User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2012/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Martijn Hoekstra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 02 January 2012
- Interview: The Gardner interview
- News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III
- Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future
- Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators
I don't know why did you delete the article. If you think that there are Copyright issues, then you can delete the issues and use the talk page to explain the reason resp. to say who is the owner of the rights.
I published the article again and hope your help to write it. Thanks in advance. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Keysanger, If we use the original work as a base that we later expand, anything that we build from it will be a derivative work. There are two problems with that: the first is that the licence under which it was released, CC-BY-SA-ND specifically disallows that (the ND portion stands for 'no derivatives'). The second is that as a derivative work, the original copyright still holds. That means that the content on that article, whatever it grows in to, is still under CC-BY-SA-ND, which is not compatible with the licence we use (CC-BY). We'll be saying 'you can use this for commercial means', but the original licence disallows that (SA), and we say you can remix or change this if you want ('ND') which the original licence also disallows. I need to pop out for now, so I don't have the time to review if those problems are taken care of, but from what I understand from your message here, you didn't realize that these problems exist, so it sounds unlikely.
- The thing you should be doing, is write all the material yourself, with the knowledge you gor from that article. The best thing is probably to let another admin delete it (pop a {{db-G12}} on it), and write again from scratch, so that it's not a derivative work, and avoids any indication that it could be. Merry Christmas, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Martin, I see you have trouble to realize what you did.
- I copy (less or more) a work published under some kind of CC to WP. This CC is incompatible with the WP requierements.
- You correctly deleted the whole article. I apologize for my mistake and thank you for your work for WP.
- I wrote a completly new article without any reference to the protected work. I repeat the second article has in the form nothing to do with the protected article. The content of the article is taken from many other sources about Charles Whiting Wooster. This Information or content belongs to the world cultural heritage and is not protected.
- You deleted the second article because "it is derivative from the protected work". It is not, except the information, that I can take from any other source.
- I asked you to restore the article, show the issues and to improve the article.
- You insist that the second article is a copy or derivative from the protected work. Please, demostrate your accusation, show me what places are unlawful derivatives.
- Please, take into account the the new article states:
- Charles Whiting Wooster, was a Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean navy. He was born in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1780, being the grandson of General David Wooster.
- The protected work states that
- First and foremost comes Charles Whiting Wooster, Rear-Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean navy. He was born in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1780, being the grandson of General David Wooster,...
- Do you think it is a derivative work?. If you answer is yes, then you will have a lot of work in WP ....
- I wish you Merry Christmas, --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Keysanger, I'm sorry I get back at you this late, I had some extended away time this holiday season. The article as it stands now is obviously very short, but in no way troubled by copyright. If you'd like some more details on the reasons the second version was still problematic, complete paragraphs were still identical to the first version (I can dig up which if you want to). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Martin, I see you have trouble to realize what you did.
DYK for Preferred walking speed
 | On 6 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Preferred walking speed, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that people's preferred walking speed is correlated with their country's per capita GDP and purchasing power parity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Preferred walking speed. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
?
Why did you delete darsmank, it is a real word, used in slang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.67.219 (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Re.
