User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2013/October
 | 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. |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you, I hope it goes well, though I already have my doubts. The instructions for the survey seem a bit off to me. I can't believe I hadn't spotted that earlier myself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think you made good points in your !vote, but I dont agree with all of them - we gave during the last move many examples of ppl or things which have changed names but commonname didn't, so we didn't rename. THe royals are a rare exception, but arent given their title to avoid harming them, but rather to satisfy the fan-boys. What i dont, and can't, agree with, is the absolutism described by the hard-core Chelsea side, which would have us rename trans* articles as soon as the new name was issued - even though we don't do this for most others. I think we need some sense of sources coming along, otherwise it's anti-reader. As for the instructions, they were added at the last minute, I'm not sure I agree with 'brief' either - and I think small inline queries are ok - but for one like this with a large # of responses dividing support/oppose makes sense I think. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The difficulty with the trans issue, is that using the old name does cause significant harm - much more than that you'd maybe initially think, and not only to the subject but also to other trans individuals - and is therefor quite unique for as far as article titles go. In the hypothetical case we would be the only, or almost the only source using the new name, the discussion would be more difficult. We shouldn't confuse the hell out of our readers, and at that point there is a conflict between two goals; on the one hand to firstly do no harm, and on the other to inform our readers in a clear manner. I wouldn't mind going in to that a little deeper, but that situation is not the situation at hand, so I prefer not to dwell on it too long until the situation actually arises. In this case that argument is void: it can be argued that Chelsea is not the most common name, but it clearly is common enough not to cause mass confusion. The choice of not doing harm then becomes far easier. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alexis Reich is one example; User:Obiwankenobi/Wolfgang_Schmidt_(serial_killer) was another but was deleted for some reason, I'm working on sources to restore.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think we're not understanding each other. I for one don't know how Reich ended up here. Could you explain what you think my point was, so I can see where I failed to bring across what I was trying to say? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- You had said "so I prefer not to dwell on it too long until the situation actually arises." - I was just pointing you to situations where this does arise, and where the vast majority of reliable sources use the "old" name (as is the case for Reich and Schmidt, as far as I can tell). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean now. I haven't really looked in to the history of the Reich move/situation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- You had said "so I prefer not to dwell on it too long until the situation actually arises." - I was just pointing you to situations where this does arise, and where the vast majority of reliable sources use the "old" name (as is the case for Reich and Schmidt, as far as I can tell). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think we're not understanding each other. I for one don't know how Reich ended up here. Could you explain what you think my point was, so I can see where I failed to bring across what I was trying to say? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alexis Reich is one example; User:Obiwankenobi/Wolfgang_Schmidt_(serial_killer) was another but was deleted for some reason, I'm working on sources to restore.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The difficulty with the trans issue, is that using the old name does cause significant harm - much more than that you'd maybe initially think, and not only to the subject but also to other trans individuals - and is therefor quite unique for as far as article titles go. In the hypothetical case we would be the only, or almost the only source using the new name, the discussion would be more difficult. We shouldn't confuse the hell out of our readers, and at that point there is a conflict between two goals; on the one hand to firstly do no harm, and on the other to inform our readers in a clear manner. I wouldn't mind going in to that a little deeper, but that situation is not the situation at hand, so I prefer not to dwell on it too long until the situation actually arises. In this case that argument is void: it can be argued that Chelsea is not the most common name, but it clearly is common enough not to cause mass confusion. The choice of not doing harm then becomes far easier. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think you made good points in your !vote, but I dont agree with all of them - we gave during the last move many examples of ppl or things which have changed names but commonname didn't, so we didn't rename. THe royals are a rare exception, but arent given their title to avoid harming them, but rather to satisfy the fan-boys. What i dont, and can't, agree with, is the absolutism described by the hard-core Chelsea side, which would have us rename trans* articles as soon as the new name was issued - even though we don't do this for most others. I think we need some sense of sources coming along, otherwise it's anti-reader. As for the instructions, they were added at the last minute, I'm not sure I agree with 'brief' either - and I think small inline queries are ok - but for one like this with a large # of responses dividing support/oppose makes sense I think. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad to see you are still here
Hi Martijn. Hope you are well. You posted the welcome message on my user page 5 years ago. I haven't done that much, time, time, time ... Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Manning RFC
Martin,
I saw your comment on my talk page. This in particular caught my eye (emphasis is mine, not yours ):
I would also appreciate it if you could refactor the statement that Manning is a guy to that it is your opinion she is a guy.
