Jump to content

User talk:Martijn Hoekstra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timon323 (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 10 February 2012 (→‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mogilev State A.Kuleshov University: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives of old discussions can be found here

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: 30 January 2012

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool.213.132.171.210 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 213.132.171.210 (talk)[reply]

Please sign in with your user account to confirm this. The Helpful One 18:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can mark this as 'whoopsy'. Confirmed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, account approved!
As part of this beta test, we'd like everyone to test every aspect of the tool. This includes acting as blocked users - we'd like each of you to file at least two appeals and respond to them as though you are blocked. Please try to act like a blocked user new to Wikipedia, unfamiliar with common terms and probably a bit frustrated at the situation.
When reviewing appeals, please act as though you are reviewing real blocks. You should be able to comment on any appeal, regardless of who has reserved it; reservations only ensure that reviewers don't send conflicting emails.
If you encounter any bugs (things not appearing to work right, and especially error messages), please file a bug report on JIRA. You will need to register an account there. New features can be suggested there as well, but please add the "after-beta" label to these so we can easily prioritize between bugs that must be fixed and features that can be added later.
Thank you again for volunteering to beta-test. The Helpful One 12:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchsdiamond (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Variable Length Flexible Stylus

The article had been rewritten to hopefully address the issues, but did not display in the articles for deletion for the benefit of the editors; I am completely confused as to when to delete or what to delete or where to delete and edit so the changes are available to the editors. I posted the changes to my talk and to the articles talk page, but it never showed up and a decision to delete was apparently made against the old text...am I correct?? Am I supposed to edit out the old text and replace it with the new??? {{help}} Mitchsdiamond (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nulled your helpme request as it appears you are trying to get the attention of Martijn Hoekstra in particular, but you used the helpme template. When you use this template it calls everyone who monitors the helpme category to wherever it is placed. It is thus only for use when you want some third party to come by. When you edit a person's talk page as you have her, that particular user will get an unmistakable day-glo orange bar at the top of every page they see telling them that they have new messages on their talk page, which persists until they visit it, so adding the template is not needed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you.. Was my article deleted based upon the original entry and not on the revised entry of February 4th (which has completely disappeard) that did not show up in the article for deletion?. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitch, the discussion focused on the notability of the subject, and there was consensus that there was no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which makes it fail our criteria for inclusion. That phrase is Wikipedia jargon, and it's meaning is slightly skewed here and there, so before linking to all the relevant pages (which are all quite long, detailed and possibly confusing), I'll try to do it quickly in my own words. There need to be sources independent of the subject, which means no press realeases, nothing written by a parent company or partner company (the independent bit). These sources need to have an editorial board which accepts or declines submissions. This is what makes it count as a reliable source for wikipedia, which i think is a bit of a misnomer, and is confusing, but we're stuck with the name. Wikipedia doesn't fall under it (wikipedia has no editorial board), nor do forums, self-published sources or other wikis. These have to discuss the subject (in this case the variable length flexible stylus) in detail.
The outcome of the discussion was that there were no such sources, and thus the subject is unfit for inclusion. A re-write of the article would therefor makes no difference, since the lack of those sources still stand.
If you still believe I didn't properly close the discussion, you could take it to WP:deletion review. I would advice against that, as I don't think it will change anything, but I'm not stopping you from taking it there. If sources do still turn up that meet the above criteria, you're always free to recreate the article. If you would choose to do so, it is probably worth it to do so via articles for creation. More seasoned wikipedians can help you out there, and point you towards problems before the articles goes 'live'. However, it will still need those sources.
As a last note, I'm going to link some wikipedia policies. They are generally long reads, but they go in more detail than my answer here.
First off, the notability guidelines: WP:N. This is the most important one here, and will also link to the others I'm listing here, others I'm listing here, reliable sources: WP:RS, the independence part, best discussed in WP:PSTS. WP:42 is a slightly condescending (my apologies for that), but still very clear description of the same thing. I hope that clears things up, regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martjin, all of your points are well taken and the time you spent is appreciated. At some point in the future, I will readdress the subject of the VLFS either as a sub-topic of silverpoint or via articles for creation. ..silverpoint stylus...to include the advancement of the VLFS. The silverpoint stylus has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and adequate materials independently supporting this subject should meet the criteria for inclusion you enumerated for Wiki. Regards. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foviance

