User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2013/April

Happy Easter!!!
So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Thiyyar
May I ask you if I resubmit this article, would you still decline !! I have supplied reliable WP:RS sources to claim that this caste is distinct. I still need to add reliable source reference links to proposed Thiyyar article, i hope i can get the article ready for resubmission in couple of days. I don't see any issue with sources which i supplied in Ezhava talk page that would not satisfy WP:GNG. irajeev wiki  talk  06:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I'd follow the line Yogesh' had set. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ezhava at RSN now
They mean well but it is becoming tedious - see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to interfere there. I would advice you to give your opinion on a source once, or twice, if you think you haven't properly make your point yet, and keep it at that per source. Let others do the yes, but... for a while. That serves two purposes: it demonstrates that your point off view is widely held, and it saves you the exhausting discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, this saga has now gone on for nearly a month and it is not the first occasion either. I'm on the verge of just jacking it all in: not merely the discussion, but Wikipedia entirely. Trying to cope with IDHT and CIR on this scale, plus the usual socks, abuse etc is ridiculous. And that comes from someone who is used to it, so [insert preferred deity here] only knows how other experienced contributors are going to be encouraged to delve into this murky area of WP. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see what the SPI brings. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: AfD rationale
Sorry about the late reply, but thank you for taking the time to explain to me why you opened a second AfD (Articles for deletion/Soma Novothny (2nd nomination)). :) Mentoz86 (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was quite late with my explanation itself (I saw your question a bit after the AfD had already closed). Asking this kind of stuff is always a good idea. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Project for RfA nominators
As one of the supporters of a related proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
 * vertalen in het Nederlands

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog.

Hello, please translate this very important brochure to explain the free content nature of Wikimedia projects. You can take your time to translate it, but your translation can have a long-term impact.

Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 12:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Topological graph theory
Hi, I'm a mathematician specialising in graph theory. A colleague mentioned to me your decision at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theory of Topological Graphs. With respect, I don't think the reason you gave is correct. The existing article Topological graph theory concerns the representations of graphs on surfaces without edges crossing. The new article concerns the study of graphs drawn on surfaces with crossings allowed. It is obvious that the topics have a non-trivial intersection, but the intersection is a lot smaller than the similarity of names would suggest. In my opinion they ought to be separate articles, with each article giving adequate reference to the other. Please reconsider. McKay (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * hi McKay, the I will have a look tonight. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with McKay (who suggested I contribute here). I'm not sure "theory of topological graphs" is the optimal title for the new article; maybe "topological graph" could work instead, but the point is that it is the study of a quite specific type of immersion of graphs, whereas topological graph theory is much more broad, and has a greater concern for embeddings than immersions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * hi David, I will almost certainly not have time to look before tonight CET, but if you think it should be moved to main, by all means do. I have small toes that are hard to step on. Maybe moving one article or the other might be a good idea, is currently the titles seem to be describing the same thing. If its standard to use these names though, I suppose we will have to deal with that.
 * Ok, I have moved it to topological graph and added hatnotes back and forth with the existing topological graph theory. Like you I won't be offended if someone thinks this was the wrong thing to do and undoes it. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

G13
I've been reviewing them, all of them I believe are clear cut because of how AFC categorized rejections by the date of the rejection and by the reason in was rejected. Also the template shows the last edit in the page, G13 is relatively easy to cleanup. I been fitting many of the articles into other criterias as well from the glance of the content. See the deletions if you want to see if I am interpreting them correctictly. Thanks Secret account 06:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * well, I suppose it is within the currently standing rules to do it that way. If I were checking I would at least check if I agree with the rejection in the first place, and maybe also see if it could be moved to main with just minor ajustments - and I interpreted as common sense to do so. Just checking the date seems to be within the scope of the letter of the criterion. I don't think it is in the spirit of the discussion that let to the creation of the criterion however, especially not in the light of the rejection of the mass delete all rejected submissions older than a year proposal. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Wikimedia Highlights, March 2013
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Wikimedia Highlights, March 2013 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
 * vertalen in het Nederlands

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.

Please help non-English-language Wikimedia communities to stay updated about the most important Wikimedia Foundation activities, MediaWiki development work and other international Wikimedia news from last month. Completed translations will be announced on Facebook, Twitter, Identi.ca and project village pumps.

If you have questions about the translation notifications system, you can ask them at. You can manage your subscription at.

Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Sunrise beach Haad Rin.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Sunrise beach Haad Rin.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oude Molen Distillery Review Feedback
Hello Martijn,

I have made the recommended changes. The intoductionary paragraph did sound too much like an advertorial. Apologies. Is there anything else you feel is biased or needs to be removed? I do not work for the distillery, just think there is a fascinating history behind the brandy, the distillery is amazing, and that others would find this usefull / fascinating. When published I intend to add a few picture also.

I am submitting this article as part of a new media assignment in which we have to learn how to use wikipedia, so I have also found that experience very enriching. I have not been able to find more sources other than the books I have already referenced. Any other sources will be about the chemical processes, etc, not the history of the farm.

Looking forward to getting feedback from you in this regard!

