User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2007/October

Pro-pedophile activism

Hey, just droppping you a note that I volunteered to mediate this case. It looks like everyone's willing to work out a solution, and I look forward to working with you. I've noticed the case has been open for a bit, so I just wanted to ask you to weigh in when necessary. Thanks. justice 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Unfortunately, I'm not available all that much, not every day, and not all day when I am. I'll do my best to keep things moving forward though. Martijn Hoekstra 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gmail size debate

Hi Martijn, Could you please see the discussion in Talk:Gmail regarding the size, and comment there. It is difficult to decide which value is true (yes, I agree that I have always been led to believe 1GB == 1024MB, but it appears this is not true now). Anyway, take a look, see what you think, and let's see if we can reach some agreement here. If not, then it might be best to just leave it until it reaches a more-or-less round figure we can all agree on :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jam, There is indeed some discussion, but I think I'm going to keep myself from getting too involved, and leave it on 'whatever' for now, as I predict the discussion will take longer then reaching 3.5 GiB anyway (should be there in about two days, from which point the whole point will be moot.) It's still a good idea to find a way around it though, and I still feel the best way to do that is to keep to megabytes in the text whenever there is debate around the GB/GiB thing. Taking 1 MB as 1000 megabites here, 'Over 3.5 GB' if fine as long as 3.5 GiB < storage < 4 GB, 'over 4 GB' is fine in the region 4GiB < storage < 4.5GB, and between 4000 MB < storage < 4GiB we can just go with 'Over 4000 MB' Which is correct regardless of size convention. Martijn Hoekstra 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: What's the point

Martin,

Goedendag ! I got your message. As far as editing in Wikipedia, I agree, a few of my edits have caused concerned, and it may be because of my interpretation of the policies, for example, the afd for Liszt! However, rest assured, I'm not here to be disruptive or troll. (Most of my edits have been without any controversy) To answer your question fully, I intend to patrol recent changes for awhile to get a firm handle on the policies and maybe write an article. For now, I'll restrict my editing to recent changes, and submitt afd's when pages appear to meet that crieria. Thanks! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Kosh. Good luck in editing. Do try to keep your pointish behavour to a minimum, and I'm sure you could make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Though wikipedia encourages you to be bold in editing, it might be a good idea to ask questions on a specific guidelines talkpage before you start applying them. If you think 'does this policy really mean this?!' chances are it doesn't. Before you start 'test-applying' it, just ask about it. (Possibly) less fun, but it will also save in others peoples time dealing with the issue, or getting annoyed, which some people make a habbit off. All in all, good luck, and if you have any questions, just ask! Martijn Hoekstra 13:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

Could you resend the email to me so that I can forward it to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done Martijn Hoekstra 10:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Forwarded to the mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox

Hey, have you considered bringing a formal complaint about Sqeakbox? He's never been exceptionaly rude/profane when talking to other users from what I saw, but he refuses to work with people. If this is a pattern, you might persue that. (for the record: I'm suggesting this because you seem to have a history of disagreement with him, and if it's widespread through his work, it should be resolved for the improvement of wikipedia. And that's my honest opinion) justice 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Excuse the intrusion, but you said a crazy scheme for making the page pretty was welcome. Its not such a crazy scheme, but I think it looks nice. Goldencako 01:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

clears throat... Also guilty. justice 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! One day I will have the prettiest userpage in the Universe! (without having done anything!) Martijn Hoekstra 09:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I Didn't Know About You...

Sorry for any offence! I think us traditional pop music editors get frustrated sometimes, as songs which have been covered 10,000 times seem to lack notability, but that's prob because we don't add correct sources! Sorry again...and I'm only 21, so the comment is equally offensive to me :) Happy Editing back at you! Gareth E Kegg 23:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The main thing I'm trying to avoid, is that there starts a situation where people have the feeling that 'they' (whoever that may be) are out to get 'us', and 'our subjects'. That would be an unwanted situation where things get polarised, and collaboration gets harder, which is, afterall, a core value of Wikipedia. If such issues arise, I try to calm them down. I'm not too easily offended about making a mistake, or tagging pages that the author find 'obviously a rediculous thing to do'. I regularly go over the new pages list, and if you do, you will find that about half the articles there are clear candidates for speedy, about a fifth are clearly good articles that should be kept, and the rest is somewhere in between. I try to do the right thing there, and make things work out for the best(improve, source, add categories, wikify, and more often then I would like at a speedy deletion tag, a PROD tag, or a listing for deletion), but sometimes, I admit, I make mistakes. The great thing about wiki is that all mistakes can be easily fixed though, so there is never a big problem, as long as we all keep working together. Martijn Hoekstra 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise sorry for any offense given. Thank you for contributing. InnocuousPseudonym 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A question: Is it merely sufficient to give a list of recorded versions (as I regularly do) which contains a lot of different artists' names, as a subsection of the article page? Without saying "This is a notable song," this should be enough to make it clear that this qualifies the item. --BRG 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 'assertion of notability' doesn't have to be 'this song is notable because a and b and c'. If from the article you can see why something is notable, that should be fine. Do note that when things do get tagged for deletion (speedy or otherwise), you can quickly refer to point #2 of WP:SONG, which it then satisfies. Don't be to distressed by deletion suggestions. Things get tagged by mistake all the time, and it's usualy easily fixed. (not saying that it's right, but there is an overwhelming amount of work on non-notable articles, and mistakes are made because of the backlog) Martijn Hoekstra 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

United States v. Louisiana (1965)

Thanks for your swift response (one might say hyper-vigilant response) to this article that I created 13 minutes before you marked it for deletion. I admit, I created the article because I was in the process of creating a link to a case article that had previously been created which I moved, and the names happened to be the same. This might lead one to conclude that the article should be deleted as unnotable. Nonetheless, I would maintain that as a decision by the United Supreme Court, the article is a worthy addition to wikipedia's store of human knowledge. I hope you will give the reason you think otherwise on the talk page soon. To try to aleviate what I assume might be some of your possible concerns (the article is somewhat minimalist), I try to give it some meat. --Cdogsimmons 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after I marked the article, I noticed that the prod was a little on the early side. (I guess there were a lot of articles created at the time, becasue it had moved quite a bit down on the newpages list, where I usualy find pages between half an hour, and an hour old. I can understand if tagging the page so fast proverbaly pissed you off a little, it wasn't my intention, but I'm sure you'll bring the article to a state soon where the PROD is no longer warrented. Martijn Hoekstra 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)