User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2012/March

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminder
What to do with this?
 * AfD is currently a bit backlogged, someone will probably come around and close it (maybe myself) soon. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, I'll store that one for either great pride or egg on my face, depending on how things work out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Gayzing
It's not a typo or misnomer; it's an implausible redirect.Easy on the fluids (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. G3 is really for typos or misnomers (which are easily detected and hence speedily deletable). For implausible redirects, you're better off using WP:RfD. In this case, I have no idea how plausible or implausible the redirect is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Recreation of The Word Exposed with Archbishop Chito Tagle
To Whom it May Concern: On 2 March you closed an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Exposed with Archbishop Chito Tagle
 * AfD]] regarding a program in the Philippines. Consensus was redirect to Chito Tagle; however, if one looks at the redirects in the discussion the link to Chito Tagle all actually lead to the Archbishops regular name of Luis Antonio Tagle. I have therefore recreated the article, but as a redirect page to the article that was being discussed in the AfD. Please excuse any inconvenience this might have caused you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. It looks like I misredirected, and it was deleted as a redirect to a redlink. I restored the history. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Article on Churchill and Chemical Weapons in WWII renamed
The article has been renamed to Chemical weapons and the United Kingdom with the addition of the section from United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction; possibly this section of the article could be reduced to an outline. Hugo999 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Animals (film)
Would you be so kind as to move the page and its history to User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Animals (film). I believe that as production is nearling completion, we may have a suitable topic after its release. I'd like to continue work on it in the meantime. As a sysop myself, I could do it, but believe it better to have the move done by a neutral party.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I for one wouldn't have minded if you done it yourself, but it's no bother to do it for you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My appreciations. A similar request has now been made for the filmmaker's article currently at AFD. I think it has potential but I've not yet corrected the tone of self-promotion of the article. If you close the AFd, and I would well understand it being closed as delete, please send it to my workspace at  User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Edward Drake (filmmaker). Many thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I do close it, and close it as delete, I'll userfy it. I don't feel much like AfD'ing at the moment though, and I hope it'll be closed before tomorrow, when I will probably do another handfull. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martijn
Just to let you know I have used you as an example here and here. I hope you don't mind, you just happened to provide a handy example to illustrate a point. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm getting famous. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeVideo
Hi there! I'm curious about this deletion procedure. I could understand but disagree with Smerdis's position. But to my eyes, the rescue work done by one editor clearly put the page past GNG, IRS being met, and I can't begin to understand how baffled I was at User:Czarkoff's delete rationale, and his insistence that the editing history be deleted. I chose not to engage inside the process, since you were stating my positions pretty closely. (I began but didn't post a response which started: "I disagree with you [Czarkoff] on every point.") Am I missing some context? I ask because I've been studying AfD pretty closely the last year or so, and one day hope to perform janitorial service here. BusterD (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a whole lot of things I could say about that, and it will probably become both a very long and very rambling story. I'll try to pick out the most important parts, and ramble them all together. When I explain things to newbies, I tell them how things are. That is actually an oversimplification. Things on wikipedia are not generally anything, but a lot of individuals hold similar believes, and the following is my interpertation of those believes. People may differ in opinion, or look at it in a slightly different manner. This is not something to bother confused newbies with, because it will likely leave them even more confused which was clearly not the goal of the response. Someone like yourself probably already know this, but it's good to keep it in mind. I will not go in to my specific point of view on issues when I believe that there is consensus against it, because it is not all that interesting to Wikipedia as a whole, but rather go in to what I believe the consensus on wikipedia is.
