This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
DRV
Prior to going to DRV, I wanted to ask why have you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Barnett as keep? Those arguing to keep it there all basically argued that "candidates for US President should be automatically notable." While that's a perfectly valid opinion, it's one which has absolutely no basis in policy. In fact the relevant policy, WP:POLITICIAN says: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." None of the keep votes have argued that he has received that significant coverage and thus are surely at least borderline WP:ILIKEIT? Valenciano (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Valenciano, whichever way I spin it, when I look at the AfD, there is - apart from the nomination - not one person who wants to delete the article. Merging and redirection like you suggested are both forms of keeping (that is, not deleting - see also the essay I recently wrote about it: User:Martijn_Hoekstra/what_is_AfD). Once we keep it, we can always still redirect it, merge it, or do whatever we want with it, but as far as deletion goes, the outcome is clearly keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Martijn, reading that essay, you almost seem to take an either/or approach to closing AFDs that is at odds with what Wikipedia:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed says: "After seven days, an uninvolved admin will assess the discussion for consensus to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article." I disagree with you on this, AFDs are not simply a case of either delete or keep (and we'll decide a bit later what to do with it.) In this case more people argued, based on policy, that the article should be redirected, including the original nominator. Those arguing to keep cited arguments which are not only not policy, they are specifically contradicted by existing policy. Valenciano (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It's quite a new essay, and probably needs some work (I wrote it in one go two days ago). If there is nobody in support of deletion on a debate, and there is no separate consensus on how to keep (merging is a form of keeping after all), I think keep is the only reasonable outcome, which is my close here. However, I am always very open to any review. We all make mistakes in what we do, and someimes make mistakes in our reasoning too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
You made your close in good faith and I've no problem with that, I just disagree with your interpretation there and will therefore be going to DRV to seek third opinions. I'm filling in the DRV now so can you consider this as the formal notification? Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It's posted. Is there a chance you could do me a favour and notify the last 4 participants in the AFD? My internet has slowed to a crawl today and it's taken me over 6 minutes just to post to 2 pages. Valenciano (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
After reading that discussion, I think my opinion is shared by a majority of the people who commented there, but it is very possible that the quickly written down essay doesn't properly reflect it. It was probably a bad idea to quote my own essay only days after I first wrote it, these things need some time to settle in. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reading up. My reading is that your essay collapses merge and redirect into keep and is most like suggested option 2 (large amount of extra weight against deletion). Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My reading of the discussion there is that in the situation where the opinions are roughly split between delete and merge, with a slight preference to delete, should merge hold more weight per WP:RETAIN? That RfC answers the question with no, they should have equal weight. I don't think it deals well with situations with roughly 1/3 delete, roughly 1/3 keep and roughly 1/3 merge. That is the sort of discussion that is a little problematic; I can say for sure that the outcome is not, and should never be delete. Opting for a keep close allows the community the most flexibility in what to do with the kept content. I could imagine a close of no consensus, but the problem with a no-consensus close there is that it implies that there is no consensus on deletion, and encourages a relatively speedy renomination while there clearly is nothing close to a consensus to delete. Apart from that there are the problems of argument weight and seriousness, policy base, etc. etc. to be considered. My first rendition of the essay might not have reflected that well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Regarding your 3-way split hypothetical, I agree that there is no consensus to delete. The problem with a simple keep is that it will be mistaken for "keep as is" or "keep separate", when there is no consensus for them either. A possible compromise is "redirect, history available for merging", which satisfies both keep history (keep + merge) and no separate article (delete + merge). Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable solution. We should be on our guard for wikilawyering and giving too much power to administrators, or rather, the word administrators use as the 'primary close'. AfD, as I have tried to stress in my essay, is essentially a deletion discussion. Almost all deletion discussions are a local consensus, and we as administrators do the best we can to determine global consensus based on the opinions expressed on the AfD. Which word is actually used for the close (keep, merge) should not overrule a possible broader merge discussion: a keep close shouldn't preclude a merge discussion. We can and should assume that editors will come to a consensus together, and an administrators reading of a discussion on an AfD should never overrule that. However, this does again stress the importance on writing out a close rationale, something I haven't always done recently. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I never noticed my admin anniversary is april 1st. I actually went back to the RfA and checked the history to see if you weren't playing aprils fool on me ;) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
salad
