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.
Melding over vertaling: Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/Translation/SecurePoll
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog.
De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-06-06.
We could greatly use your help doing some quick translations for the SecurePoll (voting) interface that will be used for this years Board and FDC elections. The translation consists of a short, 2 sentence, intro for the vote and 3 short 'titles' saying which vote or question they will be on. The page also lists the candidates for each election which do not need to be translated but can be transliterated if that makes sense for your language/script. Thank you! If you have any questions please feel free to ask on the Elections talk page.
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 00:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Melding over vertaling: Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/Translation/SecurePoll
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog.
De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-06-06.
Please accept my apologies for the second notification. Because of the importance of the election and 2 new sentences that need to be translated we decided it was worth it to message everyone again. Please double check to make sure everything in your language is translated!
If you can please also translate the Central Notice banners that will alert people that the election has started (and when results are ready). So that we do not have to send out another notice you can find those translations:
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 02:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Numbered -bot suffixes
Sorry if I came across as short-tempered ... I have just seen an increase in that kind of report at WP:UAA lately, and I keep making the same point.
I understand that there can be reasonable differences of opinion. I think I actually once blocked one because it was "-bot1" or "-bot2" or something like that, where confusion was more likely. So I'm not antipathetic to all such blocks.
I inherited this position from someone else who used to review UAA reports a long time ago—can't remember who right now. I honestly thought that was policy at the time, then someone else insisted otherwise. When they left I went back to doing it the old way, and I have ever since.
The username policy isn't very clear about this beyond saying "could be easily misunderstood to refer to a 'bot'". I guess the difference of opinion is on whether or not some numeric suffix way higher than any we've ever actually had a bot use, or would be likely to use, could be easily misunderstood.
I also think there's good-faith issues involved. We do not, on the account creation screen, give people any warning that there are whole swaths of usernames they ought not to pick. Of course, some are obvious (the guy who I blocked for taking the name I Want to Have Sex With a Horse, one of the more printable examples of this, tried mightily to argue that it was his nickname for his wife and we were all a bunch of prudes, but nobody bought it) but many are not, or are unique to Wikipedia (I think of any major website that has a username policy, ours is the most extensive).
Certainly among the latter group are the many people who use some form of "botXXX" on many other websites. If we're not going to warn people as they register their account, it's really not right to come down on them like a ton of bricks when they innocently break our rules. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Melding over vertaling: Announcement Universal Language Selector
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta.
De pagina Announcement Universal Language Selector is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.
De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-06-11.
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 21:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Melding over vertaling: Wikimedia Highlights, May 2013
Hallo Martijn Hoekstra,
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta.
De pagina Wikimedia Highlights, May 2013 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
Please consider helping non-English-language Wikimedia communities to stay updated about the most important Wikimedia Foundation activities, MediaWiki development work and other international Wikimedia news from last month. Completed translations will be announced on Facebook, Twitter, Identi.ca and project village pumps.
If you have questions about the translation notifications system, you can ask them at [1]. You can manage your subscription at [2].
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 18:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta.
De pagina PRISM is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog.
De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-06-18.
Hi translators,
the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has just published this page, asking the Wikimedia community to comment on whether they should take any action with regards to the recently uncovered PRISM surveillance scandal.
I'll greatly appreciate your involvement & contributions to have this page translated into as many languages as possible as well as popularised as widely as possible — please let your communities know about this so we can make the most use of this consultation period.
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 15:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martin, thanks for your advice on my submission. I clicked on edit, removed any text at the top and added the symbols to sign off and then clicked save. I wanted to check- do this mean I have now resubmitted the article? If not would be grateful for your advice, have not done this before! With thanks, Claire Clairejones19883 (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
That's very much appreciated, Martijn. I am starting my second article now. I assume that I need to become familiar with the edit function in my sandbox to work out how to add reference sections in future? Clairejones19883 (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem Claire. I'd advice you to take it slow with new articles, it tends to be very tricky, and quite a steep learning curve to get the hang off. Also feel free to drop in to the help channel or the teahouse if you have questions. You can find links to both on the submission template on your submission. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted article
Hi
I am wondering why you deleted the Articles for creation/Tengger Cavalry. I know I didn't get accepted the last 2 times but if it is the reference, I have added some big firms with article telling the subject. Why delete ?
Hi, the article was copied from http://tenggercavalry.com/?page_id=10 which makes it a copyright violation. We take copyright very seriously here, everything on this website is under a free license, so anybody is free to use stuff on Wikipedia for and use it for whatever the want. When there is content which is under a different license, apart from us doing something illegal, we also put our end-users at risk, as they may be thinking they are using freely licensed content, but are actually not. Therefore all copyright violation is deleted on the spot. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Question re: new article Hold Fast (27 June 2013)
Hi Martjin, thanks for putting through my Hold Fast article for creation and was pleased to see my article was chosen for inclusion in Wiki. I tried using the article creation wizard this time because I had created a page before for another topic and forgotten how to do it from the ground up.
