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 Mwsobol (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 19 December 2013 (→‎Extinguish forest fire). 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.

Check article

Can you check my article? Article's name is Veron(Software). Is this article satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines ?

You've been trouted!

Troutworthy award
I think that this certainly deserves a good trouting... Technical 13 (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Martijn Hoekstra. You have new messages at Echoedmyron's talk page.
Message added 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Echoedmyron (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts

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

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugas fix

Ok I've rewritten John Bugas. I used the referenced information only, and have completely written everything in my own words. There may be words that are the same as, for instance, the NYT used, of course, but this is my language using publicly available information--that I am arbitrarily using certain cites to reference. I hope you now agree that this is ok. Thank you--Automotony (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly looking, it still seems very close to the sources, in that the text from the sources feels adapted, but less close than would really be a violation of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, so it seems good for now. I'll take a more elaborate look tonight when I have more time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melding over vertaling: Wikimedia Highlights, November 2013

Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

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

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.


Please consider helping non-English-language Wikimedia communities to stay updated about the most important Wikimedia Foundation activities, MediaWiki development work and other international Wikimedia news from last month. Completed translations will be announced on Facebook, Twitter, project village pumps and (for some languages) mailing lists. If you have questions about the translation notifications system, ask them here. You can manage your subscription here.

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

Bedankt!

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

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Melding over vertaling: Fundraising/Translation/Thank you email 20131202

Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Fundraising/Translation/Thank you email 20131202 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog. De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2014-01-02.

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

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

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

Bedankt!

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

Regarding Vasundhara(film) page

Hello,

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

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

I need to add information about this movie on Wikipedia.

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC

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

Exertion-oriented programming

Not sure if you got it. Here we go again.

The professor means that they left you a similar message, over on the AfC page, but didn't know if you would "see" that message via watchlist/echo/whatnot. So they left you the note here, again, in case you didn't get their original note. That's all. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. I'm having the strong feeling (though Mwsobol can probably tell me more about it, and correct me if I'm wrong) that the concept of exertion oriented programming hasn't really have been explored outside SORCER (and possibly its predecessor). If that is the case, it might be better to present everything in a single article. It's a lot to read, and the AfC backlog is enormous, but I hope I can find the time to do this properly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FIPER the predecessor to my understanding did have working prototypes (actual code) every year, but did *not* have exertions... that methodology is new with SORCER methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mentioned that the three papers I have recommended represent different views of SORCER and the conceptual complexity increase with each next paper. The first paper has the application point of view and a term "exertion evaluator" in this paper is actually an exertion. This is one of many ways to unify var-oriented modeling with exertion-oriented programing - mogramming. The next paper describes in more details parametric var-models and the third gives many simple examples of service-oriented mogramming. Exertions as front-end services have been introduced in the FIPER project. You can find relevant information in papers from 2002:
  • FIPER: The Federated S2S Environment, JavaOne 2002 [1]
  • Federated P2P Services in CE Environments, Advances in Concurrent Engineering, 2002 [2] or better copy [3]
  • A simplified version of FIPER (SPOA instead of original SOOA in FIPER) was commercialized by Engineous Software that was acquired by Dassault Systèmes [4] "Originally sponsored by an industry alliance, including Engineous Software, Goodrich, General Electric, OAI, Parker Hannifin and Ohio University, the Federated Intelligent Product EnviRonment project enabled Engineous to commercialize their FIPER product, which streamlines the design of engineered products, integrating legacy and best-of-breed analytical and design tools through a Web-enabled environment."
  • However I do not recommend to investigate early steps in exertion-oriented programming, that's historical papers. In particular in 2003 web-centric element of architecture was eliminated from SORCER as irrelevant. To get the current state of SORCER please read the draft version of the book chapter on "Service Oriented Computing Platform: An Architectural Case Study" to be published in "Handbook of Research on Architectural Trends in Service-Driven Computing" by IGI Global, 2014 [5]. There is a short glossary at the end of this book chapter.

Mwsobol (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glossary

Mwsobol said "I'm not sure you got it". I'm actually pretty sure I don't get it. Below is a list of phrases I'm unfamiliar with, yet seem to be important parts of this subject. I would love to know if I could get a quick dictdef of the following list. I'd also be interested to know if any of these concepts are actually used outside of the SORCER/FIPER teams, or that they - though they might be generally applicable in theory - are used only by people who work on these projects.

