User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2013/December

Melding over vertaling: Grants:Index/Eligibility requirements
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Grants:Index/Eligibility requirements is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
 * vertalen in het Nederlands

Dear translators,

I have updated the Eligibility Requirements page for the Project and Event Grants program, and re-organized the information to be more readable, as well as easier to translate.

Your help in bringing this information to different language communities has tremendous value: many people are timid about grants, and having to digest all this relatively-formal information in English makes it even more scary.

Your translations can help more Wikimedians apply for funding, and thereby enable more awesome work to take place around the world. Thank you for your valuable efforts!

Asaf Bartov, Grantmaking team, WMF

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

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 22:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Grants:Index/Eligibility requirements
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Grants:Index/Eligibility requirements is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
 * vertalen in het Nederlands

Dear translators,

I have updated the Eligibility Requirements page for the Project and Event Grants program, and re-organized the information to be more readable, as well as easier to translate.

Your help in bringing this information to different language communities has tremendous value: many people are timid about grants, and having to digest all this relatively-formal information in English makes it even more scary.

Your translations can help more Wikimedians apply for funding, and thereby enable more awesome work to take place around the world. Thank you for your valuable efforts!

Asaf Bartov, Grantmaking team, WMF

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

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Echoedmyron (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bugas fix
Ok I've rewritten John Bugas. I used the referenced information only, and have completely written everything in my own words. There may be words that are the same as, for instance, the NYT used, of course, but this is my language using publicly available information--that I am arbitrarily using certain cites to reference. I hope you now agree that this is ok. Thank you--Automotony (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quickly looking, it still seems very close to the sources, in that the text from the sources feels adapted, but less close than would really be a violation of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, so it seems good for now. I'll take a more elaborate look tonight when I have more time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.

Please consider helping 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, project village pumps and (for some languages) mailing lists.

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

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

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 02:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Fundraising/Translation/Thank you email 20131202
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Fundraising/Translation/Thank you email 20131202 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 2014-01-02.

Thank you for your help translating this 'Thank you letter' from the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director Sue Gardner into your language.

If you have any questions, please post them on my talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jrobell

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

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 22:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Vasundhara(film) page
Hello,

I am trying to create a page (article) for an Indian movie named "Vasundhara".

And, when I used the "Create Article" wizard, a section popped up saying that a page with this title was previously deleted and I'm not sure why that was done.

I need to add information about this movie on Wikipedia.

Please let me know why it was deleted before and what content is restricted.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivish s (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vasundhara (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Mandela Bellamy page
Hello,