Friendly greetings,

Wynand

WynandP (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC) 22:00 2013/04/08
 * Hi Wynand, let's see: It's still rather 'advertorialy': better stay away from any and all opinion. Just to name a few: "His steadfast commitment to the cognac method of distillation and maturation soon gained him a national reputation for superior brandy." according to who? "The clever businessman that he was" according to who? "and from this point there was no stopping him": doesn't really mean anything, apart from making him sound good."To ensure production was top notch" - I would go with something like "to cement the quality of production". Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. something like "Santhagens was instrumental in framing the legislation that became the Wine and Sprits Act of 1924, which promulgated specific criteria for brandy distillation, including permissible additives and fermentation processes" is very strong. It would need to indicate according to who, or better yet, tone it down ("was involved with" is probably better than "was instrumental", this too is subjective). I would very much cut down on the product itself. All tasting notes are fairly subjective. Over at the WikiProject Spirits, we came to the conclusion it is probably best not to give any individual tasting notes. Just listing them should be enough (compare for example the Scottish Whisky distilleries - though quite a few of those are also in abysmal shape, to my great regret). " All copper pot stills in use are modelled on his" is a good basic fact (no opinion) but would need to have a cite. All in all, there is still a lot of work to do - to be honest, more should go or be re-written than stay. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When I look at the article now, I see you haven't done much with this feedback. Are you still planning to do so? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

About the A7 criteria...
Hello Martijn Hoekstra. I was just wondering ... do you know when the previous time was when A7 was disputed? I was wondering since ... I realize that I do not agree with it existing either, ironically for the same reasons I was stating earlier to you about the G13 discussion. As you might know, any speedy deletion criteria leaves the ultimate decision to delete a tagged article with one editor: the deleting administrator. Since skill levels and opinions about how to assess articles differ, and the A7 criterion requires an admin do just that, the criterion in itself is a bit hypocritical and controversial. Anyways, I do not know if your reasons behind desiring to abolish the A7 criterion are the same; however, if it were put up to the "chopping block", I would support it being "chopped". Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Steel. I'm not sure when exactly when that was, and imagine searching the archives is a huge pain. The criterion is - though IMO often abused - fairly unambiuous though. "John is a guy I go to school with" has no claim of importance. "John is the smartest guy in the second grade of Springfield highschool" does have a claim of importance - just not very great importance - but will often (IMO incorrectly) be A7'd, "John is the smartest and coolest guy in the whole world" is a claim of importance, but not a credible claim of importance, and should be A7'd IMO. I don't work much in CSD anymore, maily because my interpetation of policy in this field diverges quite far from community practise at times, and I'm not sure if I'm able to act within the boundries set by the current practise: I'd have to observe quite a few CSD deletions again before I'm 100% comfortable again, so do take that in to account in the following, which is more about my personal views than anything else: I do agree it does get a big murkier when WP:BIGNUMBER is involved. "DynaCorp is an organisation which employs 2 people". "DynaCorp is an organisation which employs 20,000 people". "DyncaCorp is an organisation which employs five million people". You tell me which one (if any) is an 'assertion of importance' according to the CSD. I myself would probably draw the line around 10, and prod anything higher, but I fully realise that that is a completely arbitrary line. Speaking of completely arbitrary lines, just for reference, I reject all of the following: People: politicians, published scientists. Bands: released an album, EP or single that is not self-published. Organsiations: educational institutions (one would think the criterion is clear enough on that...), organisations with more than 100 employees (not touching the range 10 .. 100 unless there are other clear rejection grounds), any publicly trading organisation, any government owned organisation. As a note regarding G13 by the way, the reason I prefer to be very very careful with allowing this, is that it is a landmark decision, in that it is the first time we are willing to reject content by speedy deletion, regardless of the potential merit of the content, and we lack the manpower to make a more careful deliberation. This is a radical departure of earlier views that if something may be valuable, even if only as a working draft, it is valuable to the further development of the encyclopdia, and should be kept. This move is further evidence we are moving deeper and deeper into a point in Wikipedias life cycle where presenting the information we have grows in importance in relation to developing new information. It's ok to make such a move, but it is important to acknowledge that we are moving in that direction when we change policy facilitating it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
 * vertalen in het Nederlands

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog. De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-04-26.

Please translate to help inform non-English-language users about the important upcoming Wikimedia Foundation elections, including those for the Board of Trustees and the Funds Dissemination Committee. If you have questions about the translation notifications system, you can ask them at. You can manage your subscription at.

Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 20:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Global message is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
 * vertalen in het Nederlands

De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-04-23.

Using Global message delivery, this message will be sent to all Wikimedia community discussion pages.

Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 13:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Try out the alpha version of the VisualEditor, now in 15 languages
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Try out the alpha version of the VisualEditor, now in 15 languages is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
 * vertalen in het Nederlands

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog. De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-04-25.

This translation request is for an upcoming blog post for publication on http://blog.wikimedia.org. The post is about the alpha release of the new VisualEditor and will inform the various language communities that the VisualEditor will be available for the first time on their project!

If you have questions about the translation notifications system, you can ask them at. You can manage your subscription at.

Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 23:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Vemix
Is now at AfD. Pam D  07:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)