User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2011/November

The Signpost: 31 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

 * Sign off for dating and archiving: Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

About Flair Finance
Hi Martijn. Thank you for your message. I do agree that the current page resolves some of issues raised in the AfD. Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's all automated anyway these days ;) I picked up the deleted revisions of the original article, so that the full revision history is available. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Cd slot mount
Hi Martijn,

Please can you tell me is it possible to reinstate the Cd slot information the text used to explain the use of the mount was taken from my own patent application as a description of its use.

Regards

Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbrook (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gary, if you're asking me if I will undelete the article, the answer is no. This is because of a few reasons. First, having the text available like seems to be a copyright violation, as it is taken word for word from another source, that hasn't been released under a licence compatible to our own. The second reason is that the article seems to be just promoting the product. As a last reason, even if the above two wouldn't apply, I don't believe there is any chance at all that the subject of this article meets our criteria for inclusion. If you feel confident that I am wrong on the last account, feel free to write up a new article based on independent reliable sources that give non-trival coverage about your product (see FAQ for organisations is probably a good idea too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martijn,

Apologies I forgot to sign my text to you please can you advise if and how I can reinstate the Cd slot mount page. The information I used to describe the use of CD Slot Mounts was my own text information that I used in my patent application which I thought was the best way to describe the use of the Cd Slot Mount device.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Gary.

Starbrook (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I believe it is a bad idea to recreate the article, as I don't believe it meets out criteria for inclusion. If you are convinced I am wrong, and it does meet those criteria, check out WP:1ST for how to write your first article. It's probably also a good idea to read an essay I wrote on this very subject, User:Martijn Hoekstra/Editing for organisations. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

City Sky app
Thanks for catching that. For some reason I had a brain freeze and forgot about A7 only applying to websites, not software. Appreciate you fixing my mistake. Sparthorse (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's a bit odd it does apply to flash games, but does not apply to phone apps. IMO, it should apply to neither, but a case could be made for it to apply to both. For it to apply to one but not the other seems downright odd though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And geting odder all the time as the lines between web sites and mobile apps continue to blur. I agree that consistency here would be much better, the current situation just leads to confusion for everyone. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the web content was originally meant for stuff like blogs (or what would now be called blogs). Stuff that anybody can create in no time, personal home pages with about me / my hobbies / my horsey stuff, angelfire/geocities (remember those?) pages, that kind of stuff. A modern web app or flash game has nothing to do with that kind of stuff. I'll give it some thought, and maybe distill a proposal from it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I remember angelfire and geocities (, especially angelfire). I think your analysis is spot on. A proposal to make A7 more consistent in this area would be most welcome, at least from me. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Austenasia
I went ahead and AfDed the Austenasia article, but I should have checked the deletion logs - it's a recreation of a deleted article - see Articles for deletion/Austenasia for the original discussion. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me check the deleted version if this falls under G4. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Helioid
Fair enough. May end up going to AFD in the end, we'll see. Alexandria (chew out) 20:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but how so? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Promocsd
Re. User:Martijn Hoekstra/promocsd

(I thought I would answer you here, regarding that, to save you hunting through my own user talk)

I think I understand your intent with that template, and in particular realise you're trying to keep it short/simple. So, I'll make some comments/suggestions below, but it's all just opinion;


 * Hi, I just deleted a page you created, . The problem is that the article is very promotional.

Maybe "The problem is" is unnecessary; maybe it could be     Hi, I just deleted a page you created, , because it was very promotional.


 * If I'm allowed to ask you a question of conscience,

That is an odd turn of phrase, in particular "question of conscience". I get it; you want to say 'are you a spammer' without being rude. It is tricky, and maybe the uncommon phraseology is necessary. I think it wouldd be slightly better to avoid the "If I'm allowed". It could be,    If I may ask a question of conscience -I think that sounds better, because (i) you do not need to ask permission to ask, and (ii) removing the word "you" possibly helps it sound quite so direct/personal. Also, I try to avoid contractions (such as I'm) -> "I am") - you might prefer keeping them, because they seem less formal; however, it can also be harder to read for non-native-English people in particular.


 * are you really here to build an encyclopedia, or do you just want to have your content featured here?

A bit harsh, but given the prefix-statement above it is probably OK. Possibly you could remove the word "really" - that would soften it.


 * If the answer is the latter, this might just not be the place for it.

I would remove "just". I would add a wikilink to WP:ALTOUT (but, I can see you want to 'keep it simple').


 * Anyway, let me know, and I'll probably have some advice for you if you want to continue editing.

