User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2015/February

Keelboats

I saw you closed the discussion I put up on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 20, but the template (Template:Keelboats worldwide) didn't get deleted. // Smartskaft (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smartskaft, the template first needs to be removed from all pages it is used on. I listed it at WP:TFD/H for orphaning, but I didn't swap out the TfD template yet. I'll do that now, thank you for the reminder. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. // Smartskaft (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Australian whisky page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ireland stations

Thank you for this clarification. In that light should the discussion be reopened (relisted), or is that a matter for the merged template's talk page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, whether or not to include those links would procedurally become a matter of judgement for the talk page of the resulting template itself. At this point, with people being - understandably - somewhat tired of the discussion, if I were you, I wouldn't start that discussion right now. My own guess of what consensus of such a discussion would show at this point is to include those links, based on my guess what those arguing to keep and those arguing to merge with UK station would say. It's not exact science, obviously, and an opinion to want to keep the original template but remove those nav links from it could be a completely consistent opinion to hold, but at this point where I feel a lot of irritation of many involved, the immediate reaction would be something along the lines of 'oh no, not this stuff again, I just said that I didn't want it removed', even if they didn't explicitly. I have little doubt it will lead to "drama", and more drama at this point would be a net negative for the encyclopedia in my opinion. Then again, I'm not one to tell others what to do or not to do, and my advice not to start that discussion right now is no more or less than just advice. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am the founder of the band Dynasty of Darkness, my article got deleted.

Greetings, I spent a symbolic amount of time creating an article for my worldwide famous band 'Dynasty of Darkness' Due to me being new and ignorant about the policies I posted a youtube link video which featured one of my album's Single tracks I have signed the album to a record label and perhaps it got deleted by Copyright reasons because of this, But it is my band, I would like to know if you can re-activate the article and I will delete such links and fix any detail that needs fixing.

All best,

Morbid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasty of darkness (talk • contribs) 12:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted revisions of Dynasty of Darkness, and I can't restore the content at this time. I don't have the time to give you more details right now, but I will this evening CET. I'll get back to you then. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Morbid, some more information. The deleted version of the page would have to be completely re-written to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and undeleting what is there only restores material that should be removed anyway, so wouldn't be constructive. The content was identical to the text on http://theleaders.eu/rockmetalshop/shop/dynasty-of-darkness-empire-of-pain/#sthash.M2F8KvMZ.dpuf (and I guess of what was on the youtube video description page, but I can't verify that) - which makes it a copyright violation, which is the first problem. Even if that were not an issue, the content is unsuitable as an encyclopedic article. We strongly discourage writing about subject you have a conflict of interest in, and in our guide to your first article we explicitly list "Do not create pages about yourself, your company, your band or your friends" (emphasis mine). It's a bad idea overall. If you still want to go ahead with this - and again, I advice against that - the best way to go forward is through our article wizard, but even better would be not to create it, and just leave it to others who have no involvement with the band to write an article (or not write an article) about it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

