Jump to content

User talk:Hasteur/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

The Pacific Pumas

Doesn't what you did effectively bypass the AfC review process? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Jackmcbarn § The Pacific Pumas CSD

I've removed your CSD nomination on The Pacific Pumas due to the fact that the preferred way to handle user promotions of articles like this (with a Draft version still left behind) is to request a History Merge so that the original work can still remain active. Hasteur (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn If the user decides to move the article into mainspace without the benefit of AfC, that's their perogative and now we can come down on the user like a stack of bricks with all the mainspace rules (such as AFD) on content. Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I guess that makes sense. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion

Re [1] - the discussion has been closed. Thank you. Go Phightins! 12:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Go Phightins! Thank you, I self reverted and explained why I removed the observationHasteur (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Username warning on AustralianThreston

I believe you placed the {{uw-coi-username}} warning improperly on User talk:AustralianThreston. If the username represented the name of a country or organization, that would be problematic. In this case, this appears to be a person named Threston from Australia who is interested in the history of his family name. Doesn't seem to violate any particular guideline as far as I can tell. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiDan61 While yes the COI-Username template is written to deal more with role/corporate accounts, the regular COI template is unsufficent to flag down attention to what I consider a significant conflict of interest that involves the name that the user has chosen intersecting with the content they've decided to edit/create. Please reconsider the "You were at fault" complaint and look deeper to realize that all their edits have been Promotional in improving a specific families coverage on Wikipedia. This is the regular grade COI, but when coupled with a troublesome username bumps it to a username COI as well. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I continue to disagree. While this user may well have a conflict of interest regarding the articles they choose to edit, their username does not violate Wikipedia policy. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

14:19:37, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Dziewulek


I have got an impression that the reviewer did not fully uderstand the difference between the area of Monotone Comparative Statics and Comparative statics. Even though the names of the two areas of operational research are similar, they are two distinct disciplines of mathematics. The tools they use, the methods, the results, as well as the applications are substantially different and have only several common aspects. Therefore, extending the already existing article on Comparative statics would simply make it impossible to read and would most likely confuse the readers. Finally, the popularity of Monotone comparative statics and the variety of their applications to economic research would certaily make the article beneficial for Wikipedia.

Pawel Dziewulski 14:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dziewulek And I see that you didn't even bother reading what I wrote, so if you're unwilling to do reading, so am I. What I said is that there's already an existing redirect from your desired subject to the Comparative statics. In fact you did an exceedingly poor job explaining what makes Monotone different than the base article. I suggested that you expand the coverage of Monotone comparative statics in the Comparative statics article so there could be a spinout. I do have a science based college degree and even then your topic was so far over the horizon that it will probably be nominated for deletion or merging to Comparative statics shortly after it makes it's mainspace debut. But you'll just ignore this just like you ignored my advice at the article, so go ahead and find someone else to complain to. Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur Point well taken. Although I must say that your previous comment was not clear enough. Thanks for the advice.

Proposal re June BED

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Resubmission of edited article "International Test Commission"

AnnaABrown (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Dear Hasteur I did my best trying to resolve the issues that you identified with the original article ("promotional language" and "independent sources"), and merged my submission and the pre-existing submission of which I was not aware. I spent ages trying to write about the history of the ITC and other things as informatively and neutrally as possible. I believe the issues have been resolved, but the article has been declined by Chris troutman, this time saying the subject is not "notable", which contradicts your judgement. When I challenged Chris, he got defensive and told me "to figure it out myself", shutting all lines of communication. This is not OK, since he is in the position of power and the decision about the article lies with him. What can I do? Could you look at the revised version in my sandbox and give me some comments? Is the subject notable or not? I noticed that there is a very short article (a stub) about the ITC on German Wikipedia... Thank you, Anna

AnnaABrown I responded at the draft page giving specific issues that are causing me to say no still. Just because a subject may exist in a foreign language Wikipedia doesn't mean it should exist here. Finally your complaints against Chris troutman are "Pot calling the Kettle black". When you gave up the moral high ground by attacking Chris, you also ceded the right to additional help. Please review WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:NORG, WP:V, WP:NPA. I do not expect or want any further communication on my talk page. You can present your case on the draft or draft talk pages for why our objections are not relevant. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Use the correct collective nouns when personally attacking your fellow editors

Hey Hastuer! If you want to impugn the motives or competence of your fellow editors by implying that they have their head in the sand, I recommend using the collective noun for ostriches (wobble, pride or flock works). Perhaps "herd" works if you want to get that extra insinuation that we're acting collectively without individual contemplation but never "heard". Thanks! Protonk (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Protonk If you knew what I meant and I know what I meant, why does it matter? I blame the internet and youtube for destroying my spelling/word selection. Hasteur (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't, of course. But you know (and I know) that throwing up your hands and announcing that people participating in good faith in a discussion are burying their heads in the sand isn't cool. Rather than come by and throw up some faux offended language about WP:NPA I'd rather respond to a stupid comment with a stupid correction. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 removed a {{Disputed-inline}} tag (which linked to the corresponding discussion on the talk page) with the summary That tag is only supposed to be used in MAINSPACE. Disagree or challange the statement, do it via text and not a inline dropin), despite my edit summary linking to Template:Disputed-inline#Other pages, which says that the template may be used outside mainspace. Would you kindly explain? --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Because your usage only flags the statement and doesn't really call for anybody to prove it. Also your pedantic activities suggest that you're POV pushing, so go away. Hasteur (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

HasteurBot G13 Notifications

Martijn Hoekstra and DGG: based on a recent discussion at DGG's talk page, I'm going to start re-structuring the notifications that you opted into at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications. Specifically

  1. The regular day drivers will continue as they always have in searching for pages that are eligible for G13.
  2. Instead of writing immediately to the "notified" user's talk page, the bot will write the page/user pair to it's database.
  3. At 4:00 AM UTC a second process will prepare a notification to the affected user letting them know which pages have become eligible for G13. (Difference: Notifications went out at 2:00 AM UTC before)
    1. Once notifications have been delivered the process will remove the notifications from it's database
  4. If the count of pages to be notified on is over ~100, the process will break the update into multiple writes to the user's page of 100 pages per section.

