User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2008/March

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigBellyFilm

Hey, as a courtesy since you already voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigBellyFilm, I wanted to alert you that I added two more names to the nomination, Robert Johansson and Björn-Erik Karlsson. I don't think you'll have a problem with this as it's pretty much the same situation as the other articles, but I wanted to let you know as a courtesy. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Technical Group of the European Right

Dear User:Martijn Hoekstra

Thank you for your recent changes to Technical Group of the European Right. As for its formal classification as Fascist, that may be irresolvable at this remove: European Parliament Groups are coalitions of parties/MEPs with an assumed common set of principles, and although all current Groups have issued a "constitutive declaration" (eg EUL/NGL) or "constitution" (eg Greens/EFA) by which their stance may be categorized, this practice was not prevalent in the 80's/90's. Descriptions of the Group by others vary:

• Roger Griffin (Department of History, Oxford Brookes University, UK) described them as "Eurofascists" "...Eurofascism at Strassburg also extended its influence in the early 1990s. As a result of 1989 elections the Technical Group of the European Right (as it has called itself since that year) lost its Ulster Unionist and also its MSI members (over the South Tyrol issue), but was joined by 6 representatives members of Schonhuber's Republican Party and for a time by a member of the Vlaams Blok which had successfully manipulated the issue of Flemish separatism. The group established links with various anti-immigrant parties and the Spanish far right, as well as with Jorg Haider, leader of the extreme right Freiheitliche Partei ™sterreichs. The Eurofascist penetration of the Strassburg Parliament enjoyed its fleeting moment of triumph when a procedural anomaly allowed 88 year old Claude Autant-Lara, former film director and member of the National Front, to preside over the newly elected parliament in July 1989..." [1].

• He describes them as "ultra-right" in "The Nature of Fascism" ISBN 0415096618, (see Google books): in the chapter entitled "Non-European and Post-War Fascisms", page 171, he says "...Significantly, ultra-right Euro MPs cultivate their own version of an European community within a grouping called (since 1989) The Technical Group of the European Right (see Harris 1990, p.viii)..."

• Harvey G. Simmons (Department of Political Science, York University, Canada) described them as "extreme-right" "...Still, no solid ground for cooperation between the parties could be found and preliminary soundings about a common election program for the extreme right for the 1989 European elections led nowhere. In the 1989 European election, the National Front won ten seats, the MSI won four seats, the Republikaner won six seats and the Vlaams Blok won one seat. Initially, Le Pen wanted to form a parliamentary group that would include the Republicans, the MSI and Karl Dillen from the Belgian VB. However, the Republicans were divided; one objected because he thought an alliance would hurt the Republican's election chances; another objected to any alliance that would include the MSI because the latter insisted that South Tyrol belonged to Italy rather than to Austria. Republican leader Franz Schönhuber personally favored an alliance with both the NF and the MSI. In the end, however, the MSI refused to ally itself with the NF and Le Pen was forced to form a group called the Technical Group of the European Right that included the Republicans and Dillen from the VB. But, when in 1993, Gianfranco Fini led the MSI to renounce its fascist past and to reform under the National Alliance label, the National Front lost another potential ally in the effort to establish an extreme-right international."

I realise that "fascist" is frequently used as a duckspeak tag to slur opponents, but it does have a formal definition and it's not unreasonable to conclude that the Technical Group of the European Right was Fascist by this formal definition. However, lacking unequivocal refs (although the Griffin excerpts above come pretty close) and the lack of a constitutive declaration for the Group, your change was probably defensible. The reason for this note on your talk page is to reassure you that this was not some lazy categorization, but an attempt at a formal classification.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PPA

Hey, could you go to this link? I've created a proposal for the mediation to put new editors and SPA's editing the PPA page, and other related pages under the supervision of some neutral admins. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion needed