 * I fully agree with the closure by TParis. There was clearly no consensus on the discussion. Though WP:DELPRO indicates that arguments are weighed by the closing admin which are the best policy based reasons, in practice, any argument that is sufficiently strong is weighed roughly equally. It's the admins job to guesstimate what the community consensus on a subject is based on the tiny fraction of people who actually comment on the AfD. All they can take along is their knowledge of consensus on guidelines and policy, and carefully read the arguments that are brought forward, looking for something along the lines of "I believe guideline x applies because of reason y, and believe it meets that guidelines because of reason z". Sometimes arguments brought forward indicate "I think guideline x is wrong here". That last argument is a very very valid argument indeed. Wikipedia rules and guidelines are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and its fine to make a case that in some situation some guideline should't apply, even though the guideline itself indicates it should.
 * The notability guidelines as criteria of inclusion are historically some of the most controversial guidelines in Wikipedia, and almost every wikipedian has their own views on it, ranging from "we should completely abolish them" to "they should be much stricter" and everything in between. Also, almost every wikipedian has a different strength of opinion on each guideline, roughly ranging from "I'm willing to fight for this opinion" to "meh". Consensus is that what the fewest people are willing to strongly protest.
 * Just like in the real world, there are things we hold valid and valuable which clash. In our own microculture that is wikipedia we have many such clashing views. The ones at stake here are the quality of articles and the breath of coverage. Most of us agree that we should have the largest breath that we can support under some measure of minimal quality. Where we draw the line however is up for debate. A generally very clear one is a copyright violation. If an article is 100% copyvio, the article goes, breath of coverage be damned. The same goes for the most blatant of advertisement. Product X is awesome, you should call our salesrep at 555-mycoolproduct. Right into the trashbin with it.
 * Back to this AfD. In this AfD Czarkoff believes that the arguments to delete the article (badly written, somewhat spammy, can always be re-written if we have to) outweigh the importance of having an article on this subject for our breath of coverage. And that argument is fine. (I very very strongly disagree with it, you can read that from the AfD, but it is fine). On the AfD, other people agree with his assessment.
 * When it is time to close the discussion, the closing admin is tasked with answering the question "given the discussion below, do you believe that there is consensus to use the delete tool on this article?" If the answer is "yes", then the outcome is delete. If the answer is "no", then there is a second question: "given the discussion below, do you believe there is consensus that the delete tool shouldn't be used on this article?". If the answer is "yes", then the outcome is keep. If the answer is "no", the outcome is no consensus. It do that, the admin goes over the arguments, and looks to find where is the consensus here? Is this position one that a lot of people support, and few people can't live with?
 * In this specific case, I agree with TParis that the answer to both the questions "is there consensus to delete this article" and "is there consensus to keep this article" is no. If he had elected another outcome for this AfD, he would put his own judgement of which guidelines to apply, and which guidelines should take preference over other guidelines over the opinion of the people in the discussion. That is outside the mandate that administrators have.
 * Concluding: Wikipedia is an awesome, yet sometimes very complicated place. There are simuliously many conflicting rules, and we are free to ignore each and every one of them, as long as we respect the consensus behind them. When talking about it, the urge to start rambling can be overwhelming at times, as I have clearly demonstrated above.
 * Feel free to comment, disagree, or ask for clarification anytime. Also: feel fee to drop in to IRC. Real time communications can have large advantages. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User:czarkoff's position from the first hand: this topic clearly passes WP:GNG. At the same time, as is stated in WP:N, passing GNG is a necessary but not sufficient condition. That is: once the article satisfies GNG, its inclusion becomes the subject of discussion. But in this case WP:GNG is irrelevant at all, as the article is about the company and we have a specific Notability (organizations and companies) guideline which replaces WP:GNG for the purpose of setting bar for inclusion discussion. Per WP:NCORP the company's notability can't be inherited from its products, founders, employees, etc. The company should be notable for something else. In the case of WeVideo there is no single reference discussing the company in depth, so the topic of the article is not notable. Still, the references discuss the product the way the article on service (if it ever existed) would satisfy WP:NSOFT (essay, fallback to WP:GNG) and WP:NWEB. Thus the (IMHO evident and directly policy-based) solution: the article about company should be deleted and the new article about SaaS should be created. This can be performed in the following ways: either the article could be deleted (and the new one on notable topic could be created in its place) or the article could be repurposed in place with history cleansing, which results in the same end result with slightly less server space occupied. Any more questions I can help with? P.S.: I agree that the discussion outcome was properly noted as "no consensus". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

IJ
Hej Martijn,

although there is one (1) glyph for "ij", its use is officially discouraged. See (among other places) here and here.