I see that you deleted the page "Mandela Bellamy" today at 12:42. I sent you an email at 12:39 contesting the deletion. Did you read my email before you deleted the page? The page is not intended to be promotional, but a biography and filmography of Mandela Bellamy. I just started creating the page two days ago, and was not finished inserting information. Many actors' bigraphies are on wikipedia. I just wanted to insert a new one. Please reconsider the deletion. I am new to wikipedia, so if you have a suggestion as to how to make a better article, please let me know. I would like more time to make it correctly.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks and have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandela Bellamy Actor (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you sent me an email, but maybe you emailed the person who originally tagged the article. What I can do is restore the article, and move it to your userspace, so you can work on it from there. Is that a reasonable solution? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Exertion-oriented programming
Not sure if you got it. Here we go again.
 * There are many sources on exertion-oriented programing in various formats. To understand its role in the beginning please read a paper written by the aerospace engineers on: "Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle Analysis and Optimization Implementation using SORCER" (http://sorcersoft.org/publications/papers/2012/6.2012-5520.pdf). Then the same topic merged with the computer science perspective: "Parametric Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages" (http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34826), and finally only computer science perspective: "Unified Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages" (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22393).
 * Just checked the link #1, it is not dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwsobol (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean with "Here we go again", what do you mean by that? Also, I just read the first paper you mention (I don't have access yest to the others), but I don't see exertion oriented programming mentioned in there. Am I looking for the wrong thing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The professor means that they left you a similar message, over on the AfC page, but didn't know if you would "see" that message via watchlist/echo/whatnot. So they left you the note here, again, in case you didn't get their original note.  That's all.  HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While you are considering this topic, please would you examine SORCER as well, Martijn? It is either notable or it is not, and it is a colleague topic. Fiddle   Faddle  23:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'm having the strong feeling (though Mwsobol can probably tell me more about it, and correct me if I'm wrong) that the concept of exertion oriented programming hasn't really have been explored outside SORCER (and possibly its predecessor). If that is the case, it might be better to present everything in a single article. It's a lot to read, and the AfC backlog is enormous, but I hope I can find the time to do this properly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FIPER the predecessor to my understanding did have working prototypes (actual code) every year, but did *not* have exertions... that methodology is new with SORCER methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned that the three papers I have recommended represent different views of SORCER and the conceptual complexity increase with each next paper. The first paper has the application point of view and a term "exertion evaluator" in this paper is actually an exertion. This is one of many ways to unify var-oriented modeling with exertion-oriented programing - mogramming. The next paper describes in more details parametric var-models and the third gives many simple examples of service-oriented mogramming. Exertions as front-end services have been introduced in the FIPER project. You can find relevant information in papers from 2002:
 * FIPER: The Federated S2S Environment, JavaOne 2002
 * Federated P2P Services in CE Environments, Advances in Concurrent Engineering, 2002 or better copy
 * A simplified version of FIPER (SPOA instead of original SOOA in FIPER) was commercialized by Engineous Software that was acquired by Dassault Systèmes "Originally sponsored by an industry alliance, including Engineous Software, Goodrich, General Electric, OAI, Parker Hannifin and Ohio University, the Federated Intelligent Product EnviRonment project enabled Engineous to commercialize their FIPER product, which streamlines the design of engineered products, integrating legacy and best-of-breed analytical and design tools through a Web-enabled environment."
 * However I do not recommend to investigate early steps in exertion-oriented programming, that's historical papers. In particular in 2003 web-centric element of architecture was eliminated from  SORCER as irrelevant. To get the current state of SORCER please read the draft version of the book chapter on "Service Oriented Computing Platform: An Architectural Case Study" to be published in "Handbook of Research on Architectural Trends in Service-Driven Computing" by IGI Global, 2014 . There is a short glossary at the end of this book chapter.

Mwsobol (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * thank you for expanding on it, I'll take a look later today. As a side note, it is possible that studying the history of the subject doesnt give me much in understanding how to apply these principles, but is very relevant to an encyclopedia article discussing the subject, far more important than being instructive on how to do it. It is part of our mission to explain the history of our subjects, even if it has little practical application today. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The two concepts seem to be mother and child. It seems to me that without the one the other is rendered incapable, but exertions are neologisms and most certainly jargon. SORCER was no consensus at its AfD and I still have very string doubts about it being able to be shown to have notability in a Wikipedia sense. There has been a lot of wordy arguments without provision of RS to suggest that it must be notable. I have not yet found a reason to fault the universal rule that the notability is inversely proportional to the quantity of words in arguments that present it. I will be very happy if it can be proven notable in our terms, but will shed no tears if it is not, at least yet, notable. Fiddle   Faddle  23:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * SORCER is a particular implementation of the exertion-oriented-programming concept. We think the only one, so far.  There are three flavors:  java-exertions, EOL-exertions, GUI-exertions (all three running on top of SORCER as the exertion-implementation-substrate).  But they are separable, in theory... I could write RECROS as a competitor to SORCER, just like OSX is a competitor to Linux, both of them based on POSIX (exertion-orientedness).  74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A place to start might be by the inspection of Talk:SORCER, where, if SORCER is notable, the things that it is composed of are likely but not certain to be notable also. I truly get the feeling that for exertions et al to be Wikinotable, their parent at SORCER must be notable also. Otherwise this turns from notability into technobabble. Fiddle   Faddle  08:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more I see the vast number of words purported to assert notability, but not the vast number of WP:RS material, supplied by the proponents. I have said before the word count statinng notability is usually inversely proportional to that notability.

Be that as it may, without SORCER, exertions are nothing. So one has to determine the inherent notability of SORCER before one can begin to determine whether the verbiage for various (probably pre-existing but now under a brave new name) things can exist in the wild without SORCER. Or, to put it another way, there is likely, at present, only to be an article's worth of material on SORCER, and that only if SORCER is inherently notable.

SORCER is being looked at with care at present. Experienced eyes are looking there to determine reliability of sources and inherent notability, and the jury is out on each.

