User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2013/March

Talkback
 Puffin  Let's talk! 12:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Irajeevwiki
Please tell me which part you can not understand. I have used plain english, I know there is a network of wikipedia admins and you just want me to use rude language here so that you can get me evicted or banned from this group. But i am not going to use any rude language here, I would like to know what part you can not understand by reading my article. I know that your native language also not English doesnt matter here. If you cant understand Normal English then please dont touch my article there are many other users also doing volunteering in wikipedia and they are happy to edit. Let me know what part you cant understand. May be you are trying to read something which you dont know anything about that, may be this is not your subject. I am trying to write about caste and tribes here which is from Southern side of India and probably you are not familiar with that. I have used non english words there and gave translation as well. Irajeevwiki (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Without going in to the outlandish accusations (please refrain from that), concerning the English, from for example "They worsh iped different ways of consciousness. Bhagavathi, Gulikan, Muthappan etc in places called 'Kavu' and performed offerings and rituals like Velichapadu, Thira, Theyyam, Payankutty, Vellattam and Thiruvappana was also offered by Thiyyar and other castes of North Malabar but was only offered for Muthappan." I gather that their religious houses are called Kavu, they hold rituals with the names after it, but I have no idea what is meant by worshipping different ways of conciousness or what the run-on "was also offered by Thiyyar and other castes of North Malabar but was only offered for Muthappan." means.
 * I only now see that the article was deleted before at Articles for deletion/Thiyyar, which shows some problems with an entrenched dispute. If I am allowed to quickly summorise it: some regard the Thiyyar and the Ezhava separate, while others believe them to be different groups (I myself have no idea on the issue, and have to go with community consensus). I don't know how to solve the problem, but recreating the article, either through AfC or any other means is not the solution. A good idea can to post an RfC on Talk:Ezhava explaining the dispute, and asking for outside input. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you comment on an article which you are not at all known? Thiyya and ezhava are completely different. Thiyya never want to associate with ezhavas. This is completely true. You can see all the citations given below the article. Those clearly shows that the article is well written by irajeev. I understand that there was a paid attempt to delete the article in wiki to increase the number of members in ezhava organization(SNDP) while Thiyya are not at all organized. So, please don't do something on a subject which you are not at all exposed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnranjith (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * hi pnranjith, thanks for chipping in. I seem to continually bring a message across I'm not trying to put across: that in no way an article on this subject should be created. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is because the article got deleted before as a pov fork by community discussion, AfC is not a good way to recreate the article. 07:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martijn. Now, Please let me know how to create the page if it was deleted by some paid admins already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnranjith (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by the paid admins comment, but like I said a few times before, IMO the best idea is to post an WP:RfC on Talk:Ezhava (would be my first choise), or start a WP:DRV for the original AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: FDC portal/CentralNotice2013-1
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina FDC portal/CentralNotice2013-1 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
 * vertalen in het Nederlands

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog.

This banner will invite logged-in editors on all projects to participate in the current public review phase about funding requests by 4 Wikimedia organizations. Around 2.6 million US dollars of donation money are available in this FDC round.

(Questions about the translation notification system can be asked at, and 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;, 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

City Challenge - feedback
Beste Martijn,

Bedankt voor je feedback op de Articles to create - City Challenge pagina. Ik heb een aantal wijzigingen aangebracht en naar mijn inziens is de pagina er op vooruitgegaan. Graag zou ik je willen vragen om een kijkje te nemen en om vast te stellen of de pagina klaar is voor een volgende review. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/City_Challenge. Mocht dat niet het geval zijn hoor ik heel graag wat jou precies stoort. Ik wil namelijk graag een goed artikel verzenden om in aanmerking te komen voor een nieuwe review.

Alvast ontzettend bedankt voor de feedback! Tbrace8 (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Je hebt zelf blijkbaar een aardig idee, want het ergste is er af. Ik zal vandaag of morgen even verder kijken. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dankjewel Martijn, bij voorbaat dank! --Tbrace8 (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Noel Zancanella
I have removed the previous revisions, thank you.

Derektrainwreck (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

LOVED this! :D
Hi Martijn!

