User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2014/January

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. 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) 00:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

SORCER update
Hello Martijn... I'd never glanced at your userpage before today, when I did, it scared the crap outta me. :-)   Nice flag!  Anyhoo, I have a couple forest-fire notices for you.


 * 1)  WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented_programming, added two new questions for prubach and/or mwsobol
 * 2)  tangential question, why does this shorthand not work, any idea?  WT:AfC/Exertion-oriented_programming or WT:AFC/Exertion-oriented_programming
 * 3)  Talk:SORCER, which is not more complete... methinks the WP:N for SORCER is increasingly evident, from this combined list.  Agree?
 * 4)  Talk:SORCER, at the bottom of the article-talkpage Pawelpacewicz and I are going to rewrite SORCER paragraph by paragraph, attrition warfare style, you are welcome to help if you like

I noticed your plan (above) to centralize discussion onto Talk:SORCER, and I mostly agree... but I would like to keep three parallel discussions open. First, at the top of Talk:SORCER, we need to continue to centralize the reference-analysis stuff, finding out which stuff is peer-reviewed, which stuff is independent, that sort of thing. Second, at the bottom of the same Talk:SORCER page, I'm planning on drafting the new content of mainspace, with help from Pawelpacewicz and Tim/Fiddler and anybody else that wishes to pitch in. Most likely, plenty of exertion-oriented-programming prose and references will get hashed out, in those parallel discussions.

However, that said, I'd still like to keep WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented_programming around, because it gives us a central place for long-winded technical discussions. Mwsobol does not have a lot of time; I'm guessing the Prubach is the same. We've already likely lost Kazumo, and maybe Beavercreekful and 132, because of the low signal-to-noise-level on the Talk:SORCER page. (With luck it will just be a temporary loss.) Therefore, I'd like to keep the AfC draft around, as a quiet sort of "faculty lounge" for technical conversations. We may end up with just a 'single' article in mainspace, with Exertion-oriented programming as a redirect to the relevant subsection SORCER, but in the meanwhile, I suggest we not prematurely nix the AfC conversation, since it serves a useful community-oriented purpose, at the moment.

