User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2008/April
 | 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. |
Your RfA
Congratulations, I'm pleased to let you know that I've closed your RfA as successful, and you're now an administrator! May I suggest you visit the Wikipedia:New admin school to get a few ideas on the best way to start using your shiny new buttons? If in doubt, feel free to give me a shout! Well done and all the best! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats from me :D --The Helpful One (Review) 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations Martijn! Oh look, your mop and bucket are here already. Use them wisely and don't let them enslave you! :-) Festive regards, Húsönd 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats! (now to the checkpage!) Martinp23 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well done! Great job indeed! Rudget. 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- First indef block already? You were just itchin' weren't you?! All the best with the mop. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- That user has been bugging me for ages. It was time for the Rouge Banhammer 'o Doom for that one.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- First indef block already? You were just itchin' weren't you?! All the best with the mop. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well done! Great job indeed! Rudget. 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah shucks, I wanted to get here before it closed to play an April Fool's Day joke on you and tell you it was unsuccessful. Dammit. Congrats MH. You deserved it! Now wipe the silly grin off your face and get to work. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Martijn, I couldn't be happier that your RfA has passed, especially given its rocky start. I believe that your adoption is more or less complete, but I'm always happy to answer questions (er, provided I'm not on an extended break and totally ignore my talk page like I've done the past couple of months). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm rather pleased with how the RfA formed after the initial bumps, especially with Dorftrottel eventually giving me his last minute support. On the adoptee userbox, I still see no point in removing the userbox from my userpage, but you could always remove yours if it gets too cluttered. In case I would want to adopt another user, I might pull a IAR. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll probably swap it out with a different one once I come back from retirement. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll do the gentlemanly thing, which I haven't always done, and congratulate you. Good luck; I'm sure you'll do fine. Biruitorul (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Completely forgot. Congratulations Martijn. Enjoy the tools while they're still fresh. Snowolf How can I help? 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Awarding Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Simple username usurption
Given the current bug associated with SUL usurption and the fact there was no account to acually usurp with, your request for usurption can not be dealt with. The fact that the username was an imposter account used for vandalism though did give reason to rename the account in question. This in itself may solve the problem as there currently is no account with your name on SE:wp, so you may want to try to log in and see if SUL works with this situation. Creol (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (talk (simple))
- Thanks for the feedback. kust one more imposter on ga.wiki, and my UL is complete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you please expand your rationale for the closure, the issue of WP:SYNTH wasn't addressed by people voting Keep in the discussion. Additionally the Afro-Australian POVFORK which is a copyright violation(created as a copy paste of African Australian) had consensus for deletion. Gnangarra 17:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded my rationale. If you believe the closure is not correct, it can be reviewed at WP:DRV. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have asked for a deletion review of African Australian. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gnangarra 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Can you check my request to use NP Watcher - itll make my life easier patrolling the new pages. Thanbks Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have a look. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Antandrus beat me to it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
dude
wat the f did u erase me for
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattrick9727 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Hattrick. I suppose you are referring to the articles Tyler Sorenson and Sport Court which I deleted. I deleted those, because they did not assert the notability of the subject (the criterion can be found at here), which make them fail our criteria for inclusion. I did a quick Google search here], and found no indication of notability there either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
I am very sorry for what I said on your page before.Oxymoron83 told me to ask you because I asked him if you could please take away my warning.This was my first time on wikipedia and I had no clue you could get warnings, I will never write or edit your work ever again. Regards FederationKOSOVO —Preceding unsigned comment added by FederationKOSOVO (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, we all have to learn! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So, Martin please, please could you take my warning off, it would be hugely appreciated, I would be so grateful,so PLEASE take my warning away! Thank You & Please FederaionKOSOVO —Preceding unsigned comment added by FederationKOSOVO (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are free to take it off yourself, but do realise, further vandalism will not be tollerated. I'm looking forward to working constructively with you in the future! Martijn Hoekstra (talk)
erm, Martijn one last thing please tell me how to get a warning off. I don't know how!
