User talk:Martijn Hoekstra

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees	WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status	Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: Michael Snow	Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned	Two major print encyclopedias cease production
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia"	News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Family Guy
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories	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) 08:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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)