User talk:Martijn Hoekstra

Reverting admin actions

Per the blocking policy and block appeals guidelines, unless exceptional or expedient circumstances apply, administrators should not unblock a user without prior discussion with the blocking admin. Unless it's me. If I believe you should consult me before undoing a block (or other admin action), I will make it clear. If I don't, I would appreciate a note, but if you believe I have made a mistake, just undo it. If I believe that undoing it was exceptionaly stupid, I reserve the right to slap you with a trout.

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust Obfuscation

Hello Martijn. You've closed this deletion discussion. I have some concerns with the result of the AfD, which I discussed with the nominator. What do you think about my proposal? Thanks for any answer. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that. The discussion did not preclude that, so in those cases I'm always fine with a redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... Actually, I'm making an unnecessary fuss about it, as the uncapitalized Holocaust obfuscation already serves as a redirect to Dovid_Katz#Double_Genocide_debate. I guess what confused me was the red link at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust Obfuscation :( I'm sorry for wasting your time. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, if I had to pay Wikipedia a nickle every time I didn't see something that was right there, we wouldn't need a fundraiser. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions about AfC submission (Scripted)

The notice on my talk page said to bring any questions to you or the help desk, so ... first off, I am, of course, not an unregistered user, and in fact have created a couple articles before this; I clicked on the "submit" button on my draft without knowing exactly what it was. Is this a problem, or should I just go with it and be more careful next time?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you clicked submit, it was submitted for review. I reviewed it, and approved it. I don't really see what you did wrong there, unless you weren't planning on having it reviewed, but putting it live yourself, which in this case would also have been fine. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to make sure. I haven't been at this for very long. My other question is, just as a start, what would you recommend to improve the article from it's current C-class status? I did read the criteria in the grading scheme, but I was wondering if you had some more specific advice.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 DoneMartijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out( :--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Second Story Interactive Studios.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! :- ) DCS 01:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this message is meant for me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right.  I think maybe you cleaned up the article and then submitted to AFC.  When you click submit, your name goes in to the template as submitter.  After submission, you can manually edit the template by changing the "u" parameter to the correct user name.  :- ) DCS 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Casimer&Casimir

Thanks for closing the AfD. When you deleted, you deleted the original article at Casimer&casimir (note the lowercase second 'c'). Before or during the AfD, the article was moved to Casimer&Casimir (note the capital second 'c') and the original, lowercase was converted to a redirect. Long story short, you deleted the lowercase 'c' redirect, but the article at uppercase 'C' still remains. Care to delete it too? Thanks again! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

hi

First I should say this isn't important. If you have other things to do please ignore.

I was reading your user page. Reminded me of an idea I had a while back.

Say, by lack of better words, we have 3 kinds of 'deletions': DELETE, KEEP and REDIRECT.

If the article is a keeper it either stays or gets another chance to be improved.

If it is to be deleted then access is restricted to administrators.

With redirects/mergers the history of the page is preserved.

The thing I noticed is that the deletion process was designed to clean up trash. It is really good at that, if it isn't a speedy delete AFD will kill the trash. However, the AFD process became a process used to judge content. Something it wasn't designed to do. There are articles that are kept while they should really be deleted and there are articles that are deleted while they should really be kept.

An AFD deadline is nice to stay productive but if there is reason to doubt the conclusion then both DELETE and KEEP are the wrong answer.

Such articles shouldn't be kept or deleted, they should be blanked so that other editors can work on them 10 years later. Could recycle material from the article. Even the talk page could be useful if some one has a great source for the future article.

After completely terminating a topic editors are discouraged from writing an article that doesn't suck. While KEEP would put the unfinished crap in the mainspace for god knows how long.

I think a closing admin could decide what to do much faster, more accurate and more efficiently if he could just wipe articles when in doubt.

A way to both delete and preserve doubtful articles.

You seem familiar with AFD, do you think this could work?

From the current afd's most would not qualify at all. But for example Jacob Biamonte could one day become some one. There is enough on the page to give a user in 2030 something to start with. He might become note worthy, perhaps we missed his most significant accomplishment.

Seeing the state of the article before it was deleted allows the editor to see if there is still hope for the article. The potential editor isn't going to ask any administrators for this. There is also no harm in having a constructive discussion about an article that was deemed not good enough.