I realised after I submitted it that there was already this entry Hold fast for the woodworking term and maybe it was better to have (Crookes album) included in this new article's title and URL. Is there a way to fix this now? I also considered that I need to add the article to this disambiguation page Holdfast_(disambiguation)
I'm not much of a MOS hero, but MOS:CT seems to indicate that the current capitalisation is correct. You could use the {{for}} template on both pages to disambig to oneother. A central disambig here is not really useful with the hatnotes already in place. WP:TWODABS seems to sort of agree with me, depending on your reading and interpretation. But if you feel strongly about it either way, I'm fine with whatever. If you know what you want to do, but not how, feel free to ask. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi again Martijn, I've had a look around and decided I wanted to keep the capitalisation of the second word and add (album) to the title, because there's another music-related Hold Fast (song) that is completely unrelated to The Crookes so these two need to be distinguished from each other. I've considered whether to add (Crookes album) but since there isn't another Hold Fast album in Google search results, I think (album) should be sufficient.
I could do that for you, but where is the fun in that ;). When you want to rename a page, you want to move it in wikilingo. The help is located on WP:MOVE. The move option in the Vector skin that you are most likely using is helpfully hidden under the little arrow. A picture says more than a thousand words. The menu from there should be self explanitory: You enter the new title, click move, and Bob is your proverbial uncle. You then will want to include a link to the album on Holdfast (disambiguation) (note that there currently is a link to the action verb there now which is broken. That one should probably be unlinked, or linked to wikitionary). This procedure will keep a redirect from Hold Fast to Hold Fast (album). I'm still not sure if this is the best solution. Hold fast is the article on the tool, Holdfast is the planty thingy, Holdfast (disambiguation) the disambig, and IMO, Hold Fast should be the album. The situation with Ben Folds Five and Out of Time is slightly different. Ben Folds Five has a primary subject with the band, and a secondary with the album. Out of Time has no primary subject and has the disambig on that page, as there are multiple independent subjects with the same capitalistaiton without a clear primary subject. What slightly complicates things though is that there also is a Hold Fast (song), which has identical capitalisation to the album, of which neither seems to be a primary subject either. This suggests another option; do the move as above, and change the redirect at Hold Fast from Hold Fast (album) to Holdfast (disambiguation). That on the other hand has the downside that then Hold Fast will redirect to a disambig, but Hold fast won't, which is IMO on the one hand counterintuitive, but on the other taking in to account that Hold fast is a primary subject, while neither of the Hold Fasts are. So my final thoughst are the following:
I decided to go for it. You're absolutely right, a picture is worth more than a thousand words (definitely not obvious that the little arrow opens up a drop-down). Cheers for all your help, I appreciate you showing me some neat tricks inside Wikipedia :) Have a nice weekend! Mozandeffect (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martijn, thanks again for reviewing my Bruce Haynes (consultant) article. I should have thought of this earlier, but would you be able to add a hat note to the top of the other Bruce Haynes article? I was thinking:
Hi Martijn. We have a lot in common with what we think could be improved. The problem is that the Foundation is a kind of oligarchy, so it's important to let the Foundation believe that the good ideas are their own - it works, and that's how the Page Curation tool came into being. They developed the excellent Page Curation tool because they believed that the patrollers were suffering from burn out - the wrong reasons, but the right piece of software. No volunteers suffer from burn out - when they've done enough, they just stop or walk away - corporate pressures just don't exist, and we're still faced with too few patrollers, and poor quality of patrolling. Successful organisations are the ones who have understood what the stakeholders want, and the engineers at Wikimedia who make the decisions are not the true stakeholders. The Wikipedia stakeholders are the readers, the editors, the donors, and the Founder. That's the difference (stakeholders vs shareholders) between a non-profit, and a Gewinn orientated company. Unfortunately, we believe the WMF exists for us and the WMF believes we exist for them, while Wikipedia exists for the entire world community as one of the largest resources of knowledge. To achieve that aim, the Foundation needs to collaborate more closely with its thousands of volunteers, understand what they want, and offer some of its funds and engineering resources to help find and develop the badly needed solutions and organise its priorities on those lines. That's what I think we should be asking them for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I do think that the foundation is very much willing to invest resources in new page curation. What we need to know first though, is what we want exactly. Just have them develop a draft extension is not enough, first we have to figure out, amongst ourselves, what kind of workflow we want. When we figured out the workflow, we can start talking with the foundation about what tools would be useful for that, and how the foundation can put some resources in that direction. I'm fairly sure that the foundation really wants to help en.wiki with creating tools to deal with the problem. I can't imagine that anyone at the foundation doesn't find this an important problem. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
They've already stated that it's not one of their priorities, even though they already provided an excellent mock up for the interface they were going to develop for us before they quietly archived the project out of sight. I think that mock up is an excellent starting point - it could probably just be turned into real software as it stands. I just think it's up to the Foundation to get on with it and do it. After all, it was their idea (although spurred by WP:ACTRIAL) - and quite a good one. It would make the Article Wizard and AfC almost obsolete, and significantly reduce the work of the New Page Patrollers.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