St★lwart¹¹¹ has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Thanks for you guidance here and for answering my rather inane questions. Agree that they didn't progress the discussion much (beyond prompting my opinion) and that it really is time for some closure there. Nonetheless, templates isn't my "thing" and the answers were most appreciated. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 11:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I really do enjoy a good scotch; Springbank and Talisker continually take eachothers place as my current favourite; either would be a really nice candidate to make in to a GA. I should do that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there's a few in that {{Whisky distilleries in Scotland}} template that could do with some work. We don't get enough variety here in Australia I'm afraid; its a sorry state of affairs. Keep up the great work! St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, if it needs prose like "That malt, a traditional brewing barley, gives a lower yield, but also a superior flavour. In combination with pure water, fresh air, perfect yeast and a highland peat option, Tasmanian malt forms whisky expressions that add to the state's reputation for high-quality food and drink." it can't be much. It seems that Australia doesn't have the resources - especially the peat - to do that well. Maybe it's better suited for your little brother. I was in Australia over 10 years ago, and as far as alocholic drinks go, IMO they should stick mainly with the wine. Coopers had that nice sparkling ale though, way ahead of the international appreciation for (indian) pale ales it was already their mainstray - which was a pleasant exception to the VB, Carlton and Tooheys, which I found fairly vile and the XXXX which I didn't manage to find any flavour in at all. With Cascade as the odd one out that everybody told was one of the best, but wasn't really sold anywhere. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a fantastic craft beer brewing scene here now and many of them make beers far superior to each of the "state" beers (one big-name brand from each state). Cascade is now ubiquitous and, like them, every "big" beer maker now produces a complementary brand of pear or apple cider (i's the "in" thing at the moment). A significant portion of that cider comes from the "apple isle"; Tasmania. But Tasmania produces liquor (in my view) in large part because they can't grow the varieties of grapes grown on the mainland to produce wine. They produce some (borrowing techniques from the French who also experience frost and snow) but it's not great. We remain a fairly classless lot. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That's good to hear. The (international) appreciation of good beer was way overdue. We don't have a cider/perry hype here yet, but I do believe it holds potential (I really enjoy it from time to time). Unfortunately, the market here is dominated by the sugary sweet alcoholic apple drink Jillz (I can't in good conscience call it a cider) and the also too sweet Strongbow Gold. I think there should be a real market for actually dry ciders, maybe with some aromatic herbal flavourings, maybe elder blossom, maybe even an experiment with hops. Do I happen to have any talk page stalkers who want to produce that for me? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

• News and notes: No men beyond this point: the proposal to create a no-men space on Wikipedia

• Op-ed: Is Wikipedia for sale?

• In the media: Gamergate and Muhammad controversies continue

• Traffic report: The American Heartland

• Featured content: It's raining men!

• Arbitration report: Slamming shut the GamerGate

• WikiProject report: Dicing with death – on Wikipedia?

• Technology report: Security issue fixed; VisualEditor changes

• Gallery: Langston Hughes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:GameFAQs

Hi.

Why not relist the GameFAQs TfD?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa, I usually relist when I think there is some consensus out there, but the discussion hasn't settled on that consensus yet. For this TfD I didn't think that relisting the discussion was going to find consensus. Furthermore, the discussion was very focussed on whether or not GameFAQs was a valid as an external link, which found rather sizable disagreement. I didn't believe that relisting the discussion would help in that regard, and that the discussion about having external links to GameFAQs would be furthered at TfD, which is not the appropriate venue for it. Long story short: I found there was no consensus, didn't think that relisting would help the discussion find consensus, and believed that relisting the discussion would encourage discussion over a subject TfD doesn't deal with. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Uh, I think you should definitely give it a shot this time. You see, I am seeing a certain weak argument there and I think if I publicize the discussion properly and transparently, additional participants will not pursue that weak course. Fortunately, I could be considered a neutral party, as I rarely edit video game articles for any reason beyond minor technical ones. What do say? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Codename Lisa I've been thinking of this, and I still find it likelier that re-listing has a higher chance of being a net negative than being a net positive. But when an editor in good faith requests relisting, I shouldn't stand in the way unless I'm very certain that's a bad call, so I'll relist it, in the hope that your optimism will win out over my pessimism. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Stern admonishment

Please do not fix things that are patently broken. It can only lead to trouble. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This stern admonishment leaves me feeling chastised already. Please rest assured this will have a strong positive effect of my contributions henceforth. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(watching) thanks, both, for teaching me some new words (patently chastised) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good form

I just wanted to drop by and say thank you. "Thank you" — Ched :  ?  18:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. We have to stop thinking in terms of who's to blame, or who broke the rules on Wikipedia, and think more in terms of what to do next, and how to keep moving forward. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Amen. - I just broke a rule. Report me to enforcement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hello! 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, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A Template Question