• jmcw writes about Ron Duncan: "Keep There's no doubt this article needs additional work, but I believe someone with access to old martial arts magazines would be able to find multiple mentions of him."

And when will that be? Do we need to hurry? Is there any reason to rush a final conclusion? Should we prevent the future editor from doing his work?

Also, if the reasoning doesn't match the criteria for note worthiness a user shouldn't have to be an admin to revert good faith AFD's. If the page is simply blanked no harm is done. The deletionists get what they think is correct and the user who wants to restore the article 2 years later also gets what he wants. If it still sucks we can help him, if that fails we can just delete it again. No harm done. Much better than having the turd in mainspace for 2 years?

The usual deletion debate isn't going to motivate anyone to re-create an article from scratch. It is unreasonable to demand that extra work from users if the article wasn't clearly worth deleting.

There isn't any way to tell atm. I've asked administrators for articles that had been deleted. They turned out to be so bad it was embarrassing to even ask for them. I've stopped doing that. If doubtful articles can be blanked there is no need to ask admins for "articles". If it was deleted entirely one can assume there was nothing there worth keeping.

What are your thoughts?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'll address a few of the points you make. First: blanking. That is really of no use whatsoever. A blank page is just as much use for starting a new article as a non-existent page, so blanking and deletion do not make much difference when it comes to how easy it is to write something. Then there is the question about really bad articles that are kept. Something complicated is happening here. When wikipedia started out, it wasn't very useful, nor was it an encyclopedia. It has always been meant as a means to write an encyclopedia. When it became useful, it suddenly became a way of distributing an encyclopedia too. This has sort of worked, since people find very useful stuff on wikipedia, but many processes still look at wikipedia as a means to write an encyclopedia. From that perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong to have a very badly written article in main space, since main space is the place where we develop content, beat it in to shape, and get it ready for some further undefined 'prime time'. No there is something to be said that we have become a means to distribute an encyclopedia too, and we should have some lower bar for article quality that is up in mainspace. So far, the current process has worked quite well for us, so there is a sort of 'if it isn't broken don't fix it' mentality around it (actually, come to think of it, in many regards Wikipedia has an 'if it is broken, don't fix it either' mentality, but that's a different issue altogether). The only reason for articles to be deleted if they are bad, is that they are so bad, the best way to develop the article is to blow up what's there, and start over (as opinionated in WP:TNT). Stuff really should only get deleted if there is nothing worth keeping. Blanking should never be used as a 'soft deletion', because the content is better kept where we can develop it: in main space. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing deletion situation

Scottywong has tagged Casimer&Casimir for G4 speedy, saying that it was a recreation of an article previously deleted at AFD. I can find no evidence that this was ever at AFD — except for the discussion that you closed just today! My first thought was that someone had undone your deletion, but both log entries are speedy deletions from before the current incarnation was created. Could you look into this confusing situation, and then either delete this article or tell Scottywong why it shouldn't be deleted? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at the section two above this one. I was involved with the AfD so I'm familiar with the situation. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

2013 BCS National Championship Game

Just a thought, I didn't see consensus to delete 2013 BCS National Championship Game among the multiple nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 BCS National Championship Game, as a number of votes were "delete all but (that one)..." I agree the consensus was to delete all the rest. I think you could reasonably amend the close along those lines if you would consider it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do see consensus to delete that one too, even if consensus is weaker on that one. If you want I can userfy the article for you, so that it can be used as a basis when more coverage comes up. Would that in any way help you? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I really don't want it myself, someone else will probably create it while I'm not looking anyway, its not an area of real interest to me substance-wise.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, like like theworm777 is already going to DRV. I really don't see a consensus on the 2013 game, even before discounting the "me too delete all" votes, but oh well. I intended to !vote keep for that one only, but I can't complain since I didn't make it around to participating.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Though the notices are placed, the discussions haven't been placed. If they're not there in an hour or so, I'll complete the DRV nominations myself for him. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He only has a shot on the one, though.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, process is important, and so are review procedures. I don't think I made a mistake here, but if I did, DRV will point it out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted them again for now (see worm77's talkpage), but if you still look for review, feel free to add them for review. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2013 BCS National Championship Game should not have been deleted. I realize that there were a lot of "delete all" votes in the AfD, but they were, frankly, uninformed. This article seemed to get uncritically swept into a deletion tide with its co-nominees, all of which did deserve to be deleted. Or perhaps some editors were simply thrown off by the calendar-wrap of the college football season, i.e. the 2012 season extends just into January 2013. Please restore or userfy this article to my space. We've got plenty of other articles started for the 2012 season: see Category:2012 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jweiss, I userfied it at User:Jweiss11/2013 BCS National Championship Game. Would you like the other 2013 ones too? Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