Do either of you have any objection to me re-structuring the process this way since you're the only users currently? Hasteur (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks--I'm glad you have been able to get to this. I hope it will encourage others to use it-- I consider it essential to proper follow up (at present, I'm accepting about 1/3, letting 1/3 get deleted unless someone else should happen to rescue them, and postponing another 1/3. That means the next time round there will be many fewer to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
BTW, at present the notifications are being sent out, and 5 days later the articles are being nominated for deletion. I thought the original intention was to allow a month. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
DGG Do you have examples where the bot is nominating 5 days after giving notification? The bot alerts the author/you that the page is eligible right now for deletion under G13 and after 30 days of it being eligible the bot will nominate for deletion (assuming that the page is still eligible). I think we have some activist editors that are jumping on the articles that have just become eligible for G13 and speedying them as soon as they're being found in the eligibility scan. Perhaps asking the editors who are doing the G13 nominations right off the bat to slow down might be worthwhile. Hasteur (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
My error; actually, it was 5 weeks, not 1 week --I was so caught up in clearing old notifications that I was seeing both June and July as the same month. I'll check further as I get notices. I understand your explanation: I expect some deletions almost immediately--indeed I do some myself right away when I am notified, if decide that the draft is bad enough not to wait further, so if several people get notified, another one of use sometimes does do such a deletion. My apologies. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Helpful in new pages

I will be pleased if this message is deleted, but I feel it is still appropriate to mention my thanks for your input regarding the Open Movie Database page. That page was my attempt to contribute something significant to the world of information at Wikipedia. While less significant articles have been approved, someone thought that project was not note-worthy enough (that is what they said) and would not approve it for publishing. I am generally known for not taking offense, yet it is hard to not feel like this is somehow personal, possibly due to me being a new contributor. In any case if the page is deleted automatically, that is fine with me, because I am not going to waste my time arguing such a little point of opinion regarding its worth. Still, as long as I find no stubborn or resistant behavior from another, I intend to add further updates when I see the need for corrections, and possibly a new article on an anime show I just happen to notice was missing from a list on vampire related anime (I might not have the time for such an unimportant subject, but it would be nice for the list to be complete). I will have to update and review my understanding of the wiki formatting language, since it has been more than six months since I have used it. Thanks again for your helpful input.

--Micah (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Looking at my proposed page

I appreciate your review of my submission for Jaco Ahlers. Your comment was that it did not meet WP:NGOLV threshholds. But that's a red link. What are the criteria? Ocfootballknut (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ocfootballknut: I meant WP:NGOLF. Hasteur Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hasteur: I just read that User:Tewapack made a recommendation that notability of a tournament (by extension the winner) on the lesser golf tours requires OWGR points higher than the minimum 6. That's a good objective value I can use so I appreciate the help. It will save me a lot of work as I was going to create about 40 more golfer articles and now I can apply that criteria. I'm sure it will eliminate most of them. Thanks! Ocfootballknut (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hasteur: Thanks for the clarification(s). My Jaco Ahlers article SHOULD be rejected (per the criteria), as should (currently unreviewed) submission Merrick Bremner. Really appreciate the help and guidance. Ocfootballknut (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

13:12:22, 24 July 2014 review of submission by AndreaJamesPublishing


I apologize in advanced if this is not the correct area to request more information for a re-review; however, I am mainly wondering why the article was rejected. It says the subject of the article already exists on Wikipedia and to improve it on Hachette Book Group USA instead. The only thing on that page is the provided divisions of Hachette Book Group USA, which includes Grand Central Publishing as the other divisions as well. There is no article for Grand Central Publishing as of now, as the redirect from Hachette Book Group USA's Grand Central Publishing division leads to nothing. I am trying to create an article for Grand Central Publishing rather than putting more information on the Hachette Book Group USA page. Thank you for your assistance and any advice would be greatly appreciated! AndreaJamesPublishing (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

AndreaJamesPublishing Because there's a parent subject and it seems reasonable that Grand Central Publishing could be a section in the Hachette article that could be expanded upon and spun off into it's own article it would be better to improve the coverage in the parent. As it stands right now, if you push the Grand Central Publishing article to mainspace, it's probably going to be deleted due to the fact that there's very little prose explaining why this specific division is notable. Discluding the laundry list of authors who have been published under this division (which would be deleted under WP:INDISCRIMINATE) there's really not a whole lot of content on the page. That's why I recommended that you improve the coverage at the parent article. Also your username coupled with the fact that you're writing about a book publisher suggests that you might have a conflict of interest in your writing/editing. Please review the COI guidelines as we take conflict of interest very seriously. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Swan House (Chelsea Embankment)

The stuff that was in my draft article, "Swan House (Chelsea Embankment)," has now been rolled into the main article. (Actually, more than half is my stuff.) What should we do next? Do we just left the draft die? Or would that affect the main, published article? Miss Ivonne (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Adamsec/Don Hanlon Johnson

Greetings and thank you for taking the time to edit my first article submission and to offer feedback. I am writing for additional specifics. My article was rejected for a lack of inline citation. I would greatly appreciate at least one or two examples, from the article, where inline citations would help increase the article's integrity and objectivity. A "ballpark" estimate of additional citations would be much appreciated, as well. Does the article need additional biographical information on Professor Johnson? I looked at an article in the beginner's reference, a wiki devoted to John Ronald Skirth, and realize that the Johnson article does not closely follow this format. Would it benefit from a closer adherence to this template?

Thank you so much for your time and help! I've been an editor of journalism for years but this is my first foray into wiki building.

Best, ECA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsec (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Adamsec The 2 specific policies you're looking for are WP:MINREF (When should you include a inline citation) and WP:CITEDENSE (How many inline citations should you include per logical section. Articles such as Hans Selye or Moshé Feldenkrais would be ones that you should try emulating in structure and form. These 2 were selected based off the linkage of Somatics. Furthermore you either need to remove the external links to a external links section or convert them to referense because per WP:EL Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:TheologyWriter

A page I submitted on the Continuing Church of God was held pending the adding of more outside references. This was done months ago. Last night I received an email that the page may be deleted and this morning it was gone. I did add additional references as asked and am happy to add more now. According to Alexa.com, the Continuing Church of God (CCOG) is the third most popular Church of God (COG) group with origins in the old Worldwide Church of God on the internet via the cogwriter.com website. CCOG has members on all inhabited continents on the planet and produces printed languages in five languages, with more in process. It is a significant organization and should be covered on Wikipedia as Wikipedia covers much less significant COG groups (those with less members, less impact, less internet popularity, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheologyWriter (talk • contribs) 15:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your bot...

...is making me sad. I have talk pages of draft authors on my watchlist, and the bot keeps notifying them that their drafts are about to expire.

Not a single one of them got their draft pass. What a loss of review effort from my side...

Unfortunately I don't see what I can do about it. --Gryllida (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Other than probably do research of chances of drafts success. About due, with the fresh new namespace, perhaps?... --Gryllida (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

When advocates for drafts actually do something about their drafts and don't let them get 6 months unedited.... Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

A brownie to you for reviewing at least 15 submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive!
Posted by (t) Josve05a (c) on 23:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation.

Please review improved LMDB article?