It's perhaps a bit hidden, but somebody added Catriona Campbell to this AfD and that article still has an AfD notice on it. With greetings from a snowy Southern France... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I missed that one, it's gone now. With greetings from snowy North Holland, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your suggestion

Hi--thanks for fixing up the article. I'm sorry for not quite getting the format or understanding how this works. The reference cites two or thee pages. I quote the source almost directly. To add context, this should be categorized somehow as another pagan oriigin for a Christian festival. It's importance is that Cerberus isn't yet defined and Someone out there might have more information about the origin of this festival per Christianity. Hopefully the stub will get people looking for this material. Carl Jung described it in detail. Having read about this my gut tells me that it's a roman festival possibly pushed into Europe. Then christianized. I'm hoping to place this out there and the community can help flesh it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustynyfeathers (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's not really complicated, but you have to get the hang of it before it starts making sense. I only now see the rest of of the sourcing, which was on page 258, which I hadn't looked at. I fixed the reference to include that page as well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Stefano Passarello‎‎

I'm curious about your "no consensus" close of WP:Articles for deletion/Stefano Passarello‎‎. Given that there were no policy-based !votes in favor of keeping the article, and that the article itself is an unsourced BLP, it seemed to me to be an uncontroversial delete. Can you explain your thoughts on this one to me? Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 10:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I'll look in to it now, and come back to it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I see your concern. I'd like to note that it's not an unreferenced BLP, but more of a badly referenced BLP (not that that is anything great, but it wouldn't be a BLPProd). Since the AfD was relisted twice indicating that the people relisting it believed there was no clear consensus on it yet, closing it as delete after a new comment that at least didn't support deletion - even if there was no argument to keep - seems to go against the judgement of the earlier relisters, who were already in agreement to relist. That said, the case made to keep was very weak, hence my explicit inclusion of the no prejudice against speedy renomination. A case could also be made to have it close as a soft delete. I would not completely oppose that. As always, I'm up for having any and all of judgement calls reversed. I'm still thinking about the proper way to do that. Would you be opposed to me mulling it over for a bit (an hour or so?) I'm thinking about either DRV (though that might be a waste of resources, and is a horrible process in general), soliciting a 3rd opinion by an adminhelp template here, or reversing it myself, but I'm not quite sure if that's the proper course. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought it over, I think getting a third opinion from another admin would be the best idea. Is that OK with you? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, and thanks for your thoroughness and flexibility! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 21:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a third opinion on the above close. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have deleted it. I don't think it was egregiously wrong to close it as no consensus, but I think based on the discussion itself there was no argument to keep it. A person simply saying "keep" without justification is a vote, which shouldn't hold weight at AfD. The article was previously proposed for deletion, and that proposal was opposed by Graeme Bartlett so I'll admit it wasn't exactly uncontroversial to delete either. I think it's a shame that Graeme wasn't notified of the AfD discussion when it was created, because he clearly felt that the sources justified keeping the article based on his comment when he removed the prod tag. But the way things turned out, he didn't participate in the AfD, so his argument was not available.
So my opinion, if I was the one closing the discussion, is that the article had plenty of time for more participation and keeping it open longer would have been redundant. Among the two people contributing to the discussion, the one who argued to delete made at least an effort to appeal to our inclusion guidelines, and the one who argued to keep made no argument at all. So I think a "delete" closure would have been the appropriate thing to do. -- Atama頭 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Than delete it is (thanks Atama). I'm going to delete slightly out of process, and use a permalink here as some sort of substitute for DRV. No use in dragging along even more process while the AFD has been relisted twice. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Atama, and thank you again, Martijn. I appreciate you both having taken the time with this. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should add a comment here. The argument by deathlibrarian was clearly invalid as there were references. Some of the references were reliable if not independent. I was not in a position to argue much about notability only to disagree with some of the claims. The article was a COI writing. Few people are aware of WP:REFUND so do not expect a request. I think that a comment should be added at the AFD to explain the delete since it has happened so soon after closure. I was a bit surprised to see this close as a no consensus, and if closing myself would have concluded delete. So I am not stressed about the delete, and will not be undeleting off my own initiative. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion log clearly points at a permlink to this talkpage. Anyone looking at can simply find the reasoning and what's happened, I don't think we really need an amendment on the AfD, but let me know if you feel strongly, then I'll change it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