Thanks. No thanks on the other 2013 ones because those are actually for the following season. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No Problem. Just see if you can get it back into mainspace when you get it beefed up a bit and referenced more strongly. Bulk AfDs are pretty much always a mess. I don't think I ever seen even one that worked properly, if it's not that the articles differ too much, it is that the discussion gets overwhelmed with so many subtle differences. If it were just the one article, then it would have been clear that this is current season, but with the bulk, there is no real saying if everyone really realised that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

MuZemikes Block

Greetings MH. Methinks you will find the block be due to our continuing 'battle of wills' with some of the 'Uber Nerds' ! Bullocks Coaches be well known to moi, but, the manner of our edits be not to the liking of the sadder Uber Nerds. Our edits though be true to life. Guessing those saddo's wish only to deny knowledge to others. As for our piece on the talk page of that article, well, the clue be in the title - TALK ! They will have to keep trying their damnedest to deny others our knowledge ! Why Uber Nerds ? Why Saddo's ? - if you click onto their contributions register you will see these Social Inadequate's appear to spend all their spare time 'policing' Wiki-world - they obviously have no life ! 92.40.51.75 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammatophyllum wallisii

I guess you didn't read my comments on the talk page. I haven't edited the article before.

Grammatophyllum wallisii is a different species of Grammatophyllum speciosum. Two different species can and do have separate articles.

Could the page be restored, so I can help the creating, new editor clean up the page. Bgwhite (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite. The first line of the article read 'Synonym = Grammatophyllum Speciosum', and the references also all point to Grammatophyllum Speciosum, which made me believe it is the same species. Are there any references on Grammatophyllum wallisii? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I will get the trout ready for you. I'll explain it the the creating editor. He is new and I'm trying to help out. Bgwhite (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, trout. Good idea for tomorrows dinner. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Spotware Systems Ltd

Given that result was "delete", may be you could also delete the previous revisions of User:Omahacrab (a mirror of the article) in order to complete the move? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dmitrij, I'm not fully compelled if deletion there wouldn't need a seperate MfD. Userspace and article space are obviously distinct, and, with the content no longer there, I don't see a problem with the way his userpage is now, (though I haven't checked the history of the pages, a copy-paste move fix could be the solution for that possible problem). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Content is still easily available via edit history (thus deletion not requested by user), and it is subject to WP:CSD § G4. I'm not sure whether it is the case for MfD, as there is no legitimate reason to delete all revisions – the current blank one violates nothing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced. Had he requested me to userfy it, I would have done so too. If I see this as a userfied and then blanked page, I'm ok with it too. I'm just not seeing the point of deleting this from the history of a userpage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Martijn. It was nice to have someone welcoming me to wikipedia. I needed some help and there is no one else I could find. Can you explain to me how I can add pictures to a biographical page?(Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

For that, I think I can best refer you to the picture tutorial: WP:PICTURE. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

AfC: MovNat rejection

Hi there,

I've read the rules of notability and I've used several existing Wiki pages as examples, so I'm confused why this keeps getting rejected. MovNat is part of a global movement centered around ancestral/evolutionary nutrition and exercise. This page is more robust and cited than several other pages of people included in this movement like Robb Wolf and Mark Sisson. Further, Erwan Le Corre is highlighted in red on the Paleolithic Diet page as someone who should have a Wiki page. He is quoted in the Parkour Wiki page. He's presented to NASA and he's a visible figure in evolutionary fitness. He's been featured in dozens of magazines around the world.

I'm at a loss here. If I could get some specific feedback, it would be much appreciated.