Hi, Martijn Hoekstra! Last year you helped me to improve the article Expert systems for mortgages. Thanks again. I continued my work in Wikipedia in the sphere of real estate. And now I'm working at the article Fizber (internet company). So I need your opinion about it here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_1#Fizber_.28internet_company.29. Thank you in advance. :) -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

JobsBroadway.com Afd

Many thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning on the AfD page. I will bear this in mind in the future, and possibly consider tags rather than CSD notices, although I'm sure I would still have added a CSD tag in this specific instance. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy didn't seem all too wrong in this case, I just usualy prefer to stray on the safe side. A too soon deleted page can cost Wikipedia not only a possibly good article, which is a loss in itself, a new contributor who sees his first page deleted so soon may also decide to leave the project. But I tend to stray on the secure side, you will find many editors who would have placed the CSD back. I usualy figure that an AfD won't cost more then a few minutes of wikipedias time. Reviewing the googlehits though, I think speedy might indeed have been the better choise. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of article retention, I would agree; better safe than sorry. - Fritzpoll (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 08:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Football AFD

In response to your question, the closest thing I can find to football notability is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, unfortunately it only deals with player notability. There are too many notability guidelines already, but I think one for sporting events is a good idea... you're right that a bunch of sources will exist even for trivial pre-season games, when you get down to it you could "prove" a Spring Training game meets WP:N due to the existence of sources. But on the other hand, some games are highly notable. A guideline would help us define what constitutes a claim of notability for a game. --Rividian (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Sports games in general are things that will almost always meet the requirements of WP:N, non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Not only trivial pre-season games, but even trivial pre-season games by 3rd class amateurs. It seems self evident that we don't want articles on those. But when the games become notable is a much more difficult question to answer. I'd be happy to think along in formulating a guideline, and get things on rails, but I'm not quite sure what those guidelines would be, or how to measure. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to pin down. I think a lot of it is that the sources themselves have to be more than mere game summaries... they have to somehow establish the game is notable in the overall history of the sport. Does that sound like a good starting point? In American sports, it's really only championship games and series that have standalone notability, but that just seems like one of those self-evident things. For the moment though we seem to be getting by on "self-evident" standards... it's not like there's a glut of articles on individual pre-season games. --Rividian (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as we manage on a case by case, we don't really need more guidelines. I just seemed to have suffered from a lapse of judgement. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A cuppa

[2] probably a very good idea! DuncanHill (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Call girl

Thanks for the CSD. I noticed the typo too late. — Johnl1479^(talk) 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was clearly good faith. I figured you would notice, or I would have notified you about it, or created the redirect myself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Martijn

Just saw your posting of March 9. Thanks for the kind words an guidance. I'll certainly make the most of my participation here. A bit busy right now - and the next few weeks, though

Regards, --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. To tell you the truth, that thing is just a big welcome template. But I do certainly hope you enjoy wikipedia, and stick around for a few edits. If you run into any trouble, you can always leave me a note on my talkpage, or get some help in the places on the big template thingy. In the mean time, have fun, be bold in editing even if you're not always sure what you are doing. If you mess up, someone will fix it, and the encyclopedia can move on with your improvements. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship

As part of the pro-pedophile activism mediation, I've created a mentorship page with appointed mentors for editors to report problems to. The mentors will be expected to keep editorial decorum on the pages and also help enforce policy derived editing on the pages. I would appreciate your input on the talk page. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Arabian Sea

Which is where I'm currently at. I begin April in Guernsey, Paris a week or so later, and not back in Oz until Anzac Day. Internet access will be spotty and expensive, so I really have not a lot of interest in MedCab business until then. And when I get home I'll have to look to clean up after SmithBlue etc in their quest to tilt WP top their preferred political world-view. As well as working long shifts (72+ hours a week) to earn the money to pay for the junket. --Pete (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose putting mediation in the fridge until then. I fear it's not much use mediation until then. I'll drop a note on the talkpage there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bedankt/FvD

