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.

Thanks

Hi, Thank you for the review of my article K. P. Dandapani. I am new in wiki and am creating new articles and putting pictures too. I am expecting your support in future also. Please support me to develop more articles and it developments. Once again thanks for helping to move my article to the Article page.Mydreamsparrow (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

These days, I'm rarely on Wikipedia. I might be here more often, but don't count on it. You can find a more reliable source of help at the teahouse. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you.....Mydreamsparrow (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rodger%27s_Method

With the help of another Wikipedia volunteer and my wife, I have been able to get my article to render without the "failure to parse (lexing error)" errors and all of the opening reference tags and closing /reference tags have (apparently) been removed from the references section. Would it be possible for you to continue your review of my statistics-related article, or do I have to just resubmit it and go through the two weeks waiting period (or whatever it might be this time around)? Thanks for looking at my article earlier today, and for your part in getting it improved. HamiltonRoberts (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hamilton. I took some more time reviewing your article, and find it very very good. I also came to the conclusion that it is not in a format that is suitable for Wikipedia - it contains too much "how to style" for that. To fix that, we have two independent options: trim it down to a format more suitable to Wikipedia, and finding a different home for it. Seeing how good I find it as it is written, and much of that quality would disappear once squeezed into a wikipedia harness, I would like to focus on the latter first, and then on the former. I don't have much experience with Wikiversity, so I'm going to take some time fixing a transfer. I'll let you know of the developments. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look at my article. Your comments constitute the nicest rejection of a piece of academic writing that I have ever seen. I still would like to eventually see a "Rodger's method" presence on Wikipedia, and look forward to hearing from you again about this. HamiltonRoberts (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Hamilton, the article is a good match for our sister project wikiversity, so I'm going to start an import request there: see the discussion at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Alt_out_for_article_that_is_no_match_for_wikipedia . I would like an import rather than a copy-paste because it would preserve the history of the article, and the attribution chain would be unbroken. Once we have that fixed, I'd like to work with you on getting the article summorised. Less how to, less explanation, more dry stuff, and, if possible, more background and impact (a wikipedia article - like an encyclopedia article should talk about Rodgers method, its history, its impact, etc, not how to do it). Meanwhile we can provide a link to the article as transferred to wikiversity for those readers who want to learn how to use Rodger's, rather than want to learn what it is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The import request is here: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Import#Rodger.27s_Method Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that my article already exists on Wikiversity, and I am ready to accept your kind offer of help to get a scaled-down Rodger's method page included in Wikipedia that will contain a link to my original submission. My initial concern about this task is about Wikipedia's vigilance regarding copyright violations. Is any "copying and pasting" of sentences or paragraphs from the original version of the article permitted when creating the abbreviated Wikipedia page? I am not of the opinion that an author can "plagiarize" his/her own previous writing (though that opinion was a minority one at my college); so, of course, what matters is your copyright policy. Would anyone at Wikiversity or Wikipedia object to my "cutting and pasting" material from my original article and including it in the new page? Specifically, could I delete the entire "The Bottom Line on Rodger's Method" section from the Wikiversity article and rework it a bit in order to have it appear in the Wikipedia article instead? HamiltonRoberts (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's your work, it's already released under a proper licence, so you can do with it whatever you want! I specifically kept the original draft here so you can rework it here as you see fit. It will need a whole lot of trimming (some might call it butchering) before it is wikipedia-like, but I figured it would be easier then starting again from scratch - which is also a possibility if you prefer. I didn't move it to main space yet so you can work on it in some easier waters, without people slapping on loads of maintenance templates. Since it's a draft anyway, you could consider just starting a new article at the bottom, and cutting and pasting whatever you want there, so you keep the content you might want to copy handy, but keep a new 'clean' version that you know is good. The easiest way to completely remove the section by the way is opening an edit window on the section, blanking it (including the header) and saving the change. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me, or ask at the teahouse. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I included the wikiversity link by the way. It's broken now because it tries to link to an 'articles for creation' space in wikiversity that doesn't exist, but as soon as we get it to main space, it will be functioning. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Martijn, I have incorporated a small amount of my original submission into the revised draft version of the Rodger's method page for Wikipedia, but added new material too. Overall, though, it is substantially briefer and now contains no formulas or matrices. Would you please give me your feedback on the current article when you have had a chance to review it. Thanks. HamiltonRoberts (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Martijn, I did notice a couple of changes that you made to my article, and the fact that it is now a part of Wikipedia is feedback enough. I am sure that you are very much aware of how lucky I was to draw you as a reviewer of my original submission, but I want you to know that I, too, am highly aware of that fact! Thank you for being you. I have passed along to Bob Rodger the honor you have paid to him by including a link to a non-existent Wiki page about him. He turns 87 years old in June, and still has a brilliant mind. HamiltonRoberts (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Wikipedia - and with that our readers - is better off with that submission, and that's what we're all here for. You did all the hard work there, I just pointed to pages and policies. We're very happy to have you as a new wikipedian! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Martijn, Could you please direct me to information about the policies and procedures that pertain to undesired changes that other Wikipedians make to the article you approved yesterday. The changes that are displayed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodger%27s_method&diff=next&oldid=532825461 were justified by claiming that they were needed to "remove editorial and crystal ball wording and source of unclear reliability." Within the next day or two, I can add additional material to the Wikiversity article that will unequivocally substantiate the truth of at least one statement of fact that has been removed. But does mathematical/statistical proof still get trumped and discounted as a "source of unclear reliability" that is not eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article simply because that evidence will be contained in an unpublished Wikiversity document? Seemingly, you did not think so, but will David Epstein's opinion on this particular issue be able to be determinative despite my objection because he is a Wikipedia administrator? I am certainly willing to provide the statistical proof that one of my deleted claims was a true statement, but find it distressing that this will likely make no difference in the face of an administrative fiat. What sort of appeal process exists to undo changes that Wikipedia administrators (not ordinary folk) make that significantly alter the meaning of what was originally written? If those changes are imposed by an administrator (as in my case) do I have any hope of reversing David Epstein's decisions? HamiltonRoberts (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, this is exceedingly awkward. Let's start with dissecting David's edit. Quite pivitol here is the fragment "It is quite easy to empirically demonstrate that the statement of Williams et al. will almost certainly be confirmed to be correct if and when statisticians decide to investigate the statistical power properties of Rodger’s method along with those of the other post hoc procedures. " in relation to the role sourcing plays in Wikipedia articles. To the reader, whatever is on Wikipedia is just something Some Dude on the Internet said. That is why our policy is "don't take our word for it, here is the (independent, authoritative) source that confirms it". It will probably impossible to find an independent source with an editorial board that says it will almost certainly be confirmed to be correct. Wikis (wikipedia, wikiversity, other wikis, but also forums) don't have an editorial board, and don't suffice for this.

