Wikipedia

User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2013/January

< User talk:Martijn Hoekstra‎ | Archives
Latest comment: 11 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Martujn pls.. I beg u undo the deletion of my article i finnaly found reliable sources which i want to add pls martijn pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiassociate (talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The article will never stand, restoring it will only make you think it will. Please drop it, you're not helping wikipedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Ballads (Ken Stubbs)

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Re your recent advice

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

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)

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Thanks for your comments! My ".... will almost certainly be confirmed to be correct if and when ..." 'crystal ball' statement was, with hindsight, unfortunate; and not essential, so that can be rewritten so as to not be a problem. Perhaps David's completely changing the meaning of the final sentence in the paragraph immediately prior to my 'crystal ball' sentence can also be successfully negotiated; I hope so. But would you please specifically address the harder-to-resolve issue I have with David removing the summary statement about an extended line of (conclusive) evidence in the Wikiversity material which would "prove" the truth of the statement regarding three other post hoc procedures that he will not allow to appear within the Wikipedia article [presumably, only because that proof appears in a "source of unclear reliability"]. In your opinion, is he 'Wikipedially-correct' (on whatever grounds "unclear reliability" cover) about prohibiting me from making a mathematically true statement and precluding my simply noting the proof for that statement exists in a readily accessible document? [I fully concur with both of the sentiments attributed to Jimmy Wales on the page you referred me to: "(I am) perhaps anti-credentialist. To me the key thing is getting it right." I think "proof" rarely exists outside the realms of mathematics and logic -- but a mathematical proof in my Wikiversity article is, in this case, part of the process of "getting it right."] Although David did not appeal to it, does the Wikipedia ban on "original research" extend to including a mathematical proof within a Wikipedia article, or to merely pointing to the existence of such a proof that doesn't appear in an acceptable (which Wikiversity apparently isn't), published source? If so, or even if an appeal to "unclear reliability" is sufficient to justify David's action on this matter, that seems a serious perversion of the notion of trying to get things right. As I said last night, I find that prospect "distressing," and a middle-ground solution to this seems impossible, doesn't it? Either I get to make a true statement and point to the line of evidence supporting it (which in this case amounts to, rarely obtainable, proof), or I don't. [Alternatively, I would certainly be willing to put the mathematical/statistical proof in the Wikipedia (rather than Wikiversity) article if that would be permitted, but given your previous comments, that seems unlikely to be a possible solution.] HamiltonRoberts (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with math proves is the relative difficulty of verifying it for the general reader. For example, we shouldn't assume that our readers are able to follow the only currently published prove of the four color problem, or the proof of the Poincaré conjecture. Then the question arises: what can we allow without a reputable source backing it up. We have chosen to take a fairly hard line on the side of simplicity, and not allow any proof, no matter how solid, unless it has been published in a reputable source with an editorial board elsewhere, and classify all proofs as original research (by the way, I've talked about 'good' sources before, the whole guideline on what we consider 'good' can be found at WP:RS). Note, for example, the proofs that are on Pythagorean theorem#Proofs, which have all been previously published, and any proof there would be required to be have been previously published, no matter how easy they are to follow. With that, we prefer to leave out 'truth' if we don't have back up for it - leaving it out over keeping it unverified. This is also in line with out policy to have content that has already been reported on by others. I understand that this does distress you, and that it feels counter-intuitive for a project aiming to collect all knowledge. In the end we have found that it is the price we have to pay to retain credibility and to keep the open nature of the project where anyone can edit.
To the point of linking to Wikiversity: in general, something like Wikiversity would be a good external link. Because Wikiversity is a sister project, we sort off promote it stronger than other external links, so there is the box there is more information there right at the top, rather than down in the External Links section. Now while I know my way around Wikipedia fairly well, I don't know all that much about Wikiversity policy, other than that it is much more relaxed on original research than what we have here - which is exactly why I made sure that the original text you wrote ended up there, where the value of that work would be more in place than on Wikipedia.
So after a pretty long story, Wikipedia is not the right place for proofs that haven't been previously published. It's a weakness of Wikipedia, but a price we have to pay to keep open editing, and remaining credible. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Head Lice Hero

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me to improve my article. Head Lice Hero is an independent company that is trademarked. I can include URL links with the detailed trademark information from the official US federal trademark database as references if that will help verify? As for secondary sources, I also have put in a NEWS 12 video that covers a story about head lice hero. It is on the Head Lice Hero website but was not produced by the creator. I also feel as though it is written from a neutral point of view. My First article was rejected for the same reasons you chose. However, the second time it was never said that it wasn't a neutral point of view or written like an advertisement. I feel as though I am getting conflicting answers. I am simply trying to describe the company not advertise it, please let me know what else I can do. Thanks so much, Headlicehero (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Head Lice Hero is not an organisation that meets our criteria for inclusion. Right now, the article is written like an advertisement. You could fix that by completely re-writing the article, but that wouldn't make the organisation - as it is called in Wiki-lingo - notable. We call the subject of an article notable, if there are multiple sources, and those sources need to be independent, and have an editorial board, that discuss Head Lice Hero in detail. I don't think there are sufficient such sources. You are free to attempt to find more sources, see if you can prove notability, but I advice you not to do that, as I don't think you'll succeed, and will ultimately just be wasting your time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement...