Gender issues are rather complicated, and there is no scientific consensus about when someone has a new gender.
With all due respect, there's nothing wrong with that statement, Manning is legally a guy, and we have that from reliable sources, not a gal, making such a change would erode my vote. Bottom line, I stand by what I said, Bradley Manning is legally Bradley Manning, that's what we need to call him per V and BLP. He's not legally a woman, nor is he notable as the woman he says he wants to become, so no, this isn't about his gender, it's about what name he's known as (reliably, legally and notably). I'm not trying to be a dick, nor am I trolling, nor attacking , nor flaming, so there should be no problems with my opposing this move. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 14:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Kosh, I'm fine with you arguing she is legally male, or to some extent even biologically male, whatever that may mean (having a y chromosome? having less than two x chromosomes? having a penis? having testes?) but I have no idea how that relates to what the article name should be. I have no idea why you think bringing it up is a good idea at all, as you probably know how inflammatory the whole issue is, and how inconsequential legal sex is to article names. Also note the difference between "a guy" and "male". I don't think anybody is legally "a guy", which has a much larger component of gender identity than "male". I would appreciate it if you could consider the harm you are doing to trans-gender individuals who you are effectively telling when they are or aren't "a guy", both within and out of our editor population. Lastly, I'm not saying you're trolling, or attacking, or flaming, or trying to be a dick. Neither do I have severe problems with you opposing the move. But apart from causing offense, this is definitely flame-bait, even if it is not intended as such. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Legally male = guy (not that you didn't know that :) ) Anyrate,I used the term "guy" as a collequial term. I'm assuming Dutch may be your first language, based on your name, so ,yes, "guy" means the same thing as "male". Second, this doesn't harm the trans community in any way. Manning's a trans, he's a male. He's a trans (concievably) when he begins transitioning from a male to a female. This hasen't happened yet, nor will it while he's in prison, as the Army will not accomodate him, so for the moment, he's male, not a trans, and yes, it's appropriate to mention this in any move request as it goes back to what is reliable and verifiable about him.
Dank u wel KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed! guy is generally used colloquially, and not as the legal sex, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Colloquial words used for genders rarely has anything to do with legal sex, and all the more with (perceived) gender. In that way, it has much more to do with gender identity than something like "legal sex" does, and therefore is far more likely to cause offense. You are mistaken in the regard that it doesn't harm the trans community. The (perceived) statement that a transgendered female is really a male can be taken directly as a denial of the gender identity, and does indeed cause distress to the point of harm. As far as gender change goes, a change hasn't started, no. It is fairly broadly agreed upon that gender dysphoria is decided as early as birth. In that way, Mannings gender has always been female, even though his legal sex and outwards appearance have been male. From your comments I gather you believe that a transgender is someone who dresses/acts as the other sex, possibly with added hormonal treatment or surgery. If that's the case, it might be interesting to read our article on Gender identity. It might also explain why some take such offense to your comments. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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) 00:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 October 2013
- Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more
- News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities
- Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war
- WikiProject report: U2 Too
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. 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, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 October 2013
- Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans
- WikiProject report: Australian Roads
- Featured content: Under the sea
- News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
- In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus. 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) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013
You can create and edit multi-level lists in VisualEditor. The first two icons let you set or remove list formatting.
The last two are used to increase or decrease the indentation level. This can also be done from the keyboard, by using Tab ↹ to indent the list and ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹ to outdent it.
For more information, read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide.
VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".
The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).
There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).
Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.
For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment
As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 October 2013
- News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
- Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri
- WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology
- Featured content: That's a lot of pictures
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes
- Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review. 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) 00:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Darío Fernández Jaén
Records show that you were the admin that deleted A3 Darío Fernández Jaén. Can I see that article to decide whether to continue editing it? Crtew (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- It consists of three links (of which one to google translate). I'll restore it at User:Crtew/Darío Fernández Jaén, but there is much you can use. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll start to edit on this.Crtew (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. 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, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 October 2013
- News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community
- Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish
- Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia
- Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
- In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Elements of the world
Nudge
You responded at the Teahouse to an editor's question about images - have a look at their talk page and deleted contributions and you'll see what the problem is. I've written them a long message about copyvio but maybe you can think of a way to get through to them? Feel free to e-mail me if you want me to be less cryptic. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nudge. I think they meant the library image of commons that they re-uploaded locally. In that case the image is free and can be used on their user page, but I might be overlooking something. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. 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) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)