Hey I thought you might be able to help me out with a very basic template issue given your TfD about it. The archive box on my userpage refuses to show a January 2015 field... I've never had issues before and was wondering if I'm doing something very wrong... Thanks in advance! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

fixed EoRdE6. I think there might be room for some sophistication in that template. OTOH, this works too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Surprised no one else noticed in the past two months... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Relationship of the Tamils with the Chinese

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Template: The Times They Are A-Changin'

You kindly closed this one a few days ago here, but it remains in existence after it has been removed from articles. If I knew what to do, I would. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not anymore, thank you for the nudge. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk sections in arb cases

From my experience in watching cases and now participating in them, it tends to be that only arbs get to directly comment within another editor's section. The rest of us have to live with simply pinging each other from our own little regions on the talk pages :p // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that from now on. On the one hand, it feel silly, forced, and convoluted, but on the other, I understand that when people are all over each other, which they tend to be in arb cases, it's better if the stay behind their crowd-control fence, and you can't go making exceptions for one person or the other. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Heh, it took a while for me to get used to it, and yeah it still feels pretty convoluted. I understand the why of it, but it's still a PitA having to scroll back and forth all over talk pages just to try and follow what's happening. (Probably pretty amusing to anyone who'd be looking over my shoulder, though!) // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll elect to choose it's an evil scheme of the arbs/clerks cabal in a ploy to catch editors who are not in the know unawares, and, eh, ban them. Or somethin. And then laugh a-la Dr Evil. Can't say I blame them either. They have to arb all the time. Let them laugh a little too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Martijn, I was attracted by your great edit summary! I learned the hard way about arbitration, for example I thought "motion" meant to set something in motion, and evidence meant that something is evident ;) - It is evident that a fair discussion lead to this today (remember we talked about compromise?), a reason to sing of joy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Advise, please

Since you left welcome message on my page, I decided to ask you for advice. I left a comment on Magnum Crimen RfC and, after, I tried to counter a blatant vandalism practiced daily by Timbouctou. I applied all recommended by Wikipedia remedies, nothing works: my comments (on the article talk page) were answered by irrational refusals, my incident report remained un-handled and moved by some bot to the incidents archive.

What shall be done to exit this impasse?--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I need to read up on this to say anything useful, I'll get back to you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Ridomi Sorry for taking so long. The best thing to do is take the matter of copyright infringement to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. As for the disputes over the content, general advice to deal with disputes is to take it slow, realize there is no deadline, and make small changes at a time, so you can find consensus on smaller issues rather than having to find consensus on a whole big thing at the same time, which is more difficult. If you can't work things out with your colleagues, and when things become politicized, things can get heated pretty fast, which makes it difficult to discuss, there is the option to bring the issue to the administrators noticeboard for incidents, and hope to find somebody who can help you out. The whole subject area of eastern Europe is under discretionary sanctions, and admins have a lot of leeway to stop disruption, if blunt force is the only option left. It's not something I want to wade in to personally, so providing you with directions rather than direct help is the best I am willing to do for you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Quotation TfD close

I think that we trust you to be sufficiently impartial, if you wanna give it another shot. TfD closers are hard to come by; and I'm not confident with closing this one, either. Alakzi (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to sleep on it. TfD closers are, unfortunately, hard to come by, but involved closes are rather bad, and I'm involved up to my neck in this one. Maybe my initial botched close will attract a closer. If it isn't closed by next week, I'll reconsider closing it as an IAR action, but I can't say for sure if come Monday I still find it acceptable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree; something needs to be done to unjam the backlog. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tricky. As a general rule, if a discussion makes me feel frustrated, and some do, I'm not closing it. Determining consensus and emotion don't mix well. The greater issue is that currently I'm the almost the only admin closing these things. The non-admin closes help, but it isn't sufficient; we need at least two admins regularly closing. Having a single Wikipedian effectively running a process on their own leaves the process vulnerable to mistakes in interpretation and bias, now with me, and previously with PlastikSpork. I've been giving nudges here and there, but it hasn't been effective. If I start closing more, even if I am involved, it may help the immediate problem, but it won't help the real issue, and may even undermine it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Martijn, I have no dog in this hunt, and my only concern is an admittedly selfish one: keeping the best available admin for other pending TfD closures (i.e. you). My free advice is that an involved admin close is likely to cause problems for you. Call in a favor, and ask one of your admin friends to close it for you. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and the confidence. I'll need some more time to think about it. I'm confident that my original close of which the bits got lost in the Great Aether was sufficiently impartial to stand, but going back on saying I won't close it is further removed from standard process and good practices. I'm currently not convinced that I have a sufficient case to IAR for the time being, but I might come back on that if there is no progress for even longer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Archive list close