One should discount the large investment in this research. Research is what it is, and it costs hard cash. Often it produces a result that shows the various ways we discover how not to produce something. How many different lightbulbs were attempted before the ones that worked well appeared? Often research produces the end result. Look at the successful lightbulb. It may thus be that the fact of the research is notable whether or not the end product is notable, and an overall article might be SORCER research project if that project is notable and the end product is not, if it is not.

So I am arguing for one article, the parent article, that stands or falls on its merits, knowing that it may stand or that it may fall. Fiddle  Faddle  11:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to come to the same conclusion, but we don't have to decide here and now. I do agree that, with the information I have available and processed now, focussing on getting SORCER in to shape and getting a clearer feel on wikiNotability for it is the most productive way forward. Fortunately we don't have a WP:DEADLINE. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Glossary
Mwsobol said "I'm not sure you got it". I'm actually pretty sure I don't get it. Below is a list of phrases I'm unfamiliar with, yet seem to be important parts of this subject. I would love to know if I could get a quick dictdef of the following list. I'd also be interested to know if any of these concepts are actually used outside of the SORCER/FIPER teams, or that they - though they might be generally applicable in theory - are used only by people who work on these projects. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Federated method invocation
 * Exertion
 * Mogram
 * Exertion-Oriented Language
 * Context free variables
 * Var-oriented modeling
 * Ask and you shall... well, get the first two, and shafted on the rest. :-)     See my post in the AfC queue.  FMI is a virtualized-network and wrappers-around-sets-of-object kind of RMI, and exertions are a cross between a Java-syntax-usually-SORCER-cmdln-shell-script and a *local* wrapper-around-sets-of-object which may include a virtualized-network.  EOL is just a "new" programming language, for people that find writing their "exertion" code in Java too painful.  As for the mogramming thing, Kazumo assures me it is de riguer, try Talk:SORCER and see if they have explained it yet.  Suspect it likely (but this is mostly an educated guess at this point) that the last two, the context-free vars and the var-oriented-modelling, are just implementation details of the XML/UML/whatever config-language in which exertions are installed/described/etc.  Hope this helps.  Appreciate your hard work.
 * p.s. Yes, given the nigh-complete RS-overlap, expect that we will prolly end up with either an article on SORCER with a section on SOOA-designs and another section on exertion-scripts.  Alternatively, we *might* end up with an article on exertion-oriented-programming, with SORCER as the reference-implementation of that concept... in daily use Tim is correct that SORCER is the "parent" of all the exertion-scripts, but in the chronology of the invention, exertions came first, and SORCER is just a means to embody the vNet and the exertion-federation-wrapper-stuff in a computer (as opposed to talking about exertion-methodologies in a scientific paper).  So I'm not clear which article is "on top" in this situation, just yet.  Or maybe we have a BLP article, with sections covering major conceptual works. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Extinguish forest fire
Without it being anyones intention, it seems we are starting to see a forset fire. I'd like to federate everything to a single place, but I don't want to confuse the bajeebus out of the parent. , are your still on board with this and following along? Are you OK with centralising discussion? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Mwsobol (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you are working on the exertion-oriented programming topic so periodically I am checking the progress and try to help you with relevant resources. I am not familiar with the editing process so I follow the received notifications if I see them. Would you please clarify what do you mean by "centralising discussion"? Please feel free to align my info as it is most convenient for you.


 * Thank you for that. By now, I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find the ongoing conversation anymore, since it has fragmented to a bunch of different places, which I'm now trying to consolidate. MediaWiki's discussion structure is not the best ;) Currently there are parts of the discussion here, at Talk:SORCER, at User talk:74.192.84.101, and at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented_programming and possibly other places too. Things are cross-referencing eachother and becoming confusing fast. I think that for now the best place for everything is Talk:SORCER. If I see no objections in a day or two, I'll move all discussion there, leaving links from where I moved it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Mwsobol (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that examples ex5 and ex6 are semantically almost the same but ex5 is with the SORCER API syntax and ex6 is with the EOL syntax.
 * The concept of OS is relative. When you start JRE (Java Runtime Environment) you are running the Java platform with Java OS on the top of the underlying OS. You can boot SORCER on a single JRE so the SORCER OS is running on the top of Java OS (the minimal set of SORCER system providers (modules) is 10; you can see them in the SORCER service browser). However you can boot SORCER on many JREs distributed in the network with system providers replicated individually per JRE or in any combination together - distributed configuration. You can boot SORCER with distributed configuration automatically  on multiple machines with provider replication as needed. That is done with Rio . Such setup you use in production like we use at AFRL. In that case it runs not on the top of JRE directly but on the top of Rio virtual machines called cybernodes designed for SOOA service provisioning based on JIni. Cybernodes however run directly on the top of JRE.