Just wanted to send you a shout-out to say that i LOVED these lines written on your page:

"The greatest problem I think we face at the moment is that we are caught in a downward spiral of bad content and unwelcoming community. There is too much shit coming in, there are too few people who spend their time cleaning said shit up, they have too little time to give new contributors a proper welcome, explain what they did right, and how to improve what they are doing, driving them off in the process. I don't know the proper solution to this, but something involving flagged revisions, to give cleanup some breathing space while they take more time to mentor new contributors is a good step forward."

It is so true!

Thanks for being one of the nice Wikipedians. There don't seem to be too many of those at times. Take care. :)
 * Thank you so much! I should really write out all the fuzzy ideas in my head in to essays, but I can never seem to find the right mindset. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh yes you really should write them out, will look forward to reading what else you have to say! Cheers and keep up all yr great work! :) Faisal961 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

R.S. Rodger entry
Martijn, On January 25, shortly after you left on holiday, I posted a message on this page about the autobiographical material R.S. Rodger provided to me for a possible Wikipedia entry on him (you had added a non-functional link to that on the Rodger's method entry you approved earlier in January). Although you haven't responded yet, I recognize that this material will not likely be acceptable to Wikipedia due to the impossibility of providing verification of the events in his life through previously published documents. When you are able, would you please read the material on my sandbox page and let me know if there will be any possible way to get an R.S. Rodger entry approved for inclusion on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help with this possibility, or at least a response indicating that it will be a lost cause. HamiltonRoberts (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Hamilton, I took a quick look but apart from the style issues (and you probably know they're there) I have to do more research if the article meets WP:BIO. If you have any sources about Rodger I could take along with that would be appreciated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I do have one external source (http://dfa.ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DOC082.pdf) that deals with one part of the material, but that isn't enough to help much I'm sure. HamiltonRoberts (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Aniruddha Knight
Hi Martin, I have made inline citations. Can you please let me know if its line with the expectations. Fingers crossed :) Anita Nandini (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anita Nandini (talk • contribs) 06:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hi  Martijn,

Thank you for feedback on my page on Aniruddha Knight. I looked up the inline citations page and created the citations based on the guidelines there(based on Hasteurs feedback). Am not sure whatelse I need to do. This process is leaving me depressed and frustrated as Im not very tech savy and dont understand everything.Also this is my fourth decline and I have been working away at improving this article. Can u pls pls help me and guide me on what exactly I need to for this citations piece apart from what I have already done.

I have referred to a fairly broad variety of sources ( magazines, books, grant reports, wiki pages etc for cross verification and for creating veracity for this account). Any help that you may extend will be much appreciated.

Thank you Anita Nandini (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Anita, What you should be trying to do, is for every fact in the article, indicate where you got it from with an inline citation. The format you used is ok, but they're just listed at the bottom with the three of them. They should indicate what exactly they reference. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Fundraising 2012/Translation/Thank you letter
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Fundraising 2012/Translation/Thank you letter 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 2013-03-30.

The thank you letter has been had minor formatting changes and some changes to the text however the work is only minor and shouldn't :) Thank you again

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

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 02:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Fundraising 2012/Translation/Thank you letter
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Fundraising 2012/Translation/Thank you letter 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 2013-03-28.

Minor update to this translation with some changes in formatting. Should be fairly minor changes needed.

Thanks guys :)

