User talk:Hasteur/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hasteur. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Thanks for calling my attention to that page. I think I looked quickly, and didn't read the full content, but in any case I erred and it's a clear attack page (even if it was originally written in the form of an AfC). As you suggested, I've re-deleted. Pakaran 21:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please check the current speed--it seemsto have increased in the last few days, and the few of us who are checking are unableto eeep up with the admins who think theier job is to blindly delete,. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

DGG Did you read the WPAFC talk page? (HINT: You should). In short: I did motivate through some more yesterday, but haven't motivated through any extra today. Hasteur (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Haha sorry, didn't realize it was a different thing altogether. :) Rehman 15:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Rehman It's been my observation that BAG doesn't do anything until they're poked with something cold and sharp. It's been impressed upon me to not use the "Request BAG attenton" untill a question to them has gone at least 1 week without comment. Please feel free to poke them about the outstanding BRFA requests, though at this point I'm inclined to make a bid for BAG myself so that I can work on cleaning out the requests that aren't my own. Hasteur (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Still no luck huh? :[ Rehman 08:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, seems like AWB access is granted. Unleash the beast. Rehman 12:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It'll be later today when I get home that I can run the 30 tests Hasteur (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What time would that be? Just so that I can try to be around... Rehman 13:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

~7ish hours. I'll ping you just before I start. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

An arbitration case about the behaviour of Kafziel (talk · contribs) with regards to the Articles for Creation process, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For conduct unbecoming an administrator by failing to respond appropriately, respectfully and civilly to good faith enquiries about his administrative actions, Kafziel (talk · contribs) is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship. The user may not seek advanced positions in an alternative account unless he links such account to his Kafziel account.
2. For his battlefield mentality in areas relating to Articles for Creation, Hasteur (talk · contribs) is admonished.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 21:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

I unplug my bowels in the general direction of the troublesome editors who caused the sanction to stick and to the committee for not having the fortitude to do the right thing with respect to reigning in troublesome editors. Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting the page to the article space. :-) Trevor Jacques (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, Thanks for your comments on my Article for Submission on Declan Jones. I am surprised at your comment on notability as the first item I have referenced is the report on Declan becoming one of the youngest winners in British GT. In fact in 2013 he won three of his races, which I have listed in the 2013 Victories table. The only comments I received from the previous editor,Chris1384, were for citations which I have addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manlydesign (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In this edit, you were certainly wrong to use a capital "p" in the word "process" in the title. I don't think I've yet seen an article moved from a user space to the article space that did not have at least one incorrect capital in the title or in which the incorrect capitals in the title were not incorrectly left intact by the person who moved it. I don't know why that particular error seems to be universal, but certainly it's easy to avoid. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: Got a Policy page link for that or is it just convention? Even if I didn't change the name to the right one, a helpful little gnome like yourself would come back through and change the title to the MOS endorsed capitalization. When AfC has under 200 submissions that are asking for review, then we can take our time. Currently AFC sits at 2.4k, so 12 times the "more time" threshold. Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I was rather surprised by this review of yours. The draft had quite a few problems that meant it should not have been turned into an article - including BLP issues and a copyvio paragraph -, but "Reads like bullet point list instead of flowing prose" is not a valid rationale to decline an article. I believe there has been some drama at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation; I haven't read the details, but whatever may have happened there, please don't take it out on the draft authors. Huon (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Huon If it wouldn't pass muster, it's still a decline regardless of the reasoning. If I have to do ~200 supremely low quality reviews a day just to keep the quantity of pending reviews at a stable level because no other reviewers are doing anything because they want the barnstar for participating in a drive then 200 reviews a day I will do because people are more interested in cookies and pats on the head rather than fixing the problems we have with AFC. Going to continue to do it this way because the consensus of one to actually deal with the backlog instead of navel gaze for months on end and renege on promises that were made months ago. Hasteur (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You recently reviewed and declined Draft:Ken Block (businessman) as not demonstrating notability, with the comment "Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN". It is true that Block does not pass point 1 of WP:POLITICIAN, as he has never held statewide office, or indeed any elected office. Point 2 of WP:POLITICIAN is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". It could surely be argued that a person who polled 6.5% of the vote for Governor in a 4-1ay race, who was the had of a 3rd-party big enough to get on the ballot, who led a successful challenge to laws restricting ballot access, and has become the head of a statewide citizen's group is a "Major local political figure", depending on how that is defined. He has surely received "significant press coverage". Point 3 says "...such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"" in short a fall-back to the WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It seems to me that the sources now cited in the draft more than pass the WP:GNG. I would surely vote to KEEP this at an AfD. Had I found this awaiting review in the AfC queue, i would have approved it. But respecting your extensive AfC work, I do not want to override your action without discussing it first. Please look over the draft again (if you are willing to take the time) and expand on your views of its acceptability, if you would. My attention was drawn to this at the help desk. DES ^(talk) 01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