Hello Hasteur, thank you for your review last year of the article on the Lightning Memory-Mapped Database. Much work has been done on the article since then and I'd like to hear your comments before resubmitting it. Thanks very much in advance. Mhardin42 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC proposed decision talk page

Hasteur, I've collapsed the discussion you were having with Risker as I don't believe it was constructive. Your description of Risker in this edit is casting aspersions which is a personal attack, please strike or preferably remove it. Continuing to make comments such as this on arbitration pages may lead to sanctions if necessary. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc message complied with. I maintain that Risker's behavior is highly suspect (claiming that a 85% rejection rate coupled with a 15% acceptance rate as Overwhelming consensus to accept) and have indicated my duress in being required to strike the commentary after the illogic that Risker has displayed in playing the same "ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction to hear this" card over and over when refuted only shows that they've taken leave of their previous good sense or that they are dancing to the tune of the foundation's pipe playing. Hasteur (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That's another personal attack. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank me for a edit and then 10 hours later scold me for the exact same edit? Mixed messages like that are exactly why WP is overrun with pushers (Civility, PoV, deliberate) and no backbone to do something about it. Hasteur (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I was thanking you for retracting it on the case page. But it's still above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy

Hey Hasteur, I'm reading over that interminable Lucia Black discussion on ANI--but I am a bit surprised at the tone you struck toward some of the editors, and I want to ask you to tone down the sarcasm a bit. You may well be right, that some of the opinions are uninformed (or underinformed), but hey, you were a bit too zealous in that discussion. Just something to think about for next time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Drmies and you will stand up the next time that LB makes an appearance at AN* to say that the door needs to be slammed and the key needs to be thrown away? I'd love to support that, but I see the "Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results" cycle happening. I've thrown up my hands at the entire Japanese Culture section with LB/Ryulong/ChrisGualtri and their paper machie detentes that get swept aside as soon as one the beligerants commits a minor violation. When I see the same argument of "Whell she's not disrupting anime that much" over and over I see the same type of enabling that certain habitually incivil editors that is generating Grade-A drama everywhere on wiki. When multiple editors make the same refuted argument at AFD we point out the fallacy in their arguments. When the behavioral evidence leads to public suppositions of organized campaigns to try and avoid ultimate sanctions by the barest skin of their teeth and that the volunteers commenting haven't read the thread history so far, the "Competence is Required" clause comes into effect. Hasteur (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur--"When multiple editors make the same refuted argument at AFD we point out the fallacy in their arguments." Yes, that is sometimes done, and rarely, I believe, with any effect other than piss the person of, when rather there should be an attempt to convince them (paraphrasing DGG). As for whether I will stand up for this or that, I've already blocked her once and you'll see my name in various AN/I and other threads related to her, including the topic ban review on AN right now--so you have no reason to doubt my credentials. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:Trouting

Hello! You are quite right that I should have come to you before saying something negative about you to Dziewulek, and I apologize. However, I feel that telling a new editor that they have done "an exceedingly poor job" and accusing them of not reading what you wrote before telling them to "find someone else to complain to" is not constructive and is likely to alienate them. Just wanted to give you a heads up that you may be coming off as more harsh than you intend. Does that make sense? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cerebellum When you have users who clearly haven't read the decline reason, who clearly haven't corrected the issue that I declined for, who fail to read the edit notice (specifically If you're coming here to complain about an action I've taken (such as declining your Articles for Creation submission) please read the reasoning carefully. I try to leave enough information for editors to be able to correct the issue on their own. I will not be responding to any pleas for review here.) why should being brusk be a bad thing. Oh sure I could have been sunshine and rainbows out the butt, but that would have only encouraged them to continue in mediocracy, not go back and improve the submission. Also please note that the user did take my advice and improve the article. Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, if that's your style then drive on. I disagree but of course you're free to ignore me :) --Cerebellum (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

AfriForum

Hi Hasteur, last week you accepted an AfC submission for the AfriForum (civil rights organisation) article, but an article about AfriForum (without disambiguation) already existed. Now the two articles need to be merged, and given that much of the new article is unsourced I'm tempted to just redirect the new AfC article to the old one. Let me know how you want to handle this. Thanks,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Underlying lkHowever you want to handle it, however the one I promoted out is imensely better so if you blank and redirect it, that's effectively vandalism and will probably be reverted, so I strongly suggest you perform a proper merge. Hasteur (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see how it is so much better when much of its content is unsourced, but I'll be happy with whichever other solution you come up with if you don't agree with mine. Will you help with the merge?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Underlying lk Ok, I spliced the content together with a very large needle. Now regular editing can pare it down to the right levels overall. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Underlying lk Also you may want to visit Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AfriForum.png and give your thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I will, thank you for your help!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Greg Day Playwright

Hi, thanks for message regarding above. The Greg Day page went online some time ago and was approved. Picknick99 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiKitteh of Understanding

Thanks to you and Chillum for reaching out and saying that, I really appreciate it. It's been a long time since I've actively contributed, but I vividly remember how easily people got tied up in the politics of WP. I'd prefer to focus on editing the encyclopedia for the time being... rather than getting a bunch of people into a heated dispute. Thanks again. BMIComp 01:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

afc technical questions

Hi, I'm wondering a couple things that the afc help desk doesn't seem like the right place to ask.

  1. I have a submitted draft making its way through the review queue. It's currently in "pending submissions by age" of 6 days ago, which I gather is not too bad given the current backlog. Question: suppose I make a few more edits to the draft today. Do the new edits kick it back to being a new submission at the tail end of the queue? I think it has reasonable chance of acceptance as-is, so I'm wondering if it's likely to be reviewed sooner if I leave it alone.
  2. I'm also wondering about the technical machinery behind the "pending submissions by age" categories. How do the drafts move between the subcategories based on age? I would have thought there was a bot updating the subcats, but there are no updates like that in the subcat edit histories, so then I thought maybe there is magic template code someplace that figures out the ages of category members, but I haven't been able to locate that by inspecting the templates that I've looked at so far. Any pointers?