Puffin has given you a salad! Salads promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the goodness of salads by tossing one for someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the goodness of salad by adding {{subst:Givesalad}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dub FX. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Thank you! BigSteve (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, i see that you have changed the article on English Coonhounds to American English Coonhounds. This is not correct. you offer the AKC classification and its position as the largest kennel club in the US as the reason for your edit but it is actually the UKC which is the primary kennel club for coonhounds and other hunting breeds in America. English coonhounds do not even enjoy full recognition by the AKC, they cannot be shown or competed within that kennel club. No one in the America uses the name "American English Coonhound," i have never in 30 years of participation in the coondog arena heard anyone say that. All competition for this breed goes through the UKC, which classifies the animal as the English Coonhound, and has done so from way before the AKC even had these dogs on the radar. I did not revert your changes, i thought to explain the situation to you first. i thought your distance from coonhounds and coonhound culture might have caused the misunderstanding. regards
after writing this to you i saw that the AKC did finally fully recognize the breed a year ago. but that belies the fact that the VAST majority (i'll get numbers tomorrow) of these dogs are registered with the UKC rather than the AKC. They have been called English Coonhounds for many decades before the AKC made up their own name for the breed. I don't care about the AKC or UKC one way or the other but it detracts form the accuracy and applicability of the article to use a One year old title rather than a 50 year old massively more dominant title for the breed. the AKC may be the largest club in america but it is NOT the largest club for these particular dogs.
Hey Blockader, I personally have no knowledge on the issue, but moved it as asserted non-controversial. Your comments here indicate it isn't non-controversial. The move process explains how to handle a possibly controversial move. It's best to follow this procedure. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Please restore Dub FX, an AfD article you recently closed as a soft delete. I was unaware of the original AfD, but I've now watchlisted the article and will participate if it is returned to AfD. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
So this is my second attempt to help my friend Greg get an article posted to wiki; we've modeled things after other designers like Milton Glaser. What needs to be removed to make it pass the criteria of NOT getting deleted under G11 and G12? We've stripped down the bio to a simple outline of his career. Should we remove the awards section? The external links are there to cover his work as it's been featured on other sites than his. G12 refers to copyright infringement. What is his infringement? The bio content is from Greg. His photo is one that I shot and posted to Commons. Press coverage is cited with links to the original published link. I'd love feedback, because questions to two other admins have gone unanswered, making this whole process utterly frustrating and discouraging. If I get no response here, all I can do is edit, try again, and see what happens with no guidance. Alexdotbarber (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. When you recently edited Knockdhu Distillery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knock (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.
Ugh, for some reason I missed the previous message, thanks for pinging me again. If you use the mail this user, I'll reply, I prefer to not have my email address posted publicly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Martijn Hoekstra. Did you have some other information, other than "(indicated disruptive behaviour won't repeat)", which prompted you to unblock this user? Tiderolls17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This user did not have their talk page access removed, and apparently they were not confounded by the unblock template. Are my future blocks and unblock declines to be reviewed without my participation? Tiderolls02:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tide Rolls. Let me put first that I completely agree with your initial decline. Just as much as anyone can post a second unblock template to request to be unblocked, they can post a request to UTRS as an equivalent, not as a review of the block or of the unblock denial, but just as a new unblock request. I figured this to be such a straight forward case there was no specific need of discussion with the blocking admin or the first decliner before unblocking. I figure I could have taken a more cautious route discussing with you and Tommorris first. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, sincerely. I would like to make clear that I have no problem with the unblock, per se. My concern is that there exists a process (using the unblock template and the attendant discussion) and, excepting extremely rare cases, that process should be allowed to run its course. Alas, this is not the time or place for this discussion and I apologize for taking up your time. Thanks for your patience in the matter. Tiderolls12:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
UTRS is a replacement for the old unblock-en-l mailinglists, which had usability problems and privacy problems. So in that way nothing has changed. One would say that the on wiki process should suffice, but apparently it doesn't as evidenced by about 8 requests a day that enter UTRS. When we were making the switch from the mailinglist to the tool, there was an RFC about it, and others also voiced their amazement this is even needed. But, with the amount of traffic it gets, we can only conclude that is is in fact very much needed indeed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look tomorrow evening. If this is too late for you, you could consider taking it up with another admin, I won't see it as 'going behind my back'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand your concerns with regards to this article, which (with hindsight) I should have created under my own user-space until I had got it into a finished state ready for publication.