Speaking of nixing, are you okay with moving the current contents of Talk:SORCER into Talk:SORCER/Archive 1 manually, so we can have a clean slate? Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey 74, thanks for the note. I think it's best to focus all attention on SORCER at the moment. If anything is notable, it will be that. I've been playing around with it for a bit, seeing if I can get my head around things. It's sort of working, but there is so many jargon around everything that I'm having difficulty getting my feet back on the ground. I'm not sure if this is my lack of education, or if it's just a different culture I'm coming from. If I take for example the SORCER Operating System, that is something I would generally call a runtime. I'm not sure if the reason is that I'm the odd one out, and this kind of thing is generally called an operating system, if they're the odd one out and this isn't generally called an operating system, or if there are broad different cultures where it is and isn't called an operating system. I'm convinced that if we don't have any Wikipedians who understand the system, we can't write a good article about it. The SORCER guys don't have the time to understand Wikipedia and what it takes to make the sausage. That's a shame, but a fact of life we'll have to deal with.
 * In the same way, the more I learn about SORCER and exertions, the more I'm getting the impression that exertion based programming isn't what I would call a programming paradigm. There too I can't make a good judgement who's to blame for that; me, them, or nobody. It'll probably need someone who understands SORCER/exertion based programming, has a broad knowledge of the literature around programming paradigms, and knows how Wikipedia works to write something proper about it.
 * I'm also struggling with some of discussion, and it seems like me and the SORCER guys are misunderstanding each other. Everything they say seems to be from the perspective or SORCER and Java. For example, when I say "marshalled", I mean the general concept, but they seem to only call rmi.MarshalledObject marshalling, and want to explain to me how I'm wrong in using the term. I'm also feeling a lot of resistance to cooperation. It feels that they want to get the article past us, instead of working on it with us. I don't quite understand why, but it doesn't really engage me to work with them on the article.
 * That rant aside, the talkpage on SORCER looks OK now, and it seems quite complete. I'll check if there are still things on my talkpage that should be copied there, but I don't think so, which makes it best to retire the discussion on my talk page entirely. If we unearth important bits related to exertion oriented programming on the SORCER talk page, we can always still copy those over the the AfC. Cheers, and thanks for working on this, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree we should focus on SORCER. I think we have plenty of wikiNotability for SORCER (with WP:NOTEWORTHY for exertions and mogramming and the other jargon), per the list at the top of the (newly-decluttered) Talk:SORCER page.  Also agree that the jargon is a huge barrier, not just for you and me, but more crucially for the readership, my hypothetical tenth-grade-HTML-haxxor.  :-)    /Fiddler had a good suggestion, to use a "jargon" set of footnotes; I've also suggested an acronym-footnote-section, these would both appear above the citation-reference-stuff-section.
 * As for the "operating system" question, yes, SORCER is *not* an OS, almost certainly. It is a runtime-slash-platform, and it provides a command-line-shell (nsh), but the "operating system" thing is a bad metaphor, methinks.  See software platform, only some of which are OSes.  As for exertion-oriented-programming, it seems like closures for Java to me, with some web services smeared on top; it is a variation on WSDL/SOAP/REST in other words, and back in 2003 it was actually *implemented* thataway, from what Prubach (or Mwsobol I forget which) said in AfC.  However, note that many parts of SORCER are classified and not in the open-source-codebase at all... var-oriented mograms, for instance, are *described* in the papers but *missing* in the codebase we can see.  Anyways, I've asked some questions over on the AfC page, which will prolly help us figure this out during the next couple of weeks.  I'm convinced that if we don't have any Wikipedians who understand the system, we can't write a good article about it.  Yes, same here.  I'm trying to grok it, deeply enough to write a good article; going paragraph by paragraph should be helpful, because then we can focus on just a few of my misconceptions/bugs/mistakes/totallyWrongHowDareYouInsultTheseAdvacedConcepts things at a time.  :-)
 * As for the cooperation-n-collaboration, they're not resisting it per se... they're just reacting to our horrid wikiCulture, where when somebody with real brains like Mwsobol shows up, starts distilling their years of expertise into GFDL content, pure gold, we immediately accuse them of being a fame-hound, trying to cash in on wikipedia's awesomeness, a sockpuppet, a bad person, and so on and so forth. With the slimmest circumstantial evidence imaginable!  Because we are too busy-busy to look more deeply, or care about the person.  (There is one huge downside to "focus on the content not on the contributor"... it directly contravenes WP:NICE in spirit if not in letter.)  Simultaneously, we delete all their stuff, and we don't understand their work, and we have five bazillion stupid policies, and everything is so redacted adversarial.  Tim/FiddleFaddle feels bad the SORCER folks don't like him, but he's not the problem; he is gentle and caring and helpful as can be, by wikipedia standards.
 * Which is the whole problem: our standards are FUBAR, and they naturally drive away Kazumo & Beavercreekful, the two editors that provided 75% of the WP:RS in my summarized list.  Everybody who stayed is worried and defensive, and with good reason:  wikiCulture is broken, and unfair, and they all know it.  Right now, elsewhere on wikipedia, some hard-nosed teenage deletionist is getting a huge thrill from range-blocking an entire university, to keep some PhD thereof from adding anything to wikipedia.  It disgusts me, that we apply the same approach to our worst spammer-vandal-visigoths, as we apply to Professor Sobolewski.  My plan, if you'd care to join my not-a-cabal, is to start treating visigoths with utmost respect and patience... because every once in blue moon, they turn out to be incredibly valuable contributors, and wikiCulture since 2008 or so has become more and more oriented to driving away Good Eggs.  And another thing....
 * Wait, first of all, what is that annoying beeping-sound? Do you hear that?  Oh... oh, that's my WP:WALLOFTEXT alarm, which has been going off for some time now.  Sorry to rant in response to your rant.  Feel free to come chat on my talkpage, about any of these subjects, if you wish.  In the meanwhile, I'll try to keep my focus on Talk:SORCER, and the AfC page from time to time.  If you look over the current list of sources at the top of talk:sorcer, and think they are insufficient, please let me know, and I'll switch gears from grokking the jargon to collating the sources once again.  Pawelpacewicz was WP:BOLD and did the manual archiving themselves, then asked me to reconstruct the main talkpage; can you glance and make sure I did it well enough?  As always, thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to restate that all I want to se is a WP:V of WP:N for this item. Once I see that I'd like the entire thing written for someone with reasonable but not specialist education to be able to understand. I do not mean 'dumbed down', I mean that it needs to be rendered accessible to ordinary readers. I'm reminded of my old children;s encyclopaedia with a cutaway diagram of a submarine. It showed all the elements and how they interconnected in a way I could understand, and in a way that might be useful to educating new submariners, too. Sorcerers would benefit from being able to write in accessible language, too. However I suspect we may then see this effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj10J3WG4xA Of course, if we do see that effect there is a future funding difficulty. An interesting conundrum, that. Fiddle   Faddle  13:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the emperor here is naked. But I do think he's wearing less than we are led to believe. SORCER is a thing, and it does stuff that other systems have difficulty in doing, (or, if we fully believe the SORCERers is far more advanced than any other system that has ever been conceived could even dream of being, and you are insulting the Wise Minds that created this wonder by even asking about it). 74, could you indicate the sources that you think confer most wikiNotability? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see Articles for deletion/SORCER (2nd nomination) where your opinion will be valued, the more so since you have worked hard ion this area. Fiddle   Faddle  14:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TimFiddler has the same question, I see!  ;-)    I left a post on Tim's talkpage, with the "declaration of independence" showing that methinks about half of the sources are proper WP:RS.  After distilling down the huge list of green boxen at the top of the Talk:SORCER page, I'll see if I can show you what I know.  However, see my query on Garamond's user-talkpage, I'm not sure that merely being published in a conference-proceeding is enough, for some reason... whereas I didn't think GNG cared about cite-counts.  Anyhoo, I will try and get the answer in the next day or so.  Thanks for improving wikipedia, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Reg Deletion of Pages
Please advise why the pages I create about Company keeps getting deleted. I want to create pages similar to Rane Madras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rane_(Madras)_Ltd and describe about other Group Companies. Please help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkinside (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. 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) 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