Thanks! 50.0.205.237 (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In RE:
  1. If you edit it it will not go to the back of the list, however if you edit the {{afc submission}} template it will.
  2. The Template does the calculations to determine which by Age category the AFC submission is in, however it takes a cache clearing or null edit to get the category to update if it's been sitting in a specific category for a rew days. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've mostly figured out how that template works, based on your advice. It expands into text containing a category tag that's dynamically generated by calling other nested templates, eventually reaching a Lua module that computes the text description of the time delta. But, do you have any idea how the category pages themselves get updated, if nothing is rendering the article page? I don't think the server software automatically regenerates every page on the site at any interval. Is there a bot that periodically sweeps AFC to re-render all the drafts so the cat pages automatically update? Or I guess it might just rely on the pages being manually viewed now and then, which would explain why the categories are sometimes out of date. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As another matter, can you say anything about the review process? The first sentence of my submission is basically "So-and-so is the Joe Schmoe Professor of Somethingology at Prestigious University [citation]". This was designed to establish WP:PROF notability right away under criterion #5. That should get the article past AfD if it's nominated, which I thought was the point of AFC review. Is there still a lot of review needed, if the rest of the article looks basically sane? 50.0.205.237 (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In RE:
  • 18:40 8 September 2014: There is a bot that is scheduled to traverse through the pages and perform a null edit every few days or so so that the categories get updated. Even the simple act of a regular editor coming in and editing the page regenerates the categories. When we're in our current state, it doesn't matter how percisely the page transitions from 3 weeks pending to 4 weeks pending, it's still pending.
  • 18:17 8 September 2014: It's all dependant on the context in which you present the information. Bases only on the prose you present here, I'd decline as not-notable Biography.
    1. How does Joe Schmoe's "A Professor of Somethingology" make him unique compared to any other Professor of Somethingology that any university has?
    2. Please read criterion #5 again very closely. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). Based on the prose you presented, Joe does not meet this requirement
    3. Depending on what the citation to back this up (i.e. a reference to the school) this could be effectively a pointless citation as we need independent verifiable data, not the employer reporting info.
    4. Finally, AfC's purpose is to try and raise the quality of the submissions to a level where it has at least a 50% chance of passing a AFD nomination. This includes checking copyright violations, checking rules/policies/guidelines/best practices/informal standards. It also includes checking if there's already an article that substantially covers the topic, verifying that there's appropriate outbound links (links to other WP articles), and a reasonable amount of potential inbound links for when the article is promoted to mainspace. Some reviewers shoot for a higher threshold for the AFD test because every article that gets promoted out from the warm incubator of AfC only to be seized upon by zealous deletionists would only dishearten the advocate for an article when they loose their submission.
  • We've danced around the bush long enough. Ask about a specific submission and I'll give my gut feeling, otherwise I'm done having this conversation
The sentence is "So-and-so is the Joe Schmoe Professor", i.e. So-and-so (the subject of the article) holds the named chair called the Joe Schmoe Professorship, which was endowed by Schmoe Family Foundation or some such. That would seem to meet criterion #5. Joe Schmoe is not the subject of the article. Does that clarify? I think the other stuff is not too much of an issue with the article. The submission is Draft:Rubén_Gallo and I'm happy to have you look at it. I didn't name it at first because I didn't want to seem to be asking for that. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments in the draft. I've started addressing some of them, and will continue later, but will be away for the rest of today and possibly several days. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I updated the draft to add some more external sources, mostly book reviews which I think establish WP:AUTHOR notability in addition to the WP:PROF that was already there. I noticed your comment about the Princeton faculty page not being independent, but I think the only stuff I used from it was ok per WP:BLPSELFPUB (stuff like guy's degrees and the courses he teaches). As mentioned in my followup comment, I don't see any copyright problems in that robo-scan, since the matches it found were almost entirely department names, academic titles, and an attributed quote or two. Do you see any remaining issues? Thanks. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref.: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Density of air concern

Technical assistance?

I have this user-space project at User:CorporateM/request_edit to create an AfC-like wizard/project space for Request Edits. It uses pre-loaded forms like User:CorporateM/request_edit/contest/preload that create Request Edits based on information filled out by the submitter. Naturally the pre-load includes the Request Edit template, which puts the preload itself into the Request Edits category. Do you know of any way to remove those pages from the Request Edits category while allowing the wizard to continue adding other pages to the category? CorporateM (Talk) 23:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

22:40:51, 3 October 2014 review of submission by Bkelts


Hi. I added some more information about Russell Blake, in particular his co-authored book with Clive Cussler. I'm curious what the "bar" is to be including in wikipedia. Am I close or do we have a longer way to go.

There are citations from articles in WSJ and (London) Times. So they are real sources. But maybe you're looking for more? He's definitely well known among Indie authors, but not as well known by the public at large.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Bkelts (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

23:00:57, 3 October 2014 review of submission by Bkelts


I wanted to add an additional comment. A comparable author would be Joe Konrath who has similar # of books and references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._A._Konrath

Would it help to list all the books Blake has authored?

Bkelts (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baranello

Hi. You might wish to comment at User talk:Gdancer#Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adam Baranello. Sorry if I've misunderstood something. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 05:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No For An Answer

Thank you for your comments on my article "No For An Answer.". You stated "The reason as to why I don't think it's notable enough is in the text of the proposed submission... Although it was supposed to have a limited engagement, it ran for two additional Sundays. A theatre show that ran for only 3 weeks is not really indicative in my mind of enduring and substantial notability..." Hasteur (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason this article is important and notable has nothing to do with the length of the run. It is extremely important because it was one of Marc Blitzstein's seminal works. Also, it was only supposed to have a short run and in fact was extended! Please look at Marc Blitzstein page and you'll see that the cross references to this show sorely need to be filled in. If Wikipedia left out all the shows that had short runs, some interesting ones would be missing. For example, Drat! The Cat! had 8 performances and Carrie (musical) had only 5. Would you have not permitted those articles? Bob Stern

DRN section archived without closing

Hello Hasteur,

The section "War of the Pacific" in DRN was archived without closing before the end of the discussion. I reinserted it again, but now I see that the table at the top of the page, administered by your bot, is not update, "War of the Pacific" is not included. Can you reinsert the section and names in the table?. Please, answer in Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#War of the Pacific. Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur,

Thanks for the notice bout my submission for the Bizzle page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToppDogg10458#Your_draft_article.2C_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FSame_Love_.28A_response.29 I do not intend on updating it. You can remove it. Thanks, ToppDogg10458 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC) ToppDogg

19:33:08, 24 November 2014 review of submission by 69.70.21.227


I read your suggestion that I should merge information on my AfC submission to other Wiki pages like the one for Worldloppet Ski Federation. However, I would like to let you know that other races of the Worldloppet Ski Federation have their own Wiki page, outside of the global page for the Worldloppet circuit. Therefore, I believe that the Gatineau Loppet should have its own page, just like other members of the Worldloppet Ski Federation already have, and that is the reason why I am asking for a re-review of the Gatineau Loppet submission.

69.70.21.227 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is a really poor justifcation for why your page should exist. If you try to push it, you will find a very inhospitible environment. Hasteur (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't mean to be rude or to upset you. I just thought that these pages were very similar and I didn't get why those existed and mine couldn't. I just wished to understand a little bit more why this page shouldn't exist on its own according to you.

14:44:44, 25 November 2014 review of submission by Musicmusiques


Hi,

Firstly thank you for taking the time to review my article. It was declined because of Copyright infringement apparently, however I wrote the entire article myself with my own words from beginning to end, I didn't copy and paste ANY other material, so I am not sure what I can do to correct this.

I spent a lot of time trying to write the best possible and most informative article with as many references as possible. Please let me know what I can do to get it published.