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What does the article have to do with encyclopedia?

An advertisement?

Advertising or advertizing[1][2][3] is a form of communication for marketing and used to encourage or persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group) to continue or take some new action. Most commonly, the desired result is to drive consumer behavior with respect to a commercial offering, although political and ideological advertising is also common. In Latin, ad vertere means “to turn the mind toward.” [1] The purpose of advertising may also be to reassure employees or shareholders that a company is viable or successful. Advertising messages are usually paid for by sponsors and viewed via various traditional media; including mass media such as newspaper, magazines, television commercial, radio advertisement, outdoor advertising or direct mail; or new media such as blogs, websites or text messages.

That's what this is according to Wikipedia..

Could you explain how this is an advertisement ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisentertains (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, phrases like "he decided to focus solely on his passion for film.", "After creating so much buzz in 2012" are simply not neutrally worded. Let's not get into the technicalities in how that ties in to the Wikipedia article on advertisement. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

STAR (conference)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, and thanks for raising your concerns about the notability of this page back in 2008. The tag is still there 5 years later, so you may want to consider taking it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a more in-depth look later. It *sounds* rather non-notable, but Star is such a generic name, and conferences draw so much dependent sources, googling is hell on this one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glen Keith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speyside (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) 11:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Fundraising 2012/Translation/Drop down banner

Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Fundraising 2012/Translation/Drop down banner is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:

De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog. De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-01-27.

Testing for the 2012/13 international fundraiser will be picking back up again towards the end of January as part of the Foundations new all-year round fundraising strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro?banner=B12_5C_Control_BU

This request will help us use a new style banner that we want to test in the top ten language.

If you have any question you can send an email to jseddon wikimedia.org or go to my user talk page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jseddon_(WMF)

Thank you all for your ongoing support :)

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

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta‎, 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Last Res0rt

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)

You replied to the second part of my comment at WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15#Last Res0rt. I would appreciate a response to the first part. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Baber

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, thanks for your help moving Baber. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

All in a days work! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hares Youssef

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I wonder why you keep on deleting the article regarding Mr. Hares Youssef. Please republish it ASAP since I had the message to improve until January 31st 2013.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeiboul (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jeiboul, as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hares youssef, there was consensus to delete the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

What about the article of Hares yousef which is on discussion. May I get your attention and advise on how to contribute to this subject!! In the discusion it is clearly stated that the person is notable but ill referenced. I do believe that this issue can be resolved easily if you republish the article for me to add/modify some references

Thanks --Jeiboul (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC) --Jeiboul (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloodlines (TV drama)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"not by author, nothing wrong with redirect"
Hint {{db-redirnone}} missed, also blanked page?   this sabotage - VANDALS(!).--01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.47.108 (talk)
I think you may mean {{db-move}}, but I'm not sure. As im leaving in a moment, and won't be back for a few weeks, I have no time to investigate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my page rename and move

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi.

Many thanks for correctly fixing my attempt to update the Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Service page to note that it is now a trust. Unfortunately during the fixing the actual edits to the information I had made on the newly created Trust page seem to have been lost when the old Service page was renamed to the Trust page - and I can't seem to find any previous version of the Trust page that recorded my edits for me to fix them. Is there any way of finding the new text from my original Trust page from before the renaming?

(Technically speaking, the Trust is a new entity, so it wasn't totally incorrect to create a new page for it, but maybe I should have left some details on the old Service page saying it was now the Trust ... but either way might have been valid, and it seemed more appropriate to just move the information - oh well - I tried).

Thanks. Emalliab (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Emalliab

Who is the Judge for advertisment issues on Wikipedia?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry but i dont seem to get it!Ms Hoekstra sorry to say that but your judgement concerning my Imeros Rodopis article on wikipedia is something relative you consider it as advertising well thats in your opinion i can bring you TONES of wikipedia articles that are written the same way and even more advertising as you claim! Thanks for your input by the way Fair and square!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantsios (talk • contribs) 10:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

R.S. Rodger biography entry

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Martijn, I previously noted that I had mentioned to him the honor you accorded R.S. Rodger by including a non-functional link to a biographical entry about him on the Rodger's method page you recently approved. I asked him to consider sending me some material about his life, and though he initially expressed some reservations about doing this, he obviously (as you will see) changed his mind. Wikipedia neophytes that we both are, I fully expect that the material he sent me violates some Wikipedia requirements and expectations for a biography of a living, notable person. When you return from your vacation, would you please review the material at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HamiltonRoberts/sandbox and give us your feedback about this initial draft. Is an autobiographical account permissible, or does virtually every statement need to be verifiable and backed up with published documents as is the case with other articles? If the latter is the case (which will be literally impossible to provide), I will delete all of this material and the link you created in the Rodger's method article; and simply thank you (on his behalf) for the honor you intended, and (on my behalf) for all the prior, and now current, help/information you have given me. HamiltonRoberts (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Melding over vertaling: Wikimedia Highlights, December 2012

Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,

U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Wikimedia Highlights, December 2012 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, Identi.ca and project village pumps. If you have questions about the translation notifications system, you can ask them at [1]. You can manage your subscription at [2].

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

Bedankt!

Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta‎, 08:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martijn_Hoekstra/Archives/2013/January&oldid=538894972"