Talkback
Hitro  talk  17:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter • 19 December 2013
Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some toolbar improvements, fixing bugs, and improving support for Indic languages as well as other languages with complex characters. The current focus is on improving the reference dialog and expanding the new character inserter tool.

There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:

Looking ahead: The transclusion dialog will see further changes in the coming weeks, with a simple mode for single templates and an advanced mode for more complex transclusions. The new character formatting menu on the toolbar will get an arrow to show that it is a drop-down menu. The reference dialog will be improved, and the Reference item will become a button in the main toolbar, rather than an item in the Insert menu.
 * Rich copying and pasting is now available. If you copy text from another website, then character formatting and some other HTML attributes are preserved.  This means, for example, that if you copy a pre-formatted suggested citation from a source like this, then VisualEditor will preserve the formatting of the title in the citation.  Keep in mind that copying the formatting may include formatting that you don't want (like section headings).  If you want to paste plain, unformatted text onto a page, then use Control or Command  (Mac).
 * Auto-numbered external links like can now be edited just like any other link.  However, they cannot be created in VisualEditor easily.
 * Several changes to the toolbar and dialogs have been made, and more are on the way. The toolbar has been simplified with a new drop-down text styles menu and an "insert" menu. Your feedback on the toolbar is wanted here.  The transclusion/template dialog has been simplified.  If you have enabled mathematical formula editing, then the menu item is now called the formula editor instead of LaTeX.
 * There is a new character inserter, which you can find in the new "insert" menu, with a capital Omega ("Ω"). It's a very basic set of characters.  Your feedback on the character inserter is wanted here.
 * Saving the page should seem faster by several seconds now.
 * It is now possible to access VisualEditor by manually editing the URL, even if you are not logged in or have not opted in to VisualEditor normally.  To do so, append  to the end of the page name.  For example, change   to   to open a random page in VisualEditor.  This is intended to support bug testing across multiple browsers, without requiring editors to login repeatedly.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gun control
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun control. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thiyya again
Hi Martijn, you may vaguely remember the problems with Thiyya/Ezhava. Despite your comments here back in March, someone at AfC does seem to have accepted the draft Thiyya article. I've just redirected that back to Ezhava and wonder whether it would be possible to prevent the thing being populated again. Perhaps indefinite full protection with a note requesting that any proposal to populate is referred to Talk:Ezhava for discussion? - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I certainly do remember (I refered to you in vague terms here just recently. I'll take a look at what has happened so far, and if it is within my remit to do quick cleanup, or that I need broader consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This note seems to be relevant. I'll refer that person to this thread in a mo. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)I just checked. If I were to protect it now, then I feel I'm overstepping what I consider non-controversial use of the admin tools. What I'd like to do is to keep it as is for now, and if the edit is reverted, start an AfD. It will probably be a mess again, but at least, once that has concluded, there is a clear discussion to fall back on to cement administrative actions with regards to protecting the redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is sort of relevant - but nothing that is of use anymore at this point. pinging. In case you are still looking, I don't want to be talking behind your back actions at AfC caused a big kerkuffle, it got dragged to ArbCom (there is currently a case open on the subject), and Kafziel retired. Taking this up with Kafziel doesn't seem to be of much use anymore. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll add the article back to my watchlist. I've noticed a few instances of the Thiyya pov pushing over the last few days & wonder if their community are gearing up for another onslaught.
 * I thought K's name seemed familiar but couldn't place it - I try to avoid Arbcom matters but I've probably seen it in earlier ANI threads. As for your indirect comment ... The general situation regarding India articles is going to get worse, not better, but it is unlikely that I could get any worse ;) - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An admin who is very good at cutting through bullshit (far better than I am) is, I'm prone to taking long and unannouced leaves of absence myself. If you need to get an extra pair of (admin) eyes on an article, asking him to help out could be a very good idea. He recently helped clean Christian terrorism as well, so he's no stranger to POV pushing in India related matters. (He will also hate me for me suggesting enlisting his help, as I don't think anyone enjoys keeping a semblence of peace and sanity in these subject matters, so don't tell him it came from me) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheez and rice--who called me in here? If I ever find that person I'll kielhaal him. I mean, you'd think that some of these jokers could help a guy out, on De Scheepsjongens van Bontekoe for instance. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How on earth did we manage not to have that article? I'll see what I can do. Surely, nl.wp should have something decent that can be used? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the good professor and I have combined forces for some slash-and-burn exercises in the past, mostly not related to India. The difference in this instance is that you're already up to speed. Keep well. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm a bit up to speed now. The redirect is protected. De Scheepsjongens are nominated at DYK (the previous version of the article was about the movie). The gingerbread house is built. So all is well, until my mother in law gets here, in an hour or two. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I'm trying to figure out if the text of the Scheepsjongens is PD in the US. I think - but I'm not sure - that is only the case if it was published without copyright notice in the US (not likely) or with copyright notice, but without renewing it, and before 1963. Both seem exceedingly unlikely. If I have any talkpage stalkers who are also copyright buffs, please advice. In the mean time Curse you copyright law! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Marbach (Lauda-Königshofen),
Hello, why did you revert above edit? Please look therefore in the German Wikipedia and see at Lauda-Königshofen! My edit was correct! Greetings -- Werddemer (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Werddemer, it seems like an implausible redirect, and therefor it was requested to be deleted. Was that wrong? It seems like an unlikely search term. I have no problem restoring the redirect, but first let's be sure that's really what we want. The whole term with those brackets seems an odd thing to search for. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi return. When you search in the German WP, you find so many Marbach's, therefore is my edit correct. Marbach (Lauda-Königshofen. Because it's a borough from Lauda-Königshofen, here you can find it too, so my edit is correct. Please return it. Thanks and greetings -- Werddemer (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that seems exceedingly silly. Who on earth is going to search for Marbach (Lauda-Königshofen),? can you give any examples where it is refered to like that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Examples: Stuppach (Bad Mergentheim), Wachbach (Bad Mergentheim) etc. This is logical, because there are more words p.e. Stuppach Madonna or Wachbach (in German Wachbach (Fluss). -- Werddemer (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any links to something that uses it including the comma? You may call it logical, but frankly, it looks severly broken to me. If you insist I will restore it, and immediately open an RfD on it. Please double check you are actually positive this is what you mean. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I also notice that none of the other redirects you are making have a trailing comma. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, i isist and you may restore, please. You can open an RfD. -- Werddemer (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. The RfD is here if you are interested: Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 27 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