Suggested wording improvement: "I'll probably have some advice for you if you want to continue..." -> "I will probably have some further advice, for you if you want wish to continue...}}


 * As I said - it is all IMHO.
 * You may be interested in a related draft-essay-thingy I once wrote, User:Keegan/Butterfly. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 07:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I'll polish it up. I wrote a more or less related essay too: User:Martijn Hoekstra/Editing for organisations. I'll see if I can incorporate some stuff from your essay. I love its simplicity and how it goes to say 'go edit something else, and you'll see it's not so hard'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My "standard response" over on the IRC help channel is, as follows:
 * The advice is to not write stuff if you are involved w/ the company/organization. We welcome articles on any notable subject, but we object strongly to 'conflict of interest'. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BFAQ
 * Hence, if you work for the company (or are otherwise associated with it), we STRONGLY RECOMMEND that you don't write about it - because it is extremely hard to remain neutral.
 * If the org is notable enough, then - eventually - somebody else will write about it. Please help us to improve *other* articles!
 * In many cases, they're determined to write about just their company/band/book etc. - in which case, I try to tell them to at least start by editing something else, and I try to explain that doing so will a) avoid their being labelled an SPA, b) avoid nasty warning/blocks (which might reflect badly on their company), c) if they get involved/help with other articles, then others editors will be more inclined to help with "theirs", thus ameliorating the COI concerns.
 * That approach works occasionally. But, most of the time, we just have to go through WP:GRIEF.
 * Your essay looks quite good, yes; sadly, the people who really need to read it probably won't. I find it hard enough to get 'em to read the 3 lines of WP:VRS. We can but try. And when it comes to COI/spam, it's frequently very trying!  Chzz  ► 09:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should be clearer on the matter. Let them know kindly but very clearly from the start that if they are here to promote their organisation they are not welcome here. That's probably the most important thing we can convey, but, in the spirit of civilty, remains quite hidden most of the time (it's there, but it's snowed under in all kinds of good advice that won't save them). The problem is that we would like to have all of their expertise, but none of their contributions. De facto we can't give them the environment to let them provide us with the latter, which means we have to face the music, and tell them clearly up front. Right now, we tell them all kinds of doors are open to them, if they just manage to escape the lava pit behind it. They won't and they can't. Untill we fix the lava pit behind it (which would be a good thing), we probably shouldn't tell them how to open the door. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. That's exactly what WP:ACTRIAL would do; instead of a lava pit (live article, warnings, blocks), we'd check their suggestion and provide assistance. See Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles.  Chzz  ► 13:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help though. We would be sending them out on a wild goose chase, finding independent reliable sources we know don't exist, helping them identify them, assisting them with assesment of reliable sources, untill the articles scrapes by the CSD. If it ever comes that far. Result: they're pretty much just as bad of as now. We're pretty much as bad of as now (less work on NPP/CSD, more work on assistance) net profit: ????. The only way this would work is if we are not open and welcoming to anyone with a COI. I think it's about time WP:COI got way tougher. Not 'how can you edit with your COI', but rather 'if you edit with a COI, you will be blocked from editing.*' *: if you are able to create an article which satisfies WP:RS, WP:N, WP:INLINE, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP, you are exempted from blocking. Note: you have to get it right on the first try, there will be no second chances. It's almost impossible to do this for veteran editors. I am not aware of any new editors who have managed to get this right.
 * Not necessarily. I've helped hundreds of editors with COI, via AFC, to create 'acceptable' articles. If the article is sitting as a draft in AFC, it's doing no harm; they may even take advice, leave it for a while, and edit other things; they might come back to it in the future - after learning more Wikipedia-skills. Of course, it depends on how the AFC is reviewed - but, if done properly, it can work; if the draft is truly not-notable then the reviewer should give them that advice - clearly saying why - so we're not leading them on a wild-goose chase.
 * less work on NPP/CSD, more work on assistance) net profit: = a more friendly approach to new editors; less pressure on them; a carrot instead of a stick. Giving help, instead of warnings. No deadline.
 * Please don't misunderstand me: I hate spam. But I think we could deal with it a lot better; we can be polite and firm without being bitey.
 * In addition, I think it is unrealistic to suggest we ban COI-editing, for many reasons. It's impossible to define what COI actually is - a massive number of Wikipedians started by editing articles about their home town, or their school/college, or maybe some company that they know something about - did they have a COI? Hard to say. And if we "ban COI", it drives it underground; I'd rather that users were open about their COI, and work with us, getting help to avoid the problems; if you did ban it, then even more of them would just deny they had a COI.
 * "No second chance" is anathema to the project. And there's another side-advantage of AFC - it means that old (possibly crappy) attempts to get an article are there, to check back on, when someone comes along to re-make something.  Chzz  ► 09:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that as long as we're saying that editing with a COI is fine as long as you stick to some rules, while we know from experience that editors with a strong COI consistently and almost without exception fail, we are actually less welcoming then if we tell them up front not to do it. What are we hoping to gain? An asset to the project? Doubtful. I have yet to see someone from a marketing department set up an article (with help from more experienced editors) that turned out good, where the editor has continued to make useful contributions in other areas of Wikipedia. Yes, we want their expertise on the particular subject. But we have no infrastructure in place to channel their expertise, and make it useful to the project.
 * There is a huge difference between biting a newcomer who does everything wrong, with the intention of making a better encyclopedia, and biting a newcomer who gets it almost right, whose only interest is to promote their company. The former can be turned into a huge asset to the project. The latter can at best improve or create one article. That would still be a clear win, if it weren't for the fact that stages 4 and 5 of WP:GRIEF are a huge negative to the project at large. Are we really willing to let hoards of people leave angry and disappointed with Wikipedia, giving them the perception that we say one thing ('sure you can create an article, let me help you') and we do another ('yes, it's deleted now, that was the will of the community. Bad luck for you'). That those people will tell other people that Wikipedia is a bunch of hypocrites, in return for one good article? I'd rather deter them from trying in the first place.
 * The longer term solution should obviously be to make sure we have to correct infrastructure to adequately channel the expertese of these users. But before then, we shouldn't pretend we have it, and set up users who are only interested to contribute about their companies up to fail. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst this conversation has been going on, I've dealt with hundreds of AFC's. A high proportion of them had COI. The majority of them, I 'declined' and gave advice regarding neutrality/sourcing; a large number of those will be improved and re-submitted; some have already been de-spammed and accepted. I could dig through my contribs to provide diffs, if necessary. I know of a great many editors who started with COI but added value to the project. I'm in discussion with one right now - I won't give specifics, but a dude from a very under-represented non-English-speaking country who is an agent for a semi-famous-person has been trying to get the article into shape, and I've helped and advised him for many hours; he is now contributing to other articles within the topic-area, adding information that it'd be impossible for me to add, because of the language problems. So... it does happen.  Chzz  ► 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring some hope then! My main involvement with COI editors was for some time unblock-en-l. That's probably not the finest sample, and I should have realised that sooner. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The deletion of List of cases of penis removal
The List of cases of penis removal article was deleted and I am trying to find out why. It says for unambiguous copyright infringement and then I found a mirror of the page and could see no evidence of this. Is there a deletion discussion you can show me or can you enlighten me as to why it was deleted? Eopsid (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Eopsid, the main contributer, User talk:Nayyurc, disclosed that pretty much all of it was copyright violation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. Was it simply copy and pasted from a copyrighted list of cases of penis removal. Im unsure of how information about cases of penis removal can be copyrighted? Or should I consult the main contributor for more information? Eopsid (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just take a look at this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nayyurc&oldid=461370195#Copyvio .Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for clearing that up for me. Eopsid (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Kraftwurx is biased perhaps?
You requested speedy deletion of the new entry for Kraftwurx however; you have allowed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapeways to exist and have not deleted it. You also allowed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sculpteo to exist and not deleted it. You have also allowed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponoko to exist and have not removed any of them. Why? What differentiates the posts? Deletion appears biased.