Richard 09:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:218.186.15.10
Hi, I have reblocked this IP. This is a courtesy note since you have previously unblocked this IP twice when it was reassigned. However, on unblocking vandalism has immediately resumed. This leads me to strongly suspect that the reassignments are within the same institution. Perhaps we need a different strategy if it is reassigned again? Best. TerriersFan (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I lifted the block because of an unblock request from the the IP on the unblock mailinglist that clearly wasn't this user, meaning the address must have been re-assigned. It also indicated that the address is pretty dynamic, so a this might be the same person again, or a completely new vandal. In any event, fair block. See also the top of my usertalk. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

DRV Notice
A brief heads-up that I am appealing your "No Consensus" close of Tenga (masturbation toy) to DRV. There were NO demonstrated independent, published, secondary sources shown, only WP:ILIKEIT arguments and an inane lie about the existence of "over one hundred (100) secondary sources." Carrite (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Carrite, thanks for the notice. I'll see if I can chip in there later. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia for World Heritage
I need your assistance in developing and spreading a wikiproject. Can you help me in developing and spreading this page in wikipedia: Wikipedia for World Heritage

Thank you and Happy editing!  Yash t  101  :)  06:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, I always feel some sort of childish pride when I get these, which is not that often. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mail!
Ocaasit &#124; c 12:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fb templates
That strange fb templates serve the purpose of providing nice looking football league standings. But is a mess frankly, requiring thousands of templates created for all kind of teams and competitions. It is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football and undergoing a big cleanup. First thing is deleting about 3000 templates that aren't in use anyway. I got those from this article i found Database_reports/Unused_templates/3, 4 and 5. Is there a faster way to delete those than tagging all of them by hand? -Koppapa (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to place adminhelp at the discussion, so that an admin can go over them and delete them. Tagging them all by hand seems very very tedious. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To echo on Koppapa's comments, these fb templates are useful for the project. But somehow, they got out of hand and literally thousands were created by dozens of different users, unaware, in many cases, that simple text within the templates would suffice. All of the templates nominated for speedy deletion are orphans; and some people are copying and creating new ones all the time. Only a core of these fb templates are really required; not one for every single team, player, function, league division etc. Once the disused templates have been speedily deleted, we can go on to understand the intricacies of the other templates in use, merge the rest and make the league articles a whole lot simpler to edit. Jared Preston (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You deleted my user page
Hi, I created a user page with a deletion template as a sample to modify for a thread in the village pump. They are discussing a new deletion template that won't scare new users from creating new articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I restored it again, but made sure it doesn't get added to cat:CSD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you can clear this post if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Marcelo Ballona
Im the user who wrote the information about myself on both websites. I own the content, please revert the post, thanks

˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballona (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Marcelo, there are several problems with the content. The copyright violation is the first, which would be fixable if you follow the procedure outlined on Donating_copyrighted_materials, but after that it would still meet the criteria for speedy deletion, per WP:G11: unambiguous promotion, and possibly WP:A7 too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Because you brought back history...
for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mabdul&diff=484397357&oldid=484396639 Kurt 2.0]! The Helpful  One  19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I had that coming, I just couldn't help myself though, it worked so well in the context. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Target killings of Hazara
Why did you delete this article? The other is not an article it is a list Persecution of Hazara people, they are two entirely different articles. Please restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the content was very similar, and I believed it not to expand on what is there on Persecution of Hazara people. The article is restored. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks you. I expect the article to expand quite a bit, I will be adding to it myself soon. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's great! You could consider a merge of the two, to avoid duplication. There are some NPOV and V issues there too, but I suspect you'll be able to deal with those. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejected PROD
Talk:Sahrawi national football team has rejections of the speedy deletion there from two editors. My rationale is that it has been officially established by the SADR now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)