Would you please be prepared to reinstate the Douglas Johnson (theologian) content page, if I take the following actions:
Initially delete, with a view to completely replacing with new text, the first two paragraphs of the Biography section; and
Alter the wording of the first sentence of the Biography sections third paragraph so it reads: When IVF (now UCCF) was formed in 1928. Johnson became its first General Secretary, a role he undertook whilst continuing with his medical education at King's College Hospital, where he was achieved MRCS and LRCP in 1931. and
Reword the Biography sections fifth paragraph to read: Upon retirement, Johnson once again became heavily involved in the Christian Medical Fellowship.[1] of which he had been the General Secretary from 1949-1974.
I think the best idea is if I move it through your userspace, so you can use it as a base, and get help through AfC. Would that work for you? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
You almost are AFC is different to a userspace draft. I looked for sources on this fellow when I saw this post, why was it deleted? He is obviously notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Userspace draft is easily converted to AfC, and quite a few (most?) articles in AfC space start out as userspace drafts. It was deleted as a copyvio. Unfortunately, I'll have to take until tomorrow until i can properly look in to it. 21:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Graham. I removed the entire Biography section, as it is either directly taken from the source or closely paraphrased from it. I moved it as a userspace draft into your userspace. Although the copyright problem is now solved, but I haven't properly checked if it meets the criteria for inclusion. This will be checked again when you submit the draft (there is now a link to do that on top of the page). It might be a problem though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiThanks Thank you for your help, Martin. You are most kind. I've discovered The Independent also published an obituary and I'm trying to get sight of that in the hope it may provide additional material about DJ's life.—GrahamSmith (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
articles in userspace
Hi! I understand your concerns very well but content forking is not my what my userspace is for. I've used them as temporary pages, future reshapes, drafts, revision process, etc. I will review them and minimize the list, as some of them are obsolete. The Serbian Chetnik Movement is not the same as the Chetniks-article, but another, earlier organization (It's a draft). I will check these pages the coming days. Dank u. --Zoupan11:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. Just use 'mail this user' and indicate whether you would like formatted text or raw wikitext. I would have mailed you myself, but you haven't set an email address. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This page has been recently removed with the following notice: "This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person." The stated criterion for deletion is completely absurd, as the scholar in question has long been dead and his writings have little commercial potential. How would the term "unambiguous advertising" even apply in such a context? Taimni was a chemistry professor at a prestigious Indian university and has authored an influential modern reading of classical Sanskrit texts on yoga (which have been mentioned on wikipedia pages before the article was created). Please revert the deletion!!! InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll agree with me that an article that starts with "here is a Hindi couplet which says that a tree eats no fruits, and a river stores no water, similarly saints come into body only to serve others. Dr Iqbal Kishan Taimini, a theosophist of international repute was also such a saintly figure." is article that only serves to promote the subject. Please do note that promotional doesn't need to be for monetary gain. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh sorry, it appears that the article has been substantially edited from my original (very neutral) stub. I had no way to see it because the text is not accessible to me now. The passage you quote is certainly unacceptable for an encyclopedic text (I presume it was added by one of his unscrupulous devotees.) Could you please restore the page and revert it to an older version (which was a short stub written in proper scholarly style). There are pages on wikipedia that referred to this article (I am not sure if the links have been removed as well). Thanks! InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
For your awesome hand-coding work, I present you with the WMF research barnstar (although I much prefer my name. Hpmh). Enjoy it, and when I see you in Amsterdam I'll give you a real one! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
AFC is different to a userspace draft. I looked for sources on this fellow when I saw this post, why was it deleted? He is obviously notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