Many thanks!! Musicmusiques (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Musicmusiques (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 05:55:15, 27 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Cascade1988


Would you please elaborate on how it sounds like a conspiracy that the mall is being foreclosed? There is nothing in my article mentioning that. Just because many (note that I did not say ALL) tenants have leases expiring around the same time does not necessarily mean that a foreclosure is imminent. I also provided a reference. I did mention that the expiring leases raise questions about the future of the mall, but other factors are also involved, such as the closure of JCPenney, and the fact that Sears as a retailer is struggling and has been closing many underperforming stores. Cascade1988 (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Cascade1988


Cascade1988 (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 02:57:08, 28 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Cascade1988




My question appears to have been erased without a response, so I am asking one more time:

Would you please elaborate on how it sounds like a conspiracy that the mall is being foreclosed? There is nothing in my article mentioning that. Just because many (note that I did not say ALL) tenants have leases expiring around the same time does not necessarily mean that a foreclosure is imminent. I also provided a reference. I did mention that the expiring leases raise questions about the future of the mall, but other factors are also involved, such as the closure of JCPenney, and the fact that Sears as a retailer is struggling and has been closing many underperforming stores.

Please note that I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am open to suggestions.Cascade1988 (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Cascade1988

Cascade1988 (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

LMDB

hi hasteur any chance you could drop by the lightning memory database page and re-review it, there has been one page "in review" for over six weeks, and over 2,500 articles in the backlog. it should be fairly easy to review: with over 60 references and by copying the introduction from similar key-value stores with its plain english description the objections raised by the conflict-of-interest oracle employee have been done-in to a level that can only be described as complete overkill. Lkcl (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Titan (gaming organization)

Hello! Would you please take another look at Draft:Titan (gaming organization)? An editor at WikiProject Video Games pointed me to some sources that I think are good (Daily Dot, IGN, and onGamers), and I've added them to the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Appeal of RFPP decline for Douchebag

FYI: The above case is resolved. Please refer to the closing admin's comments. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't awake during this but I do feel slightly aggrieved you accuse others of incompetence for telling you how procedure is. I agree that it required protection indefinitely but that was Joe Decker's call and you should have spoke to him about that as no other admin will change the decisions of another admin unless they're not here. Yeah, it's bureaucratic in nature and Joe should have responded to the pings even if to say he wouldn't change the protection left but your irritation was misled and I feel there was no need for you to respond in such a hostile manner towards other users for not doing what you want, admins or not. tutterMouse (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
TutterMouse if you feel aggrieved then perhaps you should have stayed out of the RFPP to administrators (which you indicated that you're not) and tried to get it dismissed on bullshit procedure technicalities. Hasteur (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I feel you might be misunderstanding my actions. I wasn't dismissing it for any reason other than it'd be in the hands of Joe and any other admin would have gone to him too to go ask about raising protection. Might not have been what you wanted to hear but the whole point is to discuss directly with admins rather than relying on the bureaucracy and procedure of the boards, I can see where you might assume it was done in bad faith but it was not, Joe was receptive to Kudpung's change so it's not as if you couldn't have asked him directly, pings aren't always the best way to get the attention of someone, especially where it involves their decisions and not those of others. Please try and assume less ill faith of those who don't agree, it's not conducive to a good editing environment when even small issues like this become wrapped in drama and personal attacks which I'm sure you understand from being taken to ANI yourself. tutterMouse (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 You need to cool it with the drama and hostility. Steven Walling • talk 08:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
StevenWalling I have absolutely no confidence in your ability to admin as you demonstrated that you can't even get the facts of the case straight before embarrassing yourself. Hasteur (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to get Longford Trust recognised.

Can you just help me with this Copyright issues thing for the page Longford Trust - actually at the moment known as Draft:The_Longford_Trust. In terms of the percentage are we aiming for high or low score - and is it scoring the degree of duplication from whatever the sources are on the web that are used in the references?

Whatever - I will try to unduplicate but it is jst simple wording of information, not anything particularly original in the first place.


RE: NOTEWORTHINESS There are pages for the Longford Prize and the Longford Lecture both of which are administered by the Trust does it not make sense for the Trust to have its own page?

The Prize in particular is high profile and straight after writing to you here I have to amend a paragraph on Lord Longford which ascribes the Prize to The Prison Reform Trust which is a completely different thing altogether.

I would appreciate your assistance Psychetube 11:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychetube (talk • contribs)

13:14:40, 16 January 2015 review of submission by Bonniesychiu


Hi Hasteur, thank you very much for reviewing my page. This is the first Wikipedia article I have ever submitted so I hope you can give me some advice on how to improve. I have also posted on Teahouse but waiting for a reply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

Thank you very much. Bonniesychiu (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Bonniesychiu (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbiosis Gathering

This page has been edited, cited, and referenced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Symbiosis_Gathering How can this be resubmitted for approval? Kevinkochen (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbiosis Gathering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Symbiosis_Gathering These are similar festivals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_in_a_Bottle (7 references including their own website twice) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucidity_(festival) (5 references including their own website). There are 23 external references in the Symbiosis Gathering entry, including LA Weekly, Huffington Post and Rolling Stone. The events have happened in 05, 06, 07, 09, 2 in '12, and in 13 so that would be 7 events plus the announced event in '14. Attendance has been reported in the media as over 10,000 people. From what I understood, there was to be no value judgements included as to remain objective so I did not add the relevance of Symbiosis Gathering to the transformational festival movement which produces over 470,000 google search results. The lineups were posted just as factual additions. Are you saying that they are unnecessary or that more content about the event is necessary? Kevinkochen (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

22:13:54, 13 February 2015 review of submission by Jeromesamuelsimpson


Hello Hasteur

I've received your feedback on the article; The Six Rockets, which was resubmitted after replacing the formerly unreliable source: the Wandervogel website. There are now 2+15 sources (references), all journals, while the first two link to an online book and a website.

What please warrants this response: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

Apart from the newspaper clippings, about half a dozen media items (i.e. pictures, posters, original source materials) were also proposed alongside the text.

How else can I improve the verifiability of the sources.

Thanks very much in lieu,

Jerome

Jeromesamuelsimpson (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

June Julian

I would like more info on how to improve my Article for Creation submission on June Julian, Artist Educator. She has been recognized as being a pioneer in the field of Art Education Online & has numerous publications which I tried to list. Additionally, she has had many exhibitions and is featured in numerous catalogs. She had an exhibit in Italy this past Fall that was reviewed and that was sponsored by the American Embassy. Any help you can give me would be most appreciated. Lincoln SpencerLincolnspencer (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Vote for the Girls article submission... (will decline Article un-deletion)

The reason my last edited WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Vote for the Girls" wans't edited and not submitted for a third time is because there hasn't been a reliable news article about the Vote for the Girls web site franchise (created by yours truly) for the time being.

I know that my submission has been deleted and I have no plans to retrieve it (since its is already at another wiki called "Vote for the Girls wiki"), and I believe an administrator won't undelete the submission.