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

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Wikimedia Highlights, February 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, 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;, 04:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ezhava
I really do not know what more can be done at Talk:Ezhava. They've turned down suggestions of WP:DR, are in serious WP:IDHT mode and quite clearly at times cannot comprehend the nuances of English. I am also positive that these are meatpuppets, which in the past have organised themselves on forums such as Orkut. It has reached the point where I am on the verge of just typing "that is bollocks" to every reply (being from northern England, that is not deemed uncivil, although people on the West Coast of the USA take umbrage at it!). I realise that you can do nothing administratively but is there even anything that can be done administratively, by someone who is uninvolved? - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the note. I'm not quite sure what can be done myself either. On the issue itself, I find the standpoint 'we are Tiyya, and we are distinct from Ezhava' hard to ignore; a social group that self-identifies as different from some other social group is pretty much by definition a different social group. The fact that they form a group of SPA's on wiki reinforces that perception: If they are not a group, then what is it what we are witnessing right here? On the other hand, we have a severe problem in that we lack pretty much any reliable source on the matter. All sources that I have seen seem to talk about the Ezhava-Tiyya, without specifying the difference between the groups, other than them being called one thing in one region, and another in another region. Concerning the editors, I agree that there is quite an amount of IDHT going on. The underlying cause, I believe, are two things. First is, that this is a case of WP:TIGERs on the loose. This is somewhat understandable. Being a more or less veteran Wikipedian, I am used to the imperfections of Wikipedia, and how large and influential it is. Newcomers however are not. If I would strongly identify as a Scotchman, and Wikipedia would only have an article on the English, which went on to claim "The English, also known as the Scotch in the north of the region and the Welsh in the west", I would be royally pissed off. The distinction between these is clearly backed up in reliable sources, where the dispute here is not, but I can imagine the sentiment being the same. Now, if those sources wouldn't exist, and I came to that article as a Scotchman, I wouldn't understand why we insist on calling them English, while I'm not English, and that they (we) keep on asking for sources, while we are obviously not English. this last part might have been capitalised . I can also imagine quite well that the extent to which we disallow original research is to a newcomer both incredibly confusing, and up to a point infuriating: "I can prove Scotisch aren't English, here, it's even on these official documents!"
 * The second problem, is that these are SPA's. I strongly hold the opinion that you can't understand Wikipedia properly until you have a few months of all-round editing under your belt - and even then you will probably only grasp the basics. The whole attitude of 'we disagree on this subject, but we have the combined goal of making this article adhere to the Wikipedia pillars as best as we can, let's work on this, and see what we can achieve together' Seeing our lack of clear sources on the issue, the best we can, while keeping the article verifiable, might be quite poor. And that's something we have to accept, to not compromise our core values (taking care we do not misrepresent the actual situation). That we not only expect this attitude, but for our model to work successfully - or even at all - is something one can only learn through experience in areas they feel less strongly about: Only then might the Tigers be caged. Currently, the best advice would be to ask them to edit different areas of Wikipedia for about three months, write an article or two, make a two or three thousand edits. In my experience this request is generally met with "If I do this [for you], will I then be allowed to have my way here?". The answer generally is "no, but then you will understand why not".
 * Coming full circle, you came here asking me for advice what you might still do, and all I've done so far is explain why I think the situation is difficult, and some understanding of (though no pandering to) the point of view of this group of editors is warranted. Unfortunately, I don't know. I don't think dispute resolution will be successful here, as long as the issues I mentioned above are not fixed. The possible meatpuppet situation can be solved by realising that wikipedia is not a democracy, there is no vote here. If nothing new is said by a new SPA, then that pretty much equates to nothing new is said. Revealing a sock- or meatpuppet can feel satisfying, but is generally not really helpful in finding a way out, unless there is some sort of credible votestacking going on that could actually have an outsider fooled, or you suspect a banned user to be behind it (I think I may hold a minority opinion on this issue by the way). Doing administrative things is pretty much limited to three actions: block, delete and protect. Only the last can prove helpful in this situation IMO. Feel free to make liberal use of WP:RPP if you believe it warranted. As a last note, it can at times help to yourself to try and not give a fuck. I hope any of this helps, and feel free to drop me a note (or mail) if there is anything else I can do for you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed, considered reply - the content justifies why it is that you are an admin and I am not! I'll go with the flow for now but it seems likely that someone is going to get blocked sooner rather than later - I've had a lot of experience with caste articles on Wikipedia and have seen the signs in this particular instance for a while. I've sent you an email containing the Ritty Lukose correspondence. She was very helpful in replying but, alas, the content does not advance things much at all vis-a-vis the dispute. Well, that is my opinion but I deliberately avoided comment on the talk page because it would inevitably attract attacks on the lines of "you are lying about what she told you". Again, I've seen this before. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Question Regarding Overton James Article
I have raised a question at Talk:Overton James regarding the article you helped create on former Chickasaw Nation Governor Overton James relating to the article I previously created on current Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby. Please feel free to read my comments on the aforementioned Talk page for more details. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a quick peek, but all I can come up with is "I have no idea". I don't have access to the offline sources listed in the article either. In case you hit a brick wall and are not able to find the resources you need, maybe WP:LIBRARY can help you out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, User:Bruin2 has also responded to my question on the article's Talk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Q
Martijn, I see you're on call. Could you please move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/De zwarte met het witte hart to its rightful place in main space? No one at AfC seems to be interested in an easy one. I've ordered the book--I'm sure you've read it already. Thanks, 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dankjewel! 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sssh, I try to keep my activity quiet. It's quite a good book. For future reference, just create new articles in mainspace. You don't need AfC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IPs can't do that...I asked Alpha Quadrant, but he's totally slacking on the job. Thanks again, 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh, that's true. Get an account, will you ;) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting complaints the article doesn't exist on nl... Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two IPs is enough already. Just translate it! But don't include the references--they don't like that over there. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