TouchMail
I need your help on activities of new user, who is nominating speedy page deletion of two pages that are notable TouchMail and Run Sheldon. Can you please look into this and do needful.Anishwiki12 (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Anishwiki. I was just looking at Run Sheldon. It doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but at the same time I do have some doubt the game is wikiNotable. I'll take it to AfD, and look at the other one after that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Doubts about Speedy Deletions
Hi Martijn, thanks for your message! I will be more righteous, what about this blatant case of self-promotion and advertising, Rob Moore (property investor): should I mark a WP:G11? Thanks! Willkey77 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To be on the safe side PROD or AfD would be better methinks. Though I wouldn't blame anyone for marking that G11. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

About article Luo Feichi
I am the editor of this article. The most important tournament of Dota2 is the The International which prize money for champion now is more than $1,400,000 and previous prize money for champion is more than $1,000,000. The most famous tournament of e-sports is World Cyber Games. He was the champion of these two tournaments and was evaluated the best solo player in 2012 by gosugamer and liquid.net. I offer the office website of these two tournaments as the reliable source. Then for dota, the most important international tournaments are SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and World DotA Championship. He was the champion of SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and the runner-up of World DotA Championship. He also got the runner-up of Intel Extreme Masters dota title. I have already offered the office website for these tournaments as the source. I think office website should be the most reliable source. Thank you. Miracle dream (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Miracle dream, inclusion in Wikipedia isn't usually determined by income or anything like that, but by coverage in independent sources. To write a biography about Feichi, we should have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That kind of coverage, even at the highest level of play, tends to be scarce for e-sports. But do feel free to argue your points on the deletion discussion. It's a good idea to take a look at WP:ATA for arguments to avoid in a deletions discussion. Kind regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that most of e-sports biography articles used the web page as the reference, such as Fredrik Johansson (electronic sports player)， Guillaume Patry,Aleksey Krupnyk,Sander Kaasjager, Manuel Schenkhuizen, Danylo Ishutin and Marcus Dyrus Hill. All reference of these famous e-sports player articles are from some websites which are even not the office web page. Miracle dream (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have much if any precedent for deletion discussions on e-sports players yet, so that's still up in the air. If this ends up as a delete, I'll also review those. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is if this kind of articles should be deleted, you will probably delete all articles about e-sports player. It is because now all information about e-sports comes from online source. At this moments,there is few books or other materials about the e-sports.Miracle dream (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, exactly, that's what I'm saying. Though tastetosis got some decent coverage. I'd imagine there could be something in Korean sources, but I'm not sure about that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me when the decision will be made for this articles? Miracle dream (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This AfD will run for at least seven days. Then it should be closed by an uninvolved adminsitrator. If there is insufficient discussion, it could also be relisted. Based on the outcome, I'll take a look at the other e-sports athletes we have articles on, and where to go with those. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Cat:CDS listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cat:CDS. Since you had some involvement with the Cat:CDS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 12:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

and while I'm talking your virtual ear virtually off
You commented here, WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence, saying that File:Kafziel_flowchart_AfC.jpg was almost identical to AfC's actual procedures. Below is my summary, in text-only form, of the flowchart. (I also added COPYVIO to the list.)

"All editors can (and should) ignore the bureaucracy, to get the job done.

This works for everything, not just Articles for Creation.

Just do the work, and  leave the details to the bots and the wikignomes."