I do thank you for your post on my talk page. Aeverine Frathleen Nieves (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

These are links and references,also i have provided online links still doing purchasing and making easier for listeners.also local news papers search - Rawan nada. Rawana nada, Ravan nada. ravana nada. රාවණ නාද

Articles

Karuna Nadee deletion is an unfair Decision

Musiclanka

Last month Dan arndt deleted Rawan Nada Article of mine ,he mentioned that it has no recognition and importance,then i gave many web links about it,and he mentioned it all about Dinesh Subasinghe and his album Karuna Nadee, now i will present this link about its record,it was the most sold instrumental album in sri lanka,sri lanka is a country with a small population 20 miliion,so it wont be like a Hollywood production,i try my best to bring out the data of local artists to the world,valuable things are happening here,so why cant wikipedia support us to bring our data to the world,we have a historical heritage for 2500 years and still some important art work are happening,event after 30- years war

  • Rawan nada has been deleted ,but it was the first ever music album by the historical instrument known as Ravanahatha

Dan arndt saying it dosen't have any recognition or importance

  • Karuna Nadee is an album after decades based on an Oratorio.its very rare to find Album based an oratorio.

please do some fair response for my articles Rawan nada and Karuna Nadee. Regards Musiclanka

Other links i've given for Rawan Nada

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/sri-lankan-revives-ravanas-musical-instrument_10018913.html

Photograph request

Hello, Hasteur. I found your username on the Dallas County photographers page. The Ebola virus outbreak in the United States page, now averaging 25,000 views per day, could use a picture of the Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas. If possible, could you stop by the hospital and take a picture, from the same location as this one? It would be much appreciated by the thousands of editors and readers alike. There is no risk of contracting Ebola from taking this photograph :) BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@BlueAg09: does it need to be the same view? Hasteur (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't have to be the same view, but as long as the emergency room and Texas Health Presbyterian sign are showing. Daytime shot would be ideal. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's sunset right now and I'm almost there. Will try right now. Hasteur (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@BlueAg09: they have the emergency wing cordoned off. I'll upload once I get home and let you decide if you want to keep it. This hospital is the same one as "Dallas Memorial" in the old Dallas tv series. As a resident of the area I can verify it. If a better pic is needed I'll try Sunday when I'm around agai. Hasteur (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@BlueAg09: Yeah, even I'm embarrased at the picture. [2] It's far too grainy/ugly and taken on my camera phone. I'll go back Sunday and get a daytime photo. Hasteur (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for the image for Ebola virus cases in the United States. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Hasteur:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica1000 06:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Halloween greetings!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Hasteur:
Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia and especially for going above and beyond the call of Wiki duty in photographing Texas Presbyterian Hospital for the U.S. Ebola virus article. Well done you. Have a fun Halloween!
    – SW3 5DL (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Draft:Benjamin Allen

He served on the U of C Board of Regents. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Bearian Thank you for that completely useless comment. I didn't challenge is notability, I challenged the lack of verifiable information from independent reliable sources. All the sources are the college he is the regent of (which has a vested interest in making him notable), Colleges he's guest taught at (which has a vested interest in making him notable) or his political campaign (which has a vested interest in making him notable). Hasteur (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. As my students would say, you made me LOL. I'll see what I can do to fix the issue that you've identified. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note

I'm not going to get involved in that case mess, but I will say that I created the page as a matter of clerking. As far as the enforcement page is concerned, that was created at the behest of Dreadstar, an enforcing administrator, mirroring a similar page used for the Obama GS. RGloucester — ☎ 23:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Arbcom

Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:

Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 860 words, so is over the limit. I see several statements are over, and I am contacting anyone who is over 500. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Technical 13/Questions

Hello Hasteur,

I'm writing to inform you that I have removed your second question from Technical 13's question page. Your question appears to be a rewording of the first question and is written in a pointed fashion. Please note that candidates are not required to answer any questions and may remove them at their own discretion. I would strongly encourage you to not re-insert your question, as this can be considered to be disruptive editing and may result in a block of your account to prevent further disruption. I would appreciate your cooperation so that such actions are not needed. Best, Mike V • Talk 02:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Mike V So we're now supressing the right to ask questions of the candidates? I invite you to undo your removal of my 3rd question. If T13 is not "strong" enough to answer the question and to fall behind bullshit dodging the quesiton, he shouldn't be fucking running. I will post all 3 attempts on the "Discuss the candidates" page as clearly you and T13 are colluding to supress a valid question (including it's rephrases). Furthermore I see that you are involved with AFC (one of T13's "shining stars") which makes you somewhat involved in "protecting him". I invite you to undo your removal of the question. If T13 doesn't answer my pointed comment then it clearly shows to writers of the guides how "capable" he is of handling the Grade-A drama that is incumbent on an Arbitrator. Hasteur (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that you are misrepresenting my concerns. You are not suppressed from asking questions, however, you are not permitted to ask them in a disruptive fashion. If Technical 13 chooses to not answer a question, that is his own choice. To quote the from the question subpage, "Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community." You have raised your concerns with your first question and at this point it is up to the members of the community to decide on how the situation should be considered. My interaction with Technical 13 is quite minimal and I must assert that your claims of me being an involved individual/colluding with Technical 13 are incorrect. I am not able to restore your revision at this time and I welcome an uninvolved administrator to review my actions. Mike V • Talk 03:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mike V: So I'm not allowed to ask T13 a question about why he's pretending the question never existed? Fine. I've screamed Admin Abuse at the "Discuss the candidate" section. We'll see what the guide writers think. But you have won yourself a place on my blacklist for any future appointments you are going to lobby for. Hasteur (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur bot feature request

Hi Hasteur, I've got a feature request for HasteurBot. It's not very urgent, and not very important, but it would be nice if you happen to find time for it, nothing more than that. For the G13 user talk notifications, it would be nice if the talkpage header would be "G13 Eligibility of PAGENAME" rather than just "G13 Eligibility". Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: I've had a idea stewing in the back of my brain to condense/spin off the user notifications so that the notifications run ~2 hours after the eligibility check completes and puts all the notifications on the interested users talk pages in a bundle edit Something like
The following articles have become eligible for CSD:G13 nomination. As you have been involved in the article's history, you are being notified
Thank you for your contributions HasteurBot....
Your thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Not bad, though I rarely have more than one a day these days. @DGG: may have more though, and I could imagine him having one opinion or the other on the matter. While I'm spitballing, maybe aggregating the drafts that will become eligible in the coming week, once a week would be nice, but I'd imagine that would be a lot more work than the other options, for marginally more gain, so I don't know if that's worth it. Having unique section names on talk pages is nice though, which was part of the reason I asked. If they're aggregated, maybe have the date in the header ("CSD:G13 nominations for dd MMMM yyyy")? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It would help a little, but what would help more is batching them as suggested. But there are other AfC improvements more important than this, especially the ability to preview and edit the message being sent in a review, and to give multiple reasons. I appreciate that the custom reason now appearing in the user's p. -- this is a big improvement which I think is very helpful DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions logs