Also three of the other posts: Shapeways, Ponoko and Sculpteo are competing entities with limited importance. It is in my opinion identical to Kraftwurx in both spirit and nature. In fact the content of the article for all four of them was virtually identical in tone, length and content. Ponoko's ad reads as blatant advertising! in both tone and content.

SHAPEWAYS READS: "Shapeways is a 3D printing service. Users upload design files and Shapeways prints the objects for them or others.[1][2] Users can have objects printed from a variety of materials, including food safe ceramics.[3]"

PONOKO READS: "Ponoko builds on the success of the information age, and applies it to digital fabrication. Customers who have digital designs can contract with Ponoko, and sell their objects either via the Ponoko site, or their own retail outlets. Ponoko takes orders, and has it cut at the time of purchase by laser cutters or shop-bots (CNC milling machines). The manufacturers exist in a distributed network that is growing around the world, and often the manufacturer closest to the customer is sourced. While Ponoko uses desktop manufacturers to produce small-scale products, many believe that such distributed, on-demand manufacturing could create a major paradigm shift in manufacturing[1]. As of 2009, the Ponoko site had 20,000 items available."

SCULPTEO READS: "Sculpteo is a French company specialized in 3D printing. Sculpteo offers an online 3D printing service [1], using rapid prototyping and a manufacturing process[2] involving laser sintering or stereo lithography [3]. The company was founded in June 2009 by Eric Carreel co-founder of Inventel [4], acquired by Technicolor in 2005 [5] and Withings, Clement Moreau [6] and Jacques Lewiner. Sculpteo’s online 3D printing service is available particularly in Europe and North America [7]."

Kraftwurx read (before you deleted it): Kraftwurx is a 3D printing service... offering three services.