Gothika11

Dear Martijn

Hey my apologies to you if i have offended you as you may have known i am new to Wikipedia messages and the Speedy Deletion. Could you please explain to me in detail how can i edit my page but at the same time do not remove the Tags attached to my page. I do not wish to offend you or for that matter any of the moderators and even i am against disruptive editing. I have read the guidelines but still i feel i am overlooking some key issues for it catching attention of the moderators because of my mistake.

Regards Amigo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothika11 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gothika, starting with a new article is actually one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and I strongly advice you to get the hang of editing first, maybe correcting some typos, fixing some other things, making some small additions (for example, take a look at CAT:COPYEDIT for articles that are in dire need of some cleanup). To test things out, and try editing, you can always use the sandbox WP:SAND. Here you can try whatever you like. Once you feel completely confident with editing and how things are done here on Wikipedia, you could start a new article. WP:AFC is a tool you can use to get some feedback and help with that, though you really should feel a bit more at home here first. As a guideline for when you are ready: 1. You should be able to follow and understand our deletion discussions. If you understand what's going on on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_February_3 for example, you'll have a better understanding of what is generally kept, and what is deleted. 2. You should know how to make properly formatted text in wikiformat. Just practice with that. I hope that helps,
Kind regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darío Fernández Jaén

I just started a Wikipedia page on Darío Fernández Jaén for a project in my Intro to Mass Communications class at the university I'm attending. Posting our sources was the first step our professor wanted us to take, that's why that was all the article contained.

108.86.196.254 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Best thing you can do, is to make a userspace draft first, until it contains key information. For some help on the process, see WP:USERDRAFT. If you have that up, and don't have the references quickly available anymore let me know, and I'll restore them for you to your draft. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Martijn Hoekstra. You have new messages at ReelAngelGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for the help! :) ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Speedwellbus

You've just closed this debate as a keep, is it possible for you to weigh up on the points raised - I don't see that any of the keep votes have shown that the company was notable (only 1 mention in local not even regional news) outwith the coverage of the single event of their demise (which surely would make that event notable long before it made the company notable). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, if you don't mind I'll comment tomorrow. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, here we go. When I look over the AfD, I see your nomination, and four editors arguing to keep. Rcsprinter asserting that there is notability without giving much information, Pontificalibus who believes that the two sources presented are sufficient for the notability guideline (I note you disagree with that), Thesteve who argues weak keep based on the same sources, and Alzarian16 who presents additional material that he believes proves notability.
I take note that you disagree with all of their reasoning, but, in agreement or not, all of those explicitly indicate they believe that the article meets the GNG, and, with the exception of RCsprinter, give expanded rationales for that. I can easily conclude that there is consensus in the discussion that a. the article should be kept, and b. the article meets the GNG. Closing the discussion and concluding there is consensus to delete the article would do no justice to the discussion, and would not be interpreting it correctly.
As always, you are free to take this close to WP:DRV, and at times I can see the merit in that. In this case, I have no question that the close will be upheld, as I'm positive that this is a correct interpretation of the discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would be inclined to ask for relisting for wider community input rather than overturning to Delete; - As you sum up Pontificalibus, and Thesteve believe that the two sources presented are sufficient for the notability; this is despite the relevant notability guideline discounting that argument. In previous AfD discussions with them; both Pontificalibus, and Rcsprinter tend to see an inherent notability in Bus related subjects that isn't represented in Wikipedia policy or guideline and they tend to accept poorer sources as a means to represent these subjects as passing the GNG; indeed in the past the argument has been regularly used that it[a list of bus routes] is notable because it exists and/or that it must be notable because we have lots on others. The only reasonable position I see being put forward is that by Alzarian16 who presented the additional material and I would like to see whether the wider community outwith those who focus on bus related articles agree with his assertion that these confer notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though I think there has been adequate responses to gauge consensus (for as far as that goes on AfD), I can't stop you from starting a new AfD on the subject. If you do, please make clear why you believe there has been insufficient input on this AfD in your nominating statement. It might also be time to consider (at least for now) to drop the stick. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My deleted page

Dear Martijn, I am the administrator for the subject page "TigerHeat." I see recently that my page was deleted under the code "G8: Redirect." I was hoping for a better explanation. Wikipedia suggests that I contact the administrator to find out why. I would like to correct the problem and get my page reinstated, if possible. Please respond.