Where does the traditional AfC process differ, besides tending to decline overly-promotional stuff, rather than outright delete it? Also... I could not really tell from your comment, whether you thought Kafziel's actions were correct or not. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY that you explain your thoughts to me, of course, but I am curious. You've done a lot of work on AfC, and you're familiar with the backlog-problems, and with COI, and with beginners slash WP:BITE. Does the new WT:Drafts stuff change anything? Is the flowchart itself incorrect? Is N==4 the best choice? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of CDSsoftware page
Noticed that you marked my page for CDS software for speedy deletion even though it was much less self promotional than existing pages like Mentor Graphics and others. In fact the said page has words like " In 2004 it was ranked third in the EDA industry it helped create." That is really quite much of self promotion, and makes claims that are unsubstantiated. I am not entirely confident that there is a uniform standard being applied here. All we said was fact, ( not promotion) that the company exists for more than 25 years, and what it does, as a prelude to adding more unself promotional material in the coming weeks, so as to immediately avoid disambiguation with other EPD acronyms.CDSsoftware (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi CDSsoftware. On the technicality side of things, I wasn't the one who nominated it, I was the one who deleted it. But that's not really relevant. What is relevant is that the page was there with the intention to promote (people knowing about) your organisation. That's not what Wikipedia - or your userpage - is for. If you edit Wikipedia - and I hope you will continue to do so - do it because you love Wikipedia, and want to help making it a better encyclopedia. Motives of personal or professional gain don't belong here. If you do intend to stick around and continue to edit (about subjects that you don't have a personal or professional in promoting), I want to ask you to stop using this account, and switch to a personal account. We don't allow account names that are used by groups. Every account belongs to one natural person. You can either abandon the current account (and possibly scramble the password, so it can't be used again by accident) and sign up for a new account, or you can request a new username. you can find the specific section of the userpolicy on sharing accounts at WP:NOSHARE, and how to request a new name two sections below it Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have asked for the username to be changed.I guess you mean to say that the pages for Cadence Design Systems, Mentor Graphics and all of the others in the EDA section are not there for people to get to know them i.e were created for purely altruistic informative reasons. That is something quite difficult to understand, as you can read those pages yourself in an objective manner and come to a different conclusion. When such reasoning is employed and guidelines seemingly arbitrarily applied it would be difficult to create matter on any topic, as whenever guidelines are selectively applied ( or not as the case maybe) there is that page about " Other crap" that the content creator can then be conveniently referred to, leaving the matter unresolved and content creator entirely confused, is it not?CDSsoftware (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "But they're doing it too" just isn't an argument. I haven't looked at the other articles yet, but I'll probably get around to it in a while, somewhere this week. If their intention is only to promote, then they should be deleted as well. You seem very angry that you're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool, but I doubt you will find much sympathy or understanding from anyone when you tell them that you wanted to use Wikipedia to promote your organisation, but they didn't let you, while they haven't gotten around to cleaning up other promotional stuff yet, and that you think that they should allow you to use it for promotional means until everything else is cleaned up as well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't disagree with the deletion-decision... but CDSsoftware's point is that wikipedia is not fair, and is perceived not to be fair. They pointed out that their competitors are also using equivalently-promotional language, and yet not getting deleted. Was anything done? Nope. They came here to write an article about the company where