User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2008/July
 | 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. |
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 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) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why did you close it this way? seresin ( ¡? ) 20:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Opinions were more or less split. It seems to boil down to: Is this an indiscriminate list, or is this an incomplete list? I believe myself, just as you, that this is an indiscriminate list, but there was no consensus for that on the AfD. I'm not opposed to relisting if you believe a clearer consensus could be reached by that, after which another admin could close it, or to listing it for review. What do you think what would be best? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Numbers of opinions were more split, but robustness of arguments much less so. The first two keep votes only said that although the list could never be completed, (therefore it is indiscriminate, as there is no end) it should stay, without any reason why. The next two statements that the the article is indeed notable, but provide no reasoning whatsoever (except WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). The next one doesn't even matter, no argument whatsoever is put forth. The next one doesn't really address the nomination, and the next one is another unsupported OTHERCRAPEXISTS "it's notable" statement. The last one only addresses the verifiability of the list, which was never in question. So basically, no arguments disputed the claim of the nominator, that the list was indiscriminate and not notable. Their arguments were unsupported assertions of notability, and arguments that actually supported the argument that it was an indiscriminate list. I request you reconsider based on the arguments themselves, not the number of people who supported keeping. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Because I'm not as available as I should be to completely discuss this, I listed the deletion for review. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 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) 08:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Template
Hi Martijn Hoekstra. Just a quick question for you: is the template you've used on WP:AIV supposed to display like this in the edit view? EyeSerenetalk 10:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, I don't think they are supposed to be subst:'ed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, I did wonder - I wasn't sure if it was intentional, or something was broken ;) EyeSerenetalk 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, it was just an error on my part. Should have read the Do not substitute this template notice. No Destoyer of the Wiki barnstar for me yet. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, I did wonder - I wasn't sure if it was intentional, or something was broken ;) EyeSerenetalk 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure this AfD is ripe for closure as a delete? The AfD was closed the day it was opened after having received only a few comments, two of which argued in favor of a keep. Closing an AfD early that is contested represents a procedural problem because it doesn't give the community time to weigh and discuss the arguments given on either side. The two comments in favor of a keep came from DGG and myself. Both of us are established editors with a long history on Wikipedia and in editing religion articles. The reasons you gave for the closure appears to reflect a view that Theology is nothing more than a POV fork of Mythology. This view is, at the very least, debatable. The fact that many universities have chosen to have separate Theology schools and departments from Anthropology, Folklore, and similar departments suggests that there is no consensus that these subjects are the same and reliable sources that they are different disciplines. If you want to keep the AfD closure as is, I would be wiling to nominate it for deletion review to overturn the closure and return the article to AfD. I am not certain myself that the article ultimately should be kept; in the AfD I mentioned sourcing issues. However, I believe the community should have an opportunity, and adequate time, to discuss and address them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Shirahadasha, and thanks for your comments. I'm not quite sure if you are saying I closed that AfD early out of process, or that it should have had more time to run. If you mean the first, I didn't. The AfD ran more than a standard full length with 8 days, 5 days is the standard period. If you mean the second, I do believe that from the I am not saying that Theology is a POV fork of Mythology either. I did say that the content of Creation (theology) is suffiencently covered by other articles, and by keeping Creation (theology) we would effectively create a content fork (not a POV fork). From WP:CFORK:
If this explanation is however not sufficient, you are always free to bring the closure to discussion on WP:DRV. If you have any more questions about the closure, or would like to discuss it further with me first, that would be even better. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.
Ome Henk
On Talk:Ome Henk you appealed to the copyvio vandal to talk to you. I think I've made that unlikely. See my recent blocks. You are welcome to rescind them if you have any insight/hope that he might actually cooperate. —EncMstr (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- And thanks for finishing with the undelete of the talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking about issueing a final warning before I do an abuse report, and if that doesn't help, a rangeblock. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- A noble thought. Given the sophistication of the taggings, they know very well they are breaking the rules. Which is why I didn't warn. —EncMstr (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- The nasty things about abuse reports though, is that it might lead to much more serious things than not being able to edit wikipedia. And rangeblocking is never a fun idea. That's why I do believe that if there is any option other than rangeblocking (like abuse reports) we should take it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- A noble thought. Given the sophistication of the taggings, they know very well they are breaking the rules. Which is why I didn't warn. —EncMstr (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking about issueing a final warning before I do an abuse report, and if that doesn't help, a rangeblock. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mtvalogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mtvalogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Er...? AfD was delete but you didn't delete it. Or am I confused? Whispering 05:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. The server was having trouble at the time, and the page couldn't be deleted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 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) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)