Hi Hasteur, thanks for your effort here [3], but please see my note on the talkpage: I'd personally very much prefer to get rid of the tables and leave the whole thing as a simple bullet list, like the way it's done on most Arb log pages. I was actually kinda hoping people would leave my entry alone this time and just continue underneath it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise I see both sides of the equation, however since there's established precedent for the table (including other administrators using it) and there's been no response to your suggestion I felt inclined to unify the format. Yes, it's clunky for the administrator who is trying to enter the sanction, but gives us the benefit of being able to sort the columns and see a recurring pattern for specific editors or or see if the generally accepted wisdom starts drifting in terms of becoming less tollerang against violations. Hasteur (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank ye

Thank you @Yunshui: and Future Perfect at Sunrise for sweeping up that performance piece up. All I can surmise from it is some sort of religious fanaticisim gone very much into the boondocks. Hasteur (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. Yunshui 雲水 13:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Just User:Wikinger again, as usual. If you see anything similar again, just hardblock immediately, they are always open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

I understand the notice - I just have a minor question. Where the hell should I leave my thoughts then? I've been involved in it for roughly a month and I noticed the horrors (flaming from both sides, incitement by newly created accounts for the sole purpose of inflaming the topic (and not bad/ill intended wording but with the intent to discuss). There is a lot of stuff I could potentially talk about which is just that much buried in old logs that it's nigh impossible to find back (also being threathened with a ban by Gamaliel if I remember correctly for no reason whatswhoever just because I dared to disagree and change stuff that got badly written down/written down with the intent of pushing a POV, and being called a troll and SPA by LaraInDC, Tarc and NorthBySouthernBaranof). I remember the note an other admin made when one of the first page lockdowns hit with the notice 'I could block tens of people but that wouldn't be productive) - I assumed at that time and still assume they meant pro- and antis with that comment - you'd almost wish that had happened, maybe some true development would have happened instead of the POV-pushing that has happened to the article. MicBenSte (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@MicBenSte: I refer you to the policies Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site (all subsections of What Wikipedia is not. Please keep in mind that with contentious topic areas (like Israel/Palestine and Senkaku Islands dispute) edits are very carefully scrutinized for any deviation from the established norms for Wikipedia. The actions of any editor who just happens to stumble into the area will be carefully scrutinized as there is an overriding directive to prevent disruption. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Hasteur, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Happy New Year Hasteur!

Happy New Year!

Hasteur,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 10:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Sent using mass message sender. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from User:Northamerica1000/Mailing list.

Talkback from Me!

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at EoRdE6's talk page.
Message added 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I see no reason to stop tagging these very obviously abandoned AfC's especially given there have been no edits other than your bot, which doesn't count. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:G13. Thank you. Direct Link. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I would point you at the links: My post here at AN (23:12 January 7), my post at village pump (01:10 January 8), then Hastuer's post (01:19 January 8). So actually you could be the one forum shopping here. But instead of bothering with all that, why don't we focusing on ammending the G13 rule. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

EoRdE6 Why don't you put down the gun and revert to status quo ante. This means you withdraw your objections to my G13 refund requests, we table both the discussions at AN and CSD and discuss at AFC (where this should be taking place before you forum shoppped to oblivion). Hasteur (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the last time I am going to say this. AfC is the wrong place for this discussion, and I didn't forumshop. Don't believe me it's fine, but I have given you the diffs and gained other users support for my idea. I think your G13 refunds are a silly idea, especially if you knew the content of the articles, but you can have them back and try to submit them. Do whatever you want, but expect the main conversation to happen on the WT:CSD per an admins opinion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Hasteur disruptive behavior.. Thank you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hi. I pinged you at ANI, but just to make sure you don't miss it. Because both you and Technical 13 have at various points requested a mutual interaction ban, I didn't see a point to further discussion, and enacted it. Please read WP:Interaction ban and make sure you don't accidentally violate anything. In general, though, the underying philosophy is: "If the other person is doing something "wrong", it is not your problem anymore. Sooner or later, someone else will notice. If they don't, it's probably not as important as you think, so it is still not your problem anymore". So take their talk page off your watchlist, don't mention or refer to them directly or indirectly, ignore their bot requests, etc., and you should both be much happier. Do not contact an admin privately if you think they're doing something "wrong", because they are not your problem anymore.

There is, unfortunately, some uncertainty among different editors about whether subjects of an interaction ban should report violations of the interaction ban by the other via email, or on-wiki. To be honest, I would suggest not reporting them yourself; if it's big enough to matter, surely someone else will notice. But if that isn't acceptable to you, I suggest privately contacting someone experienced whom you trust to see if they agree it's a violation, and only if they agree, publicly requesting someone do something about it at ANI. That way you've gotten a little feedback beforehand to reduce the chance of a boomerang.

Let me know if you have questions. I hope this results in both of you being happier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam I assume this diff is sufficent in being circumspect in reference, and at the same time also indicating what I will do should I be requested to engage. If this is not circumspect enough I can remove if from my user page. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That's suitably circumspect, but I kind of wonder how many people are actually going to see a note halfway down your user page before leaving you a note... Well, I suppose it will be useful in that you can point to it and say "I can't talk about that due to an interaction ban; see my user page". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I would concur that such a notice will probably get lost amongst the colourful palette of barnstar icons. This could be advantageous as being subject to an interaction ban is not something every editor may wish to advertise prominently—it's not a badge that really merits wearing in public. Circumspect, yes perhaps, but probably not necessary—if you do get invited to such a discussion (an unlikely situation), it should be enough to recuse yourself by briefly saying "Thank you for your thoughts, but I am precluded on this occasion" and (ideally) without mentioning a specific editor to avoid boomerangs. I would not wish the presence of the message on your User page to become a temptation or liability to refer to another editor using indirect means. —Sladen (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Richardson, Texas

Your recent reversion of my edit to Richardson, Texas was misguided. There's a reason why the Wikipedia article is called "Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex", not "Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex": "Dallas" is a proper noun and "Fort Worth" is a proper noun, but the phrase "[Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex" is not. Moreover, the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex is an abstract concept. You won't find "Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex" on any map or in any gazetteer. — QuicksilverT @ 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's funny cause WP:NOTBROKEN and my personal experience of 20 years says otherwise. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

the revised bot

I did not receive any notices last night, combined or separate . Is it running correctly ? DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep... a syntax error in the "nudge" process that prevented all nudges/notices from going out last night. Running the nudges right now. Your notifications will show up around 3 AM UTC. Hasteur (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

G13 notices

They still do not seem to be working at all. When you do get it working, I hope they will be retroactive to the last working run. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple G13s

Hey Hasteur. Seeing your response to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Natural Retreats I was just wandering if you were aware of the template option we made at {{subst:UND|2nd}} (see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Administrator instructions). Not that this will fit all such secondary requests for undeletion (and probably will not work well for tertiary or quaternary, etc.), or shouldn't be tailored whenever you see fit, but I thought I'd let you know of it since it's not on the dropdown of the most frequent canned responses. All the best--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit You do realize I'm just an editor and not an admin. I can't explicitly deny the request, but I can as an editor offer advice on if it should be restored and flag down editors who had a hand in nominating it preveiously for additional scrutiny. Hasteur (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. Hasty assumption. While I think many administrative processes are perfectly suited to any experienced user acting, WP:REFUND is a hard one because use of the tools is heavily involved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Declined CSD