--George, Feb. 6, 2012 TigerHeat (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TigerHeat, the article TigerHeat was deleted after this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TigerHeat by another administrator. If I deleted anything under G8, it must have been a redirect to the deleted TigerHeat page, but I can't quickly find which one. Anyway, the reason for deletion is the link above. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Otter Survival Fund

I cannot understand why you have deleted our page. You say copyright infringement but we have copyright on everything there. Can you please explain.

Grace Yoxon, Director IOSF

Hi Grace, the short: while you own copyright to the text on that website, we can't check that, and by placing the same text on Wikipedia, you release it under a licence for re-use which is not the original licence, but see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
The longer: organisations creating their own articles is rarely a good idea. I'd firstly like to point you to our FAQ: Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, and my own personal essay on the subject: User:Martijn Hoekstra/Editing for organisations. If, after reading those two, you still think creating an article about the International Otter Survival Fund is a good idea (and I think it isn't, but I'm not going to stop you if you insist it is), the best way to create it is probably trough the new article wizard and wait for feedback from more experienced wikipedians to help you out.
Let me know if you have any more questions, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Martijn But then surely you should be removing the RSPCA page amongst others. On their page it says:

"This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications."

So what you are saying about us is the same.

Grace Director IOSF

The RSPCA page is far from perfect, that's for sure, and could do with some additional sourcing, as well as copyediting. The difference when it comes to speedy deletion on criterion G12 though, is that none of the text on that article as actually copied from the RSPCA website, though it uses it as a source in many situations which is far from perfect, it is not a copyright violation. It makes for a nice use case though. I still get the feeling you are here on Wikipedia to establish the presence of IOSF rather than to write a free encyclopedia, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Though the RSPCA article currently relies to much on primary sources, that's something that can be fixed, as plenty of third-party publications can be found. Often, Google Books and Google News can be helpful with that. Some sources that I have quickly found using google books search are [1], [2], [3], [4] (looks very promising). I did this with a search for RSPCA, but the same could be done with Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals possibly yielding even more results. Seeing if any of these sources could be used to replace the references to self-published materials from them would be great. If that works out, and you can find similar sources for the IOSF, I'm more than willing to help you out with creating a new article on the IOSF from those sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Martijn, but we are not trying to establish the presence for IOSF as if you Google otter on its own we come up second, only after your own Wikipedia page. So if people want to find us that way they can easily do it, but an encyclopedia is meant to be a source of information on all topics and organisations and this is why we want to be included.

We have many links through different organisations, including RSPCA, Scottish SPCA, IUCN Otter Specialists Grou,p and looking briefly through Google Books I have found the following:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JnZ7ZBArzvEC&pg=PA63&dq=international+otter+survival+fund&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mokyT8moKIKSOpbOzPMG&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=international%20otter%20survival%20fund&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6YY_kdYH-q0C&pg=PA56&dq=international+otter+survival+fund&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mokyT8moKIKSOpbOzPMG&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=international%20otter%20survival%20fund&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6nXO9LWhAS8C&pg=PR55&dq=international+otter+survival+fund&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FIoyT6XaDs2WOui84egG&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=international%20otter%20survival%20fund&f=false

So I do think it is valid to have a page.

One problem I have is that I can't actually see what we put in the Wikipedia page now to see how we could alter it?