Please be specific and thorough in your justification when you reply. You must articulate you complete reasoning for deleting one and allowing the others to remain. Additionally, you should reply with recommendations to reinstate Kraftwurx that would comply with your justifications for allowing it to be published instead of unilaterally deleting one and not others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.42.204 (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll gladly clarify. The direct reason I deleted this article, and not any others, is that I came across this article, and not those others (see WP:INN for a more elaborate, yet more broad discussion on why other articles on Wikipedia are generally not a good measure on why a specific article should be kept). After you brought them to my attention however, I reviewed them, and came to the conclusion that they were supported by independent reliable third party sources with editorial control (for example the wired articles on shapeways, the techcrunch article on Sculpteo and the inc.com article on Ponoko). In that form, they satisfy our general notability guideline, and therefor our criteria for inclusion. I will take a look at the tone of the articles though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The article about Kraftwurx is/was supported by independent editorial as well. You failed to review them, to ask for editorial support or anything. Instead you speedily deleted it, again showing BIAS. Please restore the article and request editorial content to support the article and I or someone else will be happy to add them. (I did list two sources) which you obviously deleted too. If you feel that the article is not warranted to exist, then I will appeal it and you will have to answer everyone as to why you deleted one without deleting the others when they all are the same in content, coverage and nature.

Restoration is the only viable choice. Once re-instated, I will gladly place three supporting articles from three independent sources. If after that, you still feel compelled that it should not exist, ask for more editorial and allow editorial time to be added. It was less than 12 hours from the time the article was posted until it was removed by you. Nobody, not even myself had time to respond. I need a response that is not mired in ambiguity but is factual and unbiased. Without editorial or scholarly articles to support the other posts, you put yourself in a precarious position as an editor. Yoou failed to allow time...not even 24 hours to allow edits. You failed to ask for supporting articles. You also cited improper justification for removal.

A7 States: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines according to footnote 6. which states: "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied."

G11 states unequivocally: "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

Your justification for removal is unsubstantiated. I posted 3 sources that are both independent and verifiable from credible organizations. I can supply several more too.

thank you for your consideration on this matter and I hope that you will act appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcn0209 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again Bcn, as far as criterion G11 is concerned, I do believe indeed that your creation of the article was a means of promoting the company. If I look over the articles text, it only lists what it sells, which gives another impression that it is meant for promotional means. Further, your strong wording in your above comments strengthen my idea that your aim in creating the article is promotion of the company. I indeed overlooked the two external links you added (finding dead links when I reviewed them, which turned out to be a formatting error with the links, which admittedly I didn't look at closely enough). The problem with those links is that both are to sources that don't have any real editorial control. SolidSmack is for 90% written by Josh Mings, who is also the editor and publisher of the website, and for Fabbaloo goes the same with Kerry Stevenson. I do believe that satisfies the criteria for speedy deletion. I also believe that, although I strongly believe that my decision here is the right one, the possibility always exists that I am mistaken. If you want, I can undelete the article, and set up a community discussion about deletion of the article at our regular deletion process. Let me assure you that it is my firm believe that, given the references and the article text you have provided, this will be very few, if any, people who would argue in favor of keeping the article. It would be unfair of me to give you the impression that I think the article would stand any chance at a deletion discussion. I strongly advice against it. Yet if you believe that I am mistaken on all accounts above, let me know, and I'll put the article up for a full discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your page happens to say that you live less than 150 km from Shapeways Headquarters in Alkmaar the Netherlands. Are you affiliated with Shapeways a shapeways user, a member, an employee or relative of anyone at Shapeways or Philips? Perhaps Wikipeda can find out?

Please promote the community discussion. Please ensure that you divulge all related links for the content of Ponoko, Sculpteo and Shapeways in your discussion as well as the fact that you deleted the article without asking for references or improvement. User amymittx5273!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amymittx (talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's.... so far off base it's a little disturbing. You can find the discussion here: Articles for deletion/Kraftwurx Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Permission to create a wiki page from a published article.
Martijn, I have documented permission from the publisher of an article to create a wikipedia page using the published information. What are the next steps to create this page with out it getting deleted? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkenn25 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kkenn, that's actually more difficult than it sounds. The most important part (if you get this wrong, it will get deleted almost immediately) is that the copyright on the text gets released under a licence compatible by ours. That means that anyone will be able to use it for anything, and that is including commercial use. This is both critical, and rather complicated. Our full policy can be found here: Donating copyrighted materials. Make sure this is really what you (and the publisher) want. If the copyright part has been settled, it can be used as any other text you write on Wikipedia yourself can be used. Keep in mind that the same criteria for inclusion are in effect: the must have been the subject of multiple independent articles in reliable sources. Also note that it should not be promotional in tone. This too can be grounds for deletion. I hope this helps, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)