On 8 January this year, I notice that you declined a CSD nomination by EoRdE6 as "invalid". Why? I have nominated it again. Turned it into an MfD. SD0001 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@SD0001: I'm on mobile and can't look right now, but I feel like reading the G13 section of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 55 might help out. Before G13 could be resist by a not edit such as Hasteur's not running through and adding and removing the same category and make it ineligible for speedy deletion. That was changed and now they should be eligible. If it was something else, I really don't remember EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
SD0001 Also be aware that EoRd's interpertation of the rules is invalid. At the time it was invalid as the CSD was written. The user attempted to nominate directly from the "Pages in AFC submission space that are missing a AFC template" category, which by it's definition did not qualify for G13. The category was designed to flag down AfC volunteers to determine what needed to be done with the page (an old AFC template restored, submit the page for review by an AFC volunteer, apply a "Draft mode" AFC template). Those are things that a automated process cannot do that does require the critical thinking skills, which EoRdE6 has refused to exercise on multiple occasions. Hasteur (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Optimist

Do you really expect that two angry users like Lapadite77 and Dan56 will take your advice and be concise in stating what they want? Well, you were obeying rule number 1, which is to assume good faith, but does that mean to assume reasonableness? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Drafts

Your bot sent messages about drafts not worked on to ColonelHenry. The user is banned, what can we do? There may be something useful for readers in the drafts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Because we want to respect due process (and potentially give watchers of his page) or potentially CH (if he ever appeals his Community ban), I'm disinclined to write code that doesn't notify users who are blocked/banned. Please feel free to 1. Open a discussion to establish you have consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation 2. Create a pull request that modifies this section of code 3. Create a BRFA task that secures authorization to not notify blocked/banned users as this is a functional difference that needs to be re-authorized by the BAG. Hasteur (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
We probably have a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to not inform, - that way I saw it which is good. I am concerned about the next steps because the user can't do a thing. My question is: how can these drafts be rescued? I don't think the abbreviations you gave me answer that, at least I didn't get it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Ah... I was confused. I thought you were trying to get the functionality changed so that we don't notify users who are blocked/banned. As it stands there's 4 things you can do
  1. Make even a single byte change to the drafts in question so that the 6 month clock gets reset (the bot's feelings won't be hurt)
  2. Use the {{AfC postpone G13}} template to get the page enrolled in the "AFC pages potentially worth saving" that volunteers like yourself use to request a stay of G13 while they try to improve the submission for mainspace
  3. Move the Article directly to mainspace if you think it has better than a 50% chance of surviving a AFD nomination (which is what AfC uses as it's guideline)
  4. Userfy the page and remove the AfC banners from it (which I wouldn't reccomend sinc CH is banned currently). Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Also the Wikiproject Articles for Creation talkpage is a great location to get advice from multiple users with respect to the AFC process. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, that sounds doable, especially changing one byte of code ;) - I have the same when I import to the German Wikipedia: I have to make some slight attempt at a translation, then the bot is pacified, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yea, by the way, don't userfy in this case -- the pages were specifically moved out of userspace towards draftspace after an MfD after the user was banned. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert Karjel AfC

Dear Hasteur,

Your bot wrote to me because the Robert Karjel AfC has not been edited in six months. Given that you declined the article for notability, I thought it made sense to wait until Karjel's novel comes out in English, in July (2015) from HarperCollins. The book has already been published in five languages (Swedish, Czech, Slovenian, Polish, Italian) and is coming out in many more, including German, French and Spanish.

Would it be possible for you to wait to delete the article until I can add reviews, etc? The book is expected to get a lot of media attention:

http://reviews.libraryjournal.com/2015/01/prepub/picks/gaiman-klaussmann-kumin-scottolineserritella-wascom-karjels-hot-new-swedish-thriller-barbaras-picks-jul-2015-pt-2/

Many thanks. Gecko990 (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverts of my revert of 78.96.214.173

Hey Hasteur. I saw your reverts of the AfC "submissions" by the above IP with the edit summary "Giving every submission at least a reasonable review before declining". I don't think you explored the background to do that, and with that message. Those were reverts of a vandal who was serially tagging AfC's for review they were uninvolved in. You did not give Draft:IdeaSpace Foundation a "reasonable review before declining" because it was already reviewed, by Coin945; no subsequent edits were made to change it since that decline; and you have now declined it a second time even though no changes were made since the last review – and you declined on exactly the same basis. In other words, what you did was re-review the same exact content already reviewed and declined on the same basis to no effect, under the aegis that there was something new when there was not. I see you're now doing this with other AfC vandal submits by this IP.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if it's vandalism, we are supposed to re-review. Almost all of these previous reviews are over 6 months old, so we're giving them re-consideration (our standards could change) and it burns one review off the "Submitted multiple times with no reasonable improvement" stack that can be used as a MFD argument. Hasteur (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no issue with you using your time in the way you choose, but you realize that since the submission was part of spree vandalism (after their hoax article was deleted) it is not in any way akin to an actual re-submission. These re-submits were done to cause extra work and harm and once reverted, should be seen as a nullity. Treating the effect of this vandalism as triggering a second review when they are not legitimate re-submissions – when the person who actually submitted the article has already had their work reviewed and not resubmitted it, is effectively no different than you going to any AfC that has already been declined, had not been submitted again and re-reviewing. Would you be saying this if the user had finished their apparent intent of submitting 1,000 already reviewed drafts they were uninvolved in for review?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If they got the 1000 reviews back in the stack, then there might be a valid AIV/AN discussion as to how to handle them (as has been done in the past), as such since it was only a few (and considering I took care of half of them aleady) it's expected that reviewers (and admins like yourself) to not be lazy and actually step up the commitment. Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow, just wow. There's nothing to take care of. There is no actual resubmissions. Your re-reviewing already reviewed drafts because a vandal posted a notice they never should have. And insulting me with all I do here as lazy because you're doing a completely unwarranted task that shouldn't be done at all (one that actually confuses the page histories by giving the impression the existing review needs updating when there were no changes before "re-submission")?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And what about admins supposed to be modeling best behaviors, Fuhghettaboutit? Your actions (and edit summaries) are bordering on the edge of being personal attacks. Getting even a single resubmission helps get the submission potentially in front of ARS style eyes that might have access to resources. So yes, I do consider the busywork of re-reviewing and re-enumerating what the problem is a good investment of time. Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
We are so far apart and since I literally cannot understand what you are talking about in light of the actual situation (I understand what you are saying; it just makes no sense given what occurred), and since there's only been one actual personal attack here, I see no use in further discussion. I am very much done here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hasteur/Archive_10&oldid=1143705825"