- Just edit you talkpage! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The Sources
I understand the reasons why my page was deleted, but just one thing, how can you get these sources that a web site needs to have an article on Wikipedia? You don't have to answer, I am just asking to see if I can get my article running, but it's totally up to you. --Bartman12 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Usually by a solid web search. In case of websites, you usually get a lot of irrelevant hits that are not reliable sources, for example, web forums. Specialist magazines that have reviews may be another good source, as may be some books. The latter can be searched to some extent with google books. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I just did a Google web search on DrawingNow.com, and 3 pages of the first 5 results were reviews. Would they be good starts?--Bartman12 (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- reviews by independent reliable sources are certainly a good start! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Error/Help on NP Watcher
I got the rights and all that and I downloaded the software. But when I try to install it it comes up with
The application failed to initialize properly (0xc0000135). Click on OK to terminate the application
can you help out? Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- er, no. Not a clue, actually. The only thing I could suggest is getting visual studio, and running it through the debugger to see what's wrong. Do take a look at the NPW page though, there is a link for bugreports. Best file it there, and be sure to include the exact version of windows and the .net framework you are using. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Guernsey Live
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guernsey Live. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dead6re (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thank you
thank you for moving the Ladytron template i was creating
I've not really done that much here but am eager to contribute (as I use as a resource so much) and really appreciate your help, so once again - THANX! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazarusheart (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Monoculture (computer science)
Can you undo the speedy delete (and it did happen rather speedily)? If you follow the link from the bot you will note that it is a mirror page of the WP page where I split the article from. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 10:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm taking a look. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Daan Spencer Project
Why was my article deleted ?
- The article you created did not meet Wikipedias criteria for inclusion, and was deleted per deletion criterion WP:A7. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
See my comment here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- thanks, I took note of it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
RfA closings
Hey there Martijn! I hope you're well! I was just perusing some old deletion debates, and noticed a couple of quibbly things in a couple of your closings. You probably know these things already, but I figured I'd pester you anyway :-). When you close a discussion as delete, as you did here, be sure to also delete the talkpage of the article as G8:Talkpage of a deleted page. I've done this one, so this is for future reference. Also, when relisting a debate, as you did here, you need to do two steps after adding the relist template to the debate. First, you need to add it to the current day's log, which you did, but you also need to remove it from the older day's log, as I did here. Doing so helps mathbot update the counts so that the old debates can be moved to archives. Again, I'm sure you know this stuff, just in case though. If none of this makes sense, be sure to let me know if you have any questions! Also, a really useful guide that I use is located at this shortcut: WP:DELPRO#AFD. Cheers, my friend! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Keeper, thanks for the notes. I actually did the relists on purpose, I often find that after relisting, a discussion will often quickly reach a consensus, after which it can be quickly found at afd/old. I was quite surprised to see it should be removed there, but I'll conform to the standard for now, and see if there is any previous discussion about it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've wondered about that myself. The reason it needs to be removed from the "old" list is because relisting it technically is giving the discussion 5 more days of discussion. I've often seen an article "relisted" to the current day's page and gather some quick !votes. The problem with keeping it in the "old" log is that the log can't be archived until all debates are closed. A relisted debate shouldn't be closed right after a relist and a couple quickvotes, as that can be perceived as !vote stacking in some circles. I'm not aware of any previous discussion about leaving it in the older dates log, but if you find one let me know? I'm pretty sure you'll find strong consensus to not have a debate listed in two different logs (probably for archiving purposes). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, I'm not really sure, but archiving technically shouldn't be a problem, since the discussion itself is closed, and where it is transcluded is not really an issue there. The extra 5 days is a different question though, and I'll look for discussion on that. I would not be opposed to a few "quickvotes" to close it, but I could imagine some people would, and that keeping an article for 5 days longer isn't really much of a big deal anyway, so why not keep it listed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've wondered about that myself. The reason it needs to be removed from the "old" list is because relisting it technically is giving the discussion 5 more days of discussion. I've often seen an article "relisted" to the current day's page and gather some quick !votes. The problem with keeping it in the "old" log is that the log can't be archived until all debates are closed. A relisted debate shouldn't be closed right after a relist and a couple quickvotes, as that can be perceived as !vote stacking in some circles. I'm not aware of any previous discussion about leaving it in the older dates log, but if you find one let me know? I'm pretty sure you'll find strong consensus to not have a debate listed in two different logs (probably for archiving purposes). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yhhy
For some reason I can't remember pressing the save button, anyway sorry about that, I was testing Arabic script. I can remember putting 'وقد' in then going to the address bar and then changed 'en' to 'ar'. I'll be more careful next time, and I'll do that in my sandbox! Thanks and sorry. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. I really should have reviewed the uw-test2 template before I placed it, it was a little too stern in my opinion. Try to keep track of those page you create though! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page.
I have replied to your message on my talk page. Have a great day! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the notability tag. He qualifies under reasons 1, 4 and 5. He is notable although the pro-nukes (such as the NEI) try to discredit his work. He has been quoted in the Guardian, the Times, Business week (all reliable sources). Bear with me, I have some more work to do on the article. This is why I have marked it as a stub. Kgrr (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, starting to look good! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of OHH MAY RIPP
A tag has been placed on OHH MAY RIPP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Booglamay (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)