "ei" or as Dutch "i"? I think it's the former, but neither of them are covered by your transcription, I think. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I read online that it was pronounced "ee-dah". --  Gourami Watcher   (Gulp) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what the older version has, but that would be transcribed /ɪdə/. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Thank you very much for your help. --  Gourami Watcher   (Gulp) 16:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am Martijn, and I approve of talkpage stalking, where other people sort things out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)