ServiceSource page deletion
Hi Martijn,

The company page I posted about a year ago was deleted on 12/27/13. I would like to update the page and re-submit the page for creation. How should I best go about doing this?

Thank you, Sally

Sallyekman5 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Sally, I want to strongly advice against it. It will almost inevitably lead to a failed submission and (a little) wasted time and effort from the articles for creation volunteers, and (a lot of) wasted time and effort from your side. In my estimation it's not a productive idea. If you'd like to improve Wikipedia, I'd suggest working on articles you have no financial or personal stake in - you'll find it's a lot of fun improving worlds largest encyclopedia. If after about a year of editing, and about 1000 edits you still think it's a good idea to write this article (and you won't), you'll be in much better shape to do so. But I'm not one to forbid others what to do. If you're positive you want to do this against this advice, drop me another note, and I'll undelete the article and set it up as a draft you can work on. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll sit down if I'm rockin' the boat
Greetings. I was planning on adding this to Talk:Gun control. However, I don't want to disrupt your current attempt to mediate the nightmare. Let me know when would be a good time to post it (I will accept a response along the lines of: "How about never, you lunatic." Comments are also welcome). Thanks for much needed guidance over there. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC) (Ps. In case you don't get the reference in the title of this section, and you give two shakes of a lamb's tail about it, see here, then here)
 * Wow, that's a lot of content. I dunno, I'm terrible at mediation/dispute resolution. I just don't see anyone else doing it at the moment, and someone has to. I like to get a high-level overview of the dispute - that all parties realise they are in a dispute, and what the position of the opposition is - before anything else. After that, I'm not sure where we're headed yet, so I can't tell where your work may come in. I'm nobodies boss, so if there is a point where you feel it would be constructive to bring it in, do so. I think might be when we try to establish common ground, and see if there are points all parties can find themselves in - if we do manage to get to that point. Thanks for working on it, and keeping both feet on the ground. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me, I'm easy. I'll do what I can to end the nightmare. And I get paid for crazy, so ", you lunatic" is appended to comments directed at me almost every day:) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC) So this baby seal walks into a club.
 * So it should probably be obvious at this point, but it's currently impossible to rock the boat any further as the case is at ArbCom. In case you missed that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Privacy policy
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

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

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog.