Bedankt voor het "redden" van Parliamentary inquiries by the Belgian Federal Parliament van een VfD. Dat artikel was o.a. in onafgewerkte staat blijven staan, voornamelijk omdat m'n animo voor Wikipedia door dit soort zaken op is: iedere keer als ik me na een tijdje inlog, moet ik bijdragen "verdedigen" tegen overijverige Wikipedianen. Blij dat er mensen zijn zoals jou die moeite willen doen, ipv. direct "delete" te roepen. Mvg, maarten (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Geen probleem, ik kwam hem tegen bij requests for translations. Kleine moeite dan. Het zou het mooist zijn als elke enquete op den duur een eigen artikel kreeg. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Károly Nagy Astronomical Foundation

An editor has nominated Károly Nagy Astronomical Foundation, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Károly Nagy Astronomical Foundation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Károly Nagy - Thank you

Hi Martjin! Thank you for your help. It was a good idea to create a new article about Károly Nagy. Unfortunately the original article about the foundation is going to be deleted. But the astronomer Károly Nagy will have an own article - I hope there will not be any problem of wikipedia with it. So, thanks again, bye, Kumuty

Ah, yeah, I missed this thread originaly, sorry for replying so late. I for one don't see any problem with the article on Nagy. The notability issues on the foundation, I do agree with for the most part. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal- David Hicks

• Hello, I see you are the current mediator in the David Hicks MedCab case, and was wondering if you would like another mediator to help :D. That is, if you wouldn't mind. I'd be more than happy to help you out with this. Also, I'm an Australian, so I may be able to help out with some fact verification in Australian newspapers, if that is necessary. Just drop me a message on my talk page, and let me know.

Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I'm suspending the case for now until late April, when one of the key parties in the conflict will be back to regular editing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It might help if the complainant could supply some details of his or her specific difficulties. I don't have the resources to go hunting up diffs on my own right now. My recollection is that the matter was settled. --Pete (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I understand. Mind you, this is typical of an opening of a mediation case: the locus of the dispute is not completely clear, and everyone just wants a consensus version that complies with all policies and guidelines. Once we get really started, the exact cause of the dispute become clear soon enough. Just enjoy the rest of your trip, and then we can get started. Remember, BLP issues aside, there is no deadline.

One more thing, by the way, medcab doesn't "do" complaints. A request is made to get some help in handling a disagreement, and if everything goes alright, I'll manage to make you guys write a version you are all happy with. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Martijn - should the MedCab template be reomoved from the top of the talk page?

At present Prester John is not editing till 17 June? As you say "there is no deadline." So at present I plan to check in with Skyring/Pete when he stops travelling late April? to see if we can consence and then same with Prester John in early June (or earlier if available). Hopefully external mediation will be unnecessary. Thanks for your time. SmithBlue (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Just remove the template for now, I see no reason to keep it up there. Any new requests can be made to the Medcab or to me, all that is required is that the status of the mediation page is changed to "open" Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 23:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Research of the Protected Areas of Tamil Nadu

MARTIJEN,

You said: "I was looking through new pages, when I came across this article. I am concerned that in it's present form, it is not very suitable as a Wikipedia article, but it may be suitable for another namespace. Is there anything I can do to help you with that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC) For now, I moved it to your userspace: User:Marcus334/Research of the Protected Areas of Tamil Nadu." Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. What do you think is a suitable namespace?Marcus (talk)

Since it is mostly about your personal efforts, I think your own userspace probably would be the best place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

bit in dutch on your userpage

I presume you've seen the msg there, looks like some old mates wanting to get back in touch (or at least, that's what Babelfish tells me lol:)) I was just wondering if you want to keep that bit there, or provide a translation underneath or something, only non-english use on wiki is sometimes considered wrong, because you could be calling the rest of us tossers and we wouldn't know lol:) special, random, Merkinsmum 03:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I did see the messaeg (albeit days late) but I forgot to remove it. I don't read my own userpage much, it seems. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Martijn. I've been reviewing you from time to time and this time I believe that you are ready for an RfA. So should you agree and be needing a nominator, I again offer myself. Just let me know. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 03:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the offer. I'll take a moment to think about it, for now, I do think I'll accept. In the mean time, could you take a look at my recall conditions on User:Martijn Hoekstra/Recall? They do need to be right before I accept. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