Grace Yoxon Director International Otter Survival Fund

Well, that's a start for sure, though it's a bit of a stretch to call it significant coverage. The first has a line that says "The otter is a well known charismatic species seen in advertisements to raise funds for conservation, with bodies such as the International Otter Survival Fund dedicated to ensuring its survival in the UK", which doesn't tell much apart from that the International Otter Survival Fund is an organisation for otter conservation in the UK. The second one only puts the fact out that the IOSF once funded a research programme that put up camera traps, proving there are hairy-nosed otters in Vietnam, and the only thing the third one really says is that you are of the IOSF.
These sources (especially the first two) can, and should be used to verify information on an article, as required by our policy on verifiability. What they don't do is help answer the question: Should we have an article on this subject. This questions is generally answered by our notability guideline, and in this case particularly the guideline for organisations. This calls for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Based on the sources above alone (and only those sources), I'd say the IOSF fails that criterion. Compare it to the RSPCA, that have national newspaper articles dedicated to them, several books that devote paragraphs if not chapters to it.
If you would write a new article, not copying it from anywhere, but start back from scratch, then it won't be deleted as a copyright violation (because it isn't), and I can't stop you from doing so. But I think it's a bad idea. The reason I explained the above, is that if you do, I don't think the article has a snowballs chance of meeting the criteria for inclusion, and that the article would quickly be deleted on those grounds. If I would not point that out, your efforts on writing it would be wasted, and I'm here to write a free encyclopedia, not to trick you into wasting your time.
Summing it all up, yes, you can recreate the article if you want, making sure it's not copied from anywhere. If you do, keep in mind there is a very high chance that it will be deleted again soon. To end with a line from my own essay linked above: "I strongly urge you not to edit subjects you are close to, especially companies you work for. You are allowed to as long as you follow all guidelines, but it very very rarely works out. Most of the time by far it ends with the content you worked so hard to create deleted." Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

That thing we discussed

Hey, I did a little (ok, a lot) more work on my background write-up. Take a look at your leisure: User_talk:Ocaasi/An. I don't think I missed much, and although it probably needs an edit here and there, think it conveys most of what I've experienced here. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 07:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to my TigerHeat page deletion

Thank you, Martijn, for the explanation regarding my TigerHeat article's deletion. It seems they feel my sources are not credible. I do have a new source to add to my article, which is below if you could take a look. Is this a better source? Also, I noticed a few of my previous sources were links that no longer work so I am looking to update those. With that said, what are the chances of getting my page reinstated with this new source and correcting a few of the others? When an article is deleted, is that a "done deal" or is there ever a possibility of getting it reinstated? What are my chances?

http://www.frontiersla.com/Features/Highlights/Story.aspx?ID=1651187

--George TigerHeat (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Branko (BR) refering to your support

Dear Martijn, thank you very much for your support. I am a complete newcomer, so I do not know, whether this is the correct place to answer to your questions. Yesterday I had to leave. By the way, I live just 25 km south of Darmstadt, Alkmaar's partner town. I spent a day at Alkmaar. Lovely place!

Now to your questions: 

   Article title: Elsass-Lothringische Privatsammlungen (Sammlung Spetz-Isenheim)
   Periodical: Das Kunstgewerbe in Elsass-Lothringen
   Pages: 43-44, 109, 111-112, 124, 131, 140
   Publisher: Ludolf Beust, Verlagsbuchhandlung, Strassburg i. Els.
   Issue: 1
   Date: 1901
   Author: Anton Seder, Friedrich Leitschuh

Confusion came from the online bibliography of the uni Heidelberg. Now, I looked through the periodical itself. The Isenheim above is that of the famous altar painting by Mattias Grünewald.

--BR.ST.MF (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll use it to format the ref a little nicer. I'll do the same for the other refs (maybe I'll still have some questions, but we'll get there when we get there), and sling it on its way in to mainspace. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

Your Signpost submission

Greetings, Martijn. I have reviewed and responded to your submission at the Signpost's Opinion desk. You may wish to read and respond. Regards, Skomorokh 05:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mogilev State A.Kuleshov University

Dear Sir You have recently Delited my article Mogilev State A.Kuleshov University The idea of deletion was- copyright. It was mentioned that the article was copied from www.msu.mogilev.by You are right it was copied but!!! I was the person you wrote at www.msu.mogilev.by - I work at this University as the Head of International Relations Department - http://en.msu.mogilev.by/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=153&Itemid=297 so my job was to write the article about the university. and of course I put the same article at Wikipedia. Hope we can deal this misunderstanding. For prooving that I really a person fron International relations department - please contact me (there is a e-mail at the official page of the university - http://en.msu.mogilev.by/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=153&Itemid=297) Best regards and hope my article will be back soon Sergej Machekin

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martijn_Hoekstra&oldid=476142014"