  • Federated method invocation
  • Exertion
  • Mogram
  • Exertion-Oriented Language
  • Context free variables
  • Var-oriented modeling

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall... well, get the first two, and shafted on the rest.  :-)   See my post in the AfC queue. FMI is a virtualized-network and wrappers-around-sets-of-object kind of RMI, and exertions are a cross between a Java-syntax-usually-SORCER-cmdln-shell-script and a *local* wrapper-around-sets-of-object which may include a virtualized-network. EOL is just a "new" programming language, for people that find writing their "exertion" code in Java too painful. As for the mogramming thing, Kazumo assures me it is de riguer, try Talk:SORCER and see if they have explained it yet. Suspect it likely (but this is mostly an educated guess at this point) that the last two, the context-free vars and the var-oriented-modelling, are just implementation details of the XML/UML/whatever config-language in which exertions are installed/described/etc. Hope this helps. Appreciate your hard work.
  p.s. Yes, given the nigh-complete RS-overlap, expect that we will prolly end up with either an article on SORCER with a section on SOOA-designs and another section on exertion-scripts. Alternatively, we *might* end up with an article on exertion-oriented-programming, with SORCER as the reference-implementation of that concept... in daily use Tim is correct that SORCER is the "parent" of all the exertion-scripts, but in the chronology of the invention, exertions came first, and SORCER is just a means to embody the vNet and the exertion-federation-wrapper-stuff in a computer (as opposed to talking about exertion-methodologies in a scientific paper). So I'm not clear which article is "on top" in this situation, just yet. Or maybe we have a BLP article, with sections covering major conceptual works. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extinguish forest fire

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

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

Mwsobol (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy deletion of CDSsoftware page

Noticed that you marked my page for CDS software for speedy deletion even though it was much less self promotional than existing pages like Mentor Graphics and others. In fact the said page has words like " In 2004 it was ranked third in the EDA industry it helped create." That is really quite much of self promotion, and makes claims that are unsubstantiated. I am not entirely confident that there is a uniform standard being applied here. All we said was fact, ( not promotion) that the company exists for more than 25 years, and what it does, as a prelude to adding more unself promotional material in the coming weeks, so as to immediately avoid disambiguation with other EPD acronyms.CDSsoftware (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CDSsoftware. On the technicality side of things, I wasn't the one who nominated it, I was the one who deleted it. But that's not really relevant. What is relevant is that the page was there with the intention to promote (people knowing about) your organisation. That's not what Wikipedia - or your userpage - is for. If you edit Wikipedia - and I hope you will continue to do so - do it because you love Wikipedia, and want to help making it a better encyclopedia. Motives of personal or professional gain don't belong here.
If you do intend to stick around and continue to edit (about subjects that you don't have a personal or professional in promoting), I want to ask you to stop using this account, and switch to a personal account. We don't allow account names that are used by groups. Every account belongs to one natural person. You can either abandon the current account (and possibly scramble the password, so it can't be used again by accident) and sign up for a new account, or you can request a new username.you can find the specific section of the userpolicy on sharing accounts at WP:NOSHARE, and how to request a new name two sections below it Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for the username to be changed.I guess you mean to say that the pages for Cadence Design Systems, Mentor Graphics and all of the others in the EDA section are not there for people to get to know them i.e were created for purely altruistic informative reasons. That is something quite difficult to understand, as you can read those pages yourself in an objective manner and come to a different conclusion. When such reasoning is employed and guidelines seemingly arbitrarily applied it would be difficult to create matter on any topic, as whenever guidelines are selectively applied ( or not as the case maybe) there is that page about " Other crap" that the content creator can then be conveniently referred to, leaving the matter unresolved and content creator entirely confused, is it not?CDSsoftware (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"But they're doing it too" just isn't an argument. I haven't looked at the other articles yet, but I'll probably get around to it in a while, somewhere this week. If their intention is only to promote, then they should be deleted as well. You seem very angry that you're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool, but I doubt you will find much sympathy or understanding from anyone when you tell them that you wanted to use Wikipedia to promote your organisation, but they didn't let you, while they haven't gotten around to cleaning up other promotional stuff yet, and that you think that they should allow you to use it for promotional means until everything else is cleaned up as well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martijn_Hoekstra&oldid=586734680"