After a few editors had a look at it, I'm giving it a definite yes on accepting. Thank you again for the offer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanna co-nom! But cripes! I'm going offline for about 12 hours. I will strong support if I dont' get the chance to co-nom though. You're going to do fine though Martijn. I'm sure of it! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the confidence! If Husond is OK with it, I will gladly accept the co-nomination. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a talkpage message for Husond, hoping to get a reply. I'm going offline soon, but if he/she never replies, I might just co-nom anyway, since I've been asking you to run for months.  :-) See you tomorrow! (I'm working on my nom statement now) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! :-) I have just created the RfA page (here). Me and Keeper will be adding our co-noms shortly, and meanwhile you Martijn may insert your answers to the standard questions. Once me and Keeper are done, just accept the co-noms and launch the baby at WP:RFA. :-) Good luck! By the way Keeper, I'm a he! Best regards, Húsönd 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The standard Q's are A'd now, I'll transclude tomorrow, when the noms are added. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to reset the ending date when it goes live. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Martijn, you may have noticed we have an unpleasant situation at your RfA, which I will deal with shortly. Regards, Húsönd 01:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. I sort of half expected that, and maybe I should have brought it to your attention before. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've taken this to WP:ANI for further feedback on this situation. I will add my co-nom later. I didn't know you had had disagreements with SqueakBox. One more reason you're ready for the mop. :-) Regards, Húsönd 01:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuisance averted in record time. :-) And now, I'll write that co-nom. Húsönd 01:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) And I'll go to bed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party, MH! Transclude away! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Rudget. 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I must say I am genuinely amazed how many people noticed this so quickly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually, that's a good sign! I have no worries, you'll do great. Oh, by the way, don't even think about going anywhere this week. You're going to get extra questions and stuff. No life. Only Wiki-life. RfA is way more stressful than it should be (and in my opinion, more stressful than an RfC or Med). Drink some coffee. Throw things at walls. Stay Wiki-cool. Cheers! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Martijn, I was attracted to your user page by your surname. I know someone else with this surname - is it a common one in the Netherlands? Deb (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it happens regularly that people are attracted to me because of my surname. Kidding aside, it isn't a very unusual name, and I do know 1 or 2 other Hoekstra's that are unrelated to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 07:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I dont want to muddy your otherwise great RfA with this sort of question, but could you explain your comments at [3] in a bit more detail (on or off-wiki)? This is one of those areas I find to be a Big Thing on Wikipedia and was surprised to see your ardent support of keeping that particular article. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My situation on that particular AfD shifted a little, but not much. I belief child sexual abuse has a narrower scope than adult child sex (Where sexual abuse is by its very definition abusive, and is mainly a legal construct, opposed to adult child sex, which is only in my opinion, and that of almost everyone else, abusive. And the opinion of almost every body else for that matter, and could more focus on cultural and historical effects). Pedophilia then again doesn't have anything to do with the sexual act itself, but is about the sexual attraction of adults to children.

On the other hand, the article could easily be used as a POV fork, though I don't think it actually is one (it's a borderline case IMO).

I made 3 comments on the AfD. My keep vote, a response to an editor who responded to my keep note, and a procedural remark where I pointed out that not only the keep voters, but both sides were dragging things into long discussions about their votes. I would have made the same comment if someone would have said that he factored something out because the delete voters kept dragging things into long discussions.

As a last note, there were more "heavyweight" editors who also voted for the article to be kept. ScienceApologist, Coren, Tango, Grue, DGG. The nomination clearly wasn't completely nonsense, since it was deleted, but it wasn't a snowball delete piling over some strange tiny club of keep voters either.