they have COI. They pointed out that editors of the articles about their competitors aren't here for altruistic reasons, either. Was anything done? Nope. WP:REQUIRED applies, of course. But what would happen if CDSsoftware were to start reporting the COI edits of their competition? WP:BOOMERANG. What would happen if CDSsoftware were to start deleting unsourced statements in articles about their competition? Banhammer. Wikipedia has a serious problem: 500M readers per month, and growing, makes us an irresistable target for COI editing. Yet, 30k active editors, and shrinking, means we cannot keep out the promotion and advertorials and other such badness. Methinks we have to bite the bullet here, and admit that folks will be editing articles about themselves, their work, and so on... then put in some checks and balances (like the bright-line-rule... but also more drastic-seeming things like allowing CDSsoftware to edit their competition's articles and vice versa). Either that, or we need to have incredibly more active editors, so that there will be more guardians with neutrality to go around. Actually... rather than "either-or", methinks "both-and" is likely required. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "But what would happen if CDSsoftware were to start reporting the COI edits of their competition? WP:BOOMERANG.  What would happen if CDSsoftware were to start deleting unsourced statements in articles about their competition?  Banhammer." I doubt this. Fact is that CDSsoftwares intention was only to promote their organistation. Wikipedia doesn't allow, for good reason, people abusing it for spam. If your intention here is to spam, and you're not willing to abandon that, you're a spammer, and don't belong here. CDSsoftware used their userpage to post a company profile. No. You don't get to do that. I don't know what the solution to our spam problem is - though the change in WikiCulture you stand for is obviously part of it. But being nicer to spammers is not the answer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sincerely being nicer to spammers isn't the answer. (I would like us to sincerely be nice to false-poz folks, though.)   But... isn't it possible... that sickly-sweet-ironic-nice... which is mildly humorous the first few times but UTTERLY ANNOYING the tenth and all subsequent times... just as likely to drive away spammers, as being stern and foreboding?  There's 500M readers here, stern and foreboding seems unlikely to work.  See my belated comment here, at the bottom.  See also my prototype goofy-ha-ha-only-SEHRIUZ-message, complete with silly icons.  Discussion with Dirk Beetstra about sending fluffy wikiLove butterflies to visigoths, to lessen their morale (somebody has to click the buttons to get past captcha), and slowly drive them nuts.
 * Anyhoo, stipulate that (I've not looked into their edits whatsoever) that CDSsoftwares was only here to "improve" the article on their employer. So what?  As long as they follow the bright-line-rule, so that somebody else can apply a neutrality-filter before their suggested changes hit mainspace, that's fine, eh?  They're getting *paid* to improve wikipedia!  I agree that we need some checks and balances, but I think we have to take advantage of our COI editors.  They have the personnel and the resources to improve wikipedia, if we can only work out a system for letting them, without rubberizing pillar two (or pillar one for that matter).  My point about reporting COI among competition, or editing articles of the competition, is that *you* know and also *I* know that such activity is perfectly legit, 100% okay, beneficial to wikipedia even, as long as pillar four and pillar one's WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND stipulations are being followed.
 * But most beginning editors don't know any such thing. They would not dare crack into their competitor's webserver, after all.  They would be shocked that they can edit their competitor's wikipedia page... they have COI, after all, of the negative sort.  And in fact, they should NOT directly edit their own page, nor their competitor's pages.  But they can suggest changes on their own article-talkpage, and on their competition's article-talkpage.  That's fair.  That's legit.  We should tell more folks about this not-widely-advertised feature of wikipedia.  That would improve the perceived fairness of our policies, methinks.  Or maybe it would result in wikiAssassination WP:TAGTEAM squads.  :-/    It's a dangerous idea, perhaps?  &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)