The discussion phase about the draft for the Wikimedia Foundation's new privacy policy is ending on January 15. Your help is welcome in translating the current version of the draft, which is expected to be close to the final version. This will also enable more community members to contribute comments before the discussion phase ends.

The main text of the privacy policy is contained in the following pages, please click "Translate" on each of them:

Privacy policy / Summary / What the policy doesn't cover / Definitions

Please also consider translating the FAQ and other supplementary material, which can be found (along with the main text) here: 

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

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta&lrm;, 08:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. 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, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for Janaury 2014
Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked mostly minor features and fixing bugs. A few significant bugs include working around a bug in CSSJanus that was wrongly flipping images used in some templates in right-to-left (RTL) environments (bug 50910) a major bug that meant inserting any template or other transclusion failed (bug 59002), a major but quickly resolved problem due to an unannounced change in MediaWiki core, which caused VisualEditor to crash on trying to save (bug 59867). This last bugs did not appear on any Wikipedia. Additionally, significant work has been done in the background to make VisualEditor work as an independent editing system.

As of today, VisualEditor is now available as an opt-out feature to all users at 149 active Wikipedias.


 * The character inserter tool in the "Insert" menu has a very basic set of characters. The character inserter is especially important for languages that use Latin and Cyrillic alphabets with unusual characters or frequent diacritics. Your feedback on the character inserter is requested. In addition to feedback from any interested editor, the developers would particularly like to hear from anyone who speaks any of the 50+ languages listed under Phase 5 at mw:VisualEditor/Rollouts, including Breton, Mongolian, Icelandic, Welsh, Afrikaans, Macedonian, and Azerbaijani.
 * meta:Office hours on IRC have been heavily attended recently. The next one will be held this coming Wednesday, 22 January at 23:00 UTC.
 * You can now edit some of the page settings in the "options" dialog –    and   as selection (forced on, forced off, or default setting; bugs 56866 and 56867) and   as a checkbox (bug 57166).
 * The automated browser tests were adjusted to speed them up and bind more correctly to list items in lists, and updated to a newer version of their ruby dependencies. You can monitor the automated browser tests' results (triggered every twelve hours) live on the server.
 * VisualEditor/User guide was updated recently to show some new and upcoming features.

Looking ahead: The character formatting menu on the toolbar will get a drop-down indicator next Thursday. The reference and media items will be the first two listed in the Insert menu. The help menu will get a page listing the keyboard shortcuts. Looking further out, image handling will be improved, including support for alignment (left, right, and center) and better control over image size (including default and upright sizes). The developers are also working on support for editing redirects and image galleries.

Subscriptions to this newsletter are managed at VisualEditor/Newsletter. Please add or remove your name to change your subscription settings. 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) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record 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) 00:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 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) 00:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

José Rafael Cordero Sanchez
Hi Martijn. I saw you salted José Rafael Cordero Sanchez. We have only had the pleasure of deleting his auto-bio 17 times here, water compared to the 35 deletions on Spanish Wikipedia. Within some 18 months. I'm keeping an eye on recreations, including spelling variations not yet utilized, here, you may want to consider if any other article titles should be salted, you know best. Notice that in his latest recreation on es.wik he moved the acute accent in Rafael, look: es:José Rafaél Cordero Sánchez. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 20:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Feel free to let me know if you find any others that get created. I'm happy to salt after any re-creation under any other name. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, will do. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 20:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 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, 31 January 2014 (UTC)