I don't have the required permissions to remove the TfD banners from the two templates, so if you could please do that. Alakzi (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, will do, thanks for closing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Archives

The instance of {{Archives}} has reverted to showing only 48 pages (I have 58). Any idea why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is because {{Archive list long}} is limited to 48 counters. This template is called by {{Archive}} and produces the list shown on your talk page. De728631 (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@De728631: Thank you, but no; this was recently fixed (by Martijn), hence my use of "reverted to". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The change was reverted due to a bug in my parameter handling for the root parameter. The fix for that bug is ready, but I figured I'd wait until the TfD on the merger of Archive list long and Archive list finished, and merge and fix it in one go. Typing that out now makes me feel really silly, because I have the feeling that it won't be closed for a long time, so I'd better just restore the fixed version - probably tonight CET. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems to have done the trick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Martijn Hoekstra sock 1

Self-explanatory. —George8211 / T 17:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I just created that on test, same as sock 2. No reason for concern. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! —George8211 / T 17:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox styles

Please could I trouble you take a look at:

• Template talk:Infobox organization/Archive 1#Recent style change
• Template talk:Infobox company#Styling changes

I don't think we need each infobox to be styled separately, when we can style the underlying master template, but making the necessary changes in a Lua template is beyond me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I can't promise you it'll be today or tomorrow. I don't know how it works, but for some reason I have a limited amount of energy for each part of Wikipedia/MediaWiki, and my coding energy has been exhausted for the day (I just finished the first round for the modifications for Twinkles TfD/M capabilities, I don't know when they'll be deployed). I know it sounds silly, I think it's silly as well, but it's true nonetheless. I agree with you that having a unified underlying style is probably better than having separate styling per template. Consistency is an important element of user interfaces. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean; I try to vary my work on different (parts of the) projects, too. No rush. BTW, I asked User:Alakzi, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Head of the Herd

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Blues guitar

Regarding your close at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Blues guitar playing, could you please restore the blues guitar playing page to my userspace or to Draft: space? I remember the article in the history being a mess but potentially salvageable, and I would like to have a look at it again. Thanks for your help. I don't think there was anything useful in the other redirects but maybe let me know if I'm wrong. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, absolutely. I'm on my phone now, but I'll userfy as soon as I'm on a device where I'm moderately less likely to fat finger deleting the main page. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector I restored to User:Ivanvector/Blues_guitar_playing. The most substantial content Blues guitar ever had was a dab to the playing article and to slide guitar, and is not much use, Blues guitarist always was a redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look. Ivanvector (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you please fix a red link

Hello Martijn Hoekstra, I cannot, despite repeated attempts, fix the red link called "discussion" on the move review notice at the top of War in Afghanistan (2001–14) page. Could you please help Mbcap (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Done and fixed the documentation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

• News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm

• Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot

• Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong.

• Gallery: Far from home

• Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?

• Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired

• WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight

• Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:COMPNOW

Hi.

I saw your edit #648469285 in StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void article. Do you think it is safe to add a note in this regard to MOS:COMPNOW?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to it, other than that it introduces instruction creep. But my general sentiment towards MOS is to ignore it (it seems I usually follow it by accident, and if others fix something I did violating MOS, I rarely disagree with it. I fear to admit my stance towards WP:MOSDASH for example is to always use a hyphen, and let someone who has strong feelings about the subject fix it). But I guess an additional example won't really hurt, even with regard to instruction creep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)