In case there was any doubt on this: I do firmly believe that all forms of adult child sex are abusive. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your candor. I know it seems like I'm be picky when other established editors had the same view. Really if Squeak and Vigilence hadn't had that bizarre rush to vote before it opened I wouldn't have thought twice about supporting. And if SA were to come up for adminship, same question on his talk page. I like your answers to 10 and 11, but 12 concerns me slightly, but only very slightly. Editors given an IP exempt flag are already admitting that their edits come from a suspicious looking (hardblocked IP) source. So I was hoping more along the lines of "all editors are equal, flag status wouldn't affect if I blocked, only how", but your version is fair and within policy. Give me a bit more time to ponder in the neutral section. MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

on question 12, clearly, "all editors are equal, flag statue shouldn't affect if I blocked, only how I blocked" is the "right" answer, but it's quite likely that it would make me think twice about it. Then I would certainly hope that I come to the conclusion that my decission was sound, and that it was silly of me to look at it again. Any other result will make me scratch behind the ears on why it made a difference (and a long hard think about wtf I think I'm doing). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well since SB hasn't (or can't, really immaterial which one) give a full enough description of the reason for his oppose for me to evaluate it against my own standards for Admins, I'll probably be indenting my Neutral sometime later tonight or tomorrow. Outside of that concern, you more than meet all my standards for an Admin (helping invent NPW alone is awesome), and since I'll be away this week, I want to wish you well on what looks like a very successful RfA. I probably won't !vote in it, just because it won't impact the outcome and, well, I'm weird like that. Congrats again. MBisanz ^talk 06:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't help invent NPW, but I've jumped aboard later. The latest update is mainly mine, with some additions from Reedy (amount of newpages is Reedy), but beofre that, all credit goes to Reedy and Martin, who built it from scratch. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Recall/Reconfirmation

Hi again Martijn. I was just reading User:Martijn Hoekstra/Recall and I thought that I should suggest that you replace all mentions there to "reconfirmation" with mentions to "recall". Because they're not the same thing. A recall is an RfA that you may launch because other users (through your recall process) have asked you to step down. A reconfirmation is an RfA that you launch simply because, well, you want to have another RfA for whatever reason. Recalls are often praised, reconfirmations are often frowned upon. So you see, quite different. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Default process seems to use re-confimation as well for a new RfA because of a recall procedure. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, good point. That should probably be changed as well. A recall RfA is actually a reconfirmation RfA, but in the past year a new generation of reconfirmations that are not recalls have surfaced, so these days a "reconfirmation" by itself tends to be considered one that is not a recall. Perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Default process should have some rewording too in order to reflect the current perceived differences. Húsönd 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I think because of the recall procedures, the definition of "reconfirmation RfA" Is changing to mean "recall RfA". I think I'll stick with that for now, as it seems to be the commonly used term. It's all just symantics anyway, it doesn't matter for the actual procedure. I might change my mind later though, although my recall conditions make it possible to use any old version of my recall conditions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, could you review my article on the Grosse Pointe War Memorial and see if I have fixed the notability problems? Feel free to contact me off-Wiki!

Hex258 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal using your name

Vandal edits on the pages of three Wikiquote sysops have been made by someone using the name Martijn Hoekstra. The edit history can be seen here. For this reason, Martijn Hoekstra has been indefinitely blocked on Wikiquote as a user account created for the purpose of vandalism. (I am the Wikiquote sysop who placed the block.) Should you wish to enquire further about this, please contact the Wikiquote Administrator's Noticeboard. - InvisibleSun (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello Martijn. I just wanted to say I'm really happy to see that your RfA has recovered from its rocky start. Maybe I shouldn't jinx it, but it's pretty clear now that it will be successful. I got really annoyed by SqueakBox's oppose and in fact probably got a bit carried away because of my own experience with his careless accusations. So I'm now going to de-watchlist the RfA and give you my congratulations two days in advance. I do hope that you'll continue for a while working on these delicate articles, though I've come to agree with Raymond Arritt that it's just not worth the aggravation. Best, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)