Do you really have nothing better to do. Just leave it up there. All of my mates use it so i think it is a suitable word for wikipedea to have. There is no virus' linked to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfield1994 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi James, I see that you are blocked at the moment, so I'm not sure if you still care if I'll respond, or even read it. I understand what you are saying: that having the article is harmless. We do have some specific guidelines about what is and what isn't fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Generally, this doesn't include slang. If some form of slang itself has been the subject of independent reliable sources, we do usually want to have an article about it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 January 2012
- Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold
- News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang
- WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz
- Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3
nice
you are nice persnForums44 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Arguments to delete or keep an article have little to do with being nice though, but more on the how people believe wikipedia should work with content, what should be kept, and what shouldn't. That also goes for those who prefer to delete an article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Merge of unreferenced text
Hi Martijn. Query -- you closed an AfD as a merge, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolej Tun Razak. The article to be merged is bereft of any RS-supported (or EL-supported) text, which is evident from the article itself (Kolej Tun Razak) and was mentioned at the AfD. I recognize that 2 of 3 participants in the discussion called for a merge, but wonder whether -- given our core verifiability policy, the absence of refs, and the fact that the text was challenged and no inline citations were supplied -- a merge is appropriate (as distinct from a redirect). Many thanks for your thoughts. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't been looking for sources myself yet. Might there be some WP:SELFPUB sources that would work here if independent sources can't be found? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- If such sources were to exist, I would think that the best thing to do would be to create the related text and reflect the sources as refs in the target article. But -- per our verifiability policy -- I would think it would be the better course at this point to redirect the article, rather than close with a merge that suggests the creation in the target article of text that is (as of now) unreferenced and challenged. Does that make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- On the one hand, it does make sense. On the other, do you really doubt if what is written there is true? Do you have any indication to think it wouldn't be? Yes, it should be referenced, but challenged? really? What about redirecting, preserving the article text beneath the redirect directive? Then those wishing to merge can still merge if they want. We could also let it sit for a few days, and see what merge plans our merge !voters come up with. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I accept our verifiability policy as a core policy, and virtually never add text without a ref. So yes, I challenge text that is not referenced here -- for all the reasons that underlie our verifiability policy. Discussion at the merge page, as well, deprecates the merging of such text as a general matter. I don't have the same strong feelings as to a redirect -- while some might argue it adds little value, a redirect does little harm, and does not import by itself unverified challenged text into an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- On the one hand, it does make sense. On the other, do you really doubt if what is written there is true? Do you have any indication to think it wouldn't be? Yes, it should be referenced, but challenged? really? What about redirecting, preserving the article text beneath the redirect directive? Then those wishing to merge can still merge if they want. We could also let it sit for a few days, and see what merge plans our merge !voters come up with. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- If such sources were to exist, I would think that the best thing to do would be to create the related text and reflect the sources as refs in the target article. But -- per our verifiability policy -- I would think it would be the better course at this point to redirect the article, rather than close with a merge that suggests the creation in the target article of text that is (as of now) unreferenced and challenged. Does that make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18
- Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?
- News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer
- Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near
Thanks for this troll, what is it impossible you oneself in my style? I learn and am not the perfectionist. Show mistakes to a proof. Anso os (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Anso, I'm not really understanding what you are trying to say here. Could you explain a little? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for this sentence: "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (January 2012)" Troll alias gnome means you do nothing understand this article at all. Anso os (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you're getting at. There seemed to be a pretty large backlog at our new pages, so for now, I went trough it rather quickly, only taking the time to tag it, so that maybe someone else would come along and pick it up at some other time (or maybe even myself). I was actually planning on doing some assorted copyediting on CAT:COPYEDIT in a moment, when the worst of the backlog is cleared (though there is *always* a backlog on new page patrol, but that's a different matter). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see now, thanks at all for info. I understand what in a problem. Anso os (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you're getting at. There seemed to be a pretty large backlog at our new pages, so for now, I went trough it rather quickly, only taking the time to tag it, so that maybe someone else would come along and pick it up at some other time (or maybe even myself). I was actually planning on doing some assorted copyediting on CAT:COPYEDIT in a moment, when the worst of the backlog is cleared (though there is *always* a backlog on new page patrol, but that's a different matter). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for this sentence: "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (January 2012)" Troll alias gnome means you do nothing understand this article at all. Anso os (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Čedomir Mirković and Dobrica Erić
Hello Mr. Hoekstra,
Please bare with me for the articles I recently created of Čedomir Mirković and Dobrica Erić. They are very notable and I will add the sources to document this.
Thank you for your concern of placing the notability question.
All the best,
Tempo21 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I suspected something of the sort, which is why I just went with a notability template rather then any deletion procedure. It'd be nice though if you could indicate at least some importance quickly. Also, I don't quite understand what the reference you placed below it is refering to. Would it be possible to clarify those a bit on the articles? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: new user warning test results available
Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:
- We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
- Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.
Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
|
A cupcake for you my love :) <3 Rastamouse94 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Linkwood (whisky distillery), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Elgin and 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) 11:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 January 2012
- News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership
- WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto
- Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications
- Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Fettercairn (whisky distillery), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sir John Gladstone (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) 11:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19