Since our encyclopedia isn't in print, but can be amended at any time, we can postpone any statement on the statistical power properties of Rodger's until there are such sources that confirm it. In Wikipedia, this train of thought is codified in "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", and as such, crystal ball has become Wikipedia jargon. Point 4 there, "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." almost completely fits this situation, as well as the segment "While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." from point 3.

Now the fact that David is an administrator means nothing to Wikipedia in regards to content editing. When we say 'Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', we mean it, and we don't protect articles from good faith edits, be it from an administrator or a random passer-by, nor do administrators the last word. Collaboration, and coming to an agreement with other editors is central to Wikipedia editing. While I agree with David that we should stay away from trying to predict the future, with his edit "However, the statistical power advantage that Rodger’s method purportedly has over alternative procedures has not been verified by rigorous statistical research." it is implied that it doesn't have the same statistical power as other methods do. That's possibly not ideal either. The best thing to do, is view his edit as an offer to make the article better. You disagree, so you make a counter-offer, answering his concerns, while fixing the concerns you have about his edits. I could imagine something along the lines of "There hasn't been significant statistical research comparing the power of Rodger's method to other post-hoc methods", which neither implies that it does, nor that it doesn't. When you hit a block in the road, where you can no longer find a compromise you can live with, you can see if you can come to an agreement on the talk page of the article through discussion instead of editing. Once you think you know a new way to move forward, you can go on and make that edit.

I can assure you that David edits are aimed to improving Wikipedia. So are yours, so together, you should be able to come to a decent middle ground you both feel good about. For extended reading on some of the problems you are currently encountering, and we as Wikipedia are struggling with, with some indiviual opinions mixed in, see Wikipedia:Expert retention. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ballads (Ken Stubbs)

Hi Martijn

You were kind enough to help me to submit 3/4 articles last night. First House, Ken Stubbs, Cantilena, Erendira.

I was hoping that you could take a look at the final piece - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ballads_(Ken_Stubbs_album)

Any comments would be very welcome.

Thanks

csg45Csg45 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi csg, this one still needs a bit of work. I don't have time to fix it now myself, but the external links don't seem to be directly related to the album, its lead is still a bit messy (i.e. your article title here, not starting properly (with a definition), the direct quote starting reception should be marked as such with quotationmarks or possibly a blockquote (check what flows best in the prose). I'll have some time to look at it again around 9 PM UTC. For bonus points, check on how to complete the cite templates. There is documentation at {{citeweb}}. The more parameters filled out (if available) the better. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.....I think I have fixed all the points that you suggested. Is this OK now?Csg45 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I see User:78.26 already approved it. Thanks for you patience! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.....I think I have fixed all the points that you suggested. Is this OK now?(Csg45 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Re your recent advice

Thank you for explaining things. Problem now i think was that someone had already used username Tepi on Commons, so I had to use another and now can't unify accounts. Would it actually be possible to usurp the username lesion on en WP especially since there is one edit from that user in 2009 ? Thanks. lesion (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm going to have to check rename policy: by far most of your edits across all projects are under Tepi, so that could be considered a main account. I'm going to get back to you on that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Nickname" on WP has been lesion for some time...I would prefer Lesion to be unified username, but whatever is easiest would be ok I guess. Suspect user:Tepi on commons is more active than user:Lesion on WP, maybe this is a factor... Thanks and sorry for creating this mess, it's really confusing process... lesion (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the best thing you can do is just to post your request to unify under Lesion on Wikipedia:USURP. Usually there are no usurptions of accounts that has edits, and Lesion on en.wp has a single edit. On the other hand, sometimes exceptions are made in case of SUL conflicts. On the third hand, by far your most edits are under Tepi rather than Lesion, and Lesion on commons has no contributions at all, so would be an easier target for usurption. I'm not quite sure if it will be granted, but you will be advised on what else to do, just indicate what your prefered SUL username is Lesion, and what other options you could live with. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And it sure is a complicated process. Fortunately, the problem is gone for new accounts, but older accounts still sometimes have this kind of mess. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will do this. lesion (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Last Res0rt

I don't want to start that fire again. I asked for the undeletion because the creator of the webcomic was attacking me on Twitter after I nominated Schlock Mercenary. I went into the Last Res0rt AFD, saw that good source that I found, and said "you know what, I was wrong to delete it". I feel having it re-nominated would be process for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I'll resubmit then, so you won't have the impression of trying to keep it deleted against you. There was such a strong numerical delete majority, that I'm not comfortable with unilaterally overturning it, even with a withdrawn nom. Feel free to comment on the AfD with the good stuff. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)