User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2013/June

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Sorry if I came across as short-tempered ... I have just seen an increase in that kind of report at

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

I also think there's

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)

Just popped in to note that, although he was unblocked in order to request a name change, he continues to edit with bot username.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 6 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)

Hi Claire, you accidentally broke it. No worries, I fixed it for you (and added a references section). It is now re-submitted for review. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:15, 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)

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 ?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dying Art (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

Mozandeffect (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not much of a MOS hero, but

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.

So I want the title and URL to appear like Ben Folds Five (album) and Out of Time (album). Can you get me get this ball rolling / tell me how to go about getting this done? Mozandeffect (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hold fast is a primary subject, while neither of the Hold Fasts

are.
So my final thoughst are the following:

• move Hold Fast -> Hold Fast (album)
• edit Hold Fast to redirect to Holdfast (disambiguation)
• edit Holdfast (disambiguation) to include a link to Hold Fast (album) and fix the currently broken link to the action verb
• edit Hold Fast (album) to include a hatnote with a {{for}} template linking to the disambiguation
• check if any other Holdfast articles need disambig hatnotes, and fix them accordingly so that all disambig notes are consitent

If you would like some more input on the 'proper' way to do it, the folks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation will gladly discuss it to great length, with probably sensible arguments. If you just want to go for it, just go for it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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:

And here is the mark up:

{{About|the musician|the media consultant|Bruce Haynes (consultant)}}

If this looks ok to you, would you mind adding it to the top of the Bruce Haynes article? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much Martijn! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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)