see, easy as that to un-archive. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Module:CSV
I replaced your module with a shorter and faster version using gsub, gmatch, and match that passes all of the current testcases. I may have broken something cause I think you edited the page after I started translating it. Anyway, you can use that, or not. Dragons flight (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! How did you benchmark it, and what were the results? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI
You have been mentioned at ANI here. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Plugged in Inline Citations
Hi Martijn,

Have made the changes recommended. Hoping you can take a look now and let me know if its ok. --Anita Nandini (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: FDC portal/CentralNotice2013-2
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina FDC portal/CentralNotice2013-2 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
 * vertalen in het Nederlands

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog.

These banners are for a "last call" inviting logged-in editors on all projects to participate in the current public review phase (until March 31) about funding requests by 4 Wikimedia organizations, for around 1.3 million US dollars of donation money.

(Questions about the translation notification system can be asked at, and 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;, 13:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Turning off outdated skins
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Turning off outdated skins 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 2013-04-12.

Please translate to help inform non-English-language users about some important changes that will affect some users across all of our wikis. 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;, 19:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of Secondary sources?
Hi, Martijn. I was going through the wikipedia: No original research. Some of these are quite confusing, perhaps you can help me. About secondary sources, 'A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources,.....'. How can we say for sure that the author's line of thought was in the right way? That he interpreted the primary source neutrally/ correctly ? Don't you think there a requirement for another second secondary source that supports the 'author's own thinking' and a third secondary source that supports this secondary source, and so on.... a never ending list of secondary sources. In mathematical logic, this can be said as the AND gate logic, if 1 is true and 0 is false, this situation can be considered as an never ending list of one's (1 1 1 1  1 ...... 1 1). If one of them is 0, the whole statement becomes 0. Am i right? Help. P.S Not for a fight, I am seriously confused. Amal89 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Amal. I'm very glad you ask this. It is indeed so that we report what reliable secondary sources report. In case they are conflicting, we report who reported what. Primary sources should generally not be used at all, apart from things that are completely uncontroversial, which is only the case when pretty much everyone agrees on it. (birth dates are the seminal example, tho even here we have had cases primary sources have not been accepted). We accept only those secondary sources if the conform to our reliable sources guidelines: those sources always have editorial control. That means the has been an editorial board that has checked the authors work. This is critical, because we don't have an editorial board ourselfs. In a way we are borrowing the editorial board of the reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't claim to present what must be the truth. We tell what the secondary sources are telling. The reader who can check the sources can make up his own mind from there: all Wikipedia did was summorise and bring together the information already brought together in those secondary sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, so other than articles related to science and mathematics, pretty much every other article in Wikipedia, like about wars, history, religion, people, etc., may or may not be perfect right? As they all depend on the 'author's own thinking', and the editorial board, and a person's own thinking, according to psychology, is influenced by his childhood experiences, and his own culture. Ah, whatever, these policies are not really my cup of tea. I think I should just stick to the science and mathematics side of wikipedia. Amal89 (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in, both. Amal, even maths-type stuff is not immune: Monty Hall problem has seen one of the longest-running disputes anywhere on Wikipedia, with something like a million words written and no real resolution! Having said that, I think you will get the hang of the policies, so don't be discouraged. Starting out with some less controversy-ridden articles would enable you to build an understanding of how this imperfect project works without getting involved in threads that almost inevitably become heated. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)