DESiegel If he ranked for 6.5% of the vote, that's not enough in my mind to qualify him for the Politican threshold. The biography is making the argument that he should be included because politican standards. In my book if you can't pass the well endorsed SNG, you shouldn't be going for the minimum GNG threshold either. You're perfectly entitled to promote it out of AFC space but I'm done with it. Back to the 2.4k other AFC submissions that all want a review. Hasteur (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the well-know problems of running as a 3rd-party candidate for state-wide office in the US, I think 6.5% is actually quite notable, but I mainly think that any bio well over the threshold of the GNG should pass, and indeed I think that is what point 3 of this SNG says. But that is just my view. Thanks for all your AfC work. DES ^(talk) 01:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

DESiegel If you wanted to, you know, review some AFC submissions too, I could afford to spend more time reviewing submissions. Hasteur (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done a few, and will do more. Lately my time has mostly been in short chunks so I have gone for CSD patrol and the help desk. DES ^(talk) 01:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

DESiegel At the begining of the last backlog drive we started at 1.6k pending submission. At the end of the drive we ended at 1.6k submissions. In the month that we've not been having a drive we've added annother 800 submissions. At this point I'm going into full on crisis mode because we're loosing ground and not making any headway. Hasteur (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, This article concerning the subject - Shane Stay - meets all criteria under Wiki's notability, including sports athlete, author, public speaker or comedian, entreaupeneur and business owner. What issues with it are needing adjustments, i.e. the citations and reference placement? Can you help with this portion? Thanks, Jasmine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novemberflower (talk • contribs) 07:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hasteur! You rejected my article on Forum Chriesbach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eiswasser/sandbox due to a lack of reliable sources. I made some adjustments and submitted the article again. I already published an article on Forum Chriesbach on the German Wiki page with simimilar references https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_Chriesbach. It was accepted. Forum Chriesbach was built as a model building for reseach in sustainablility and the data based on energy, water, etc. was entirely produced by Eawag or Empa scientists. So the studies (most of them in German)of third parties are all sourced on Eawag research. Also the literature I indicate is based on Eawag research on the project or on the achitects. I indicated all sources available so far from 'independant' (English) sources and there are no other as far as I know. So if this is not enough to verify the information for a submission then be it and we have to live with the fact the there will only be an article on the Forum Chriesbach building in German on Wikipedia. By the way: I am also the author of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eawag so I am not a novel auther on Wiki. --Eiswasser (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

Many thanks for your review of my submission for Total Media. I am a little confused as to the rejection based on sources. Whilst there are a lot of awards (backed up by sources), there are also numerous profiles on several notable advertising and media regulatory bodies, including the IPA which is the largest advertising/media regulatory body in the UK. Also, the campaigns themselves have won industry awards, and the agency is recognized by a large number of industry bodies also as seen in the article. I would argue that the amount of industry recognition and awards won, coupled with the independent nature certainly consist of plenty of sources.

I do really appreciate the time you took to look through, but would ask you to reconsider. I looked at other media agency profiles on Wikipedia that have made through submissions, that have far fewer sources which are similar in nature to the ones in my submission. I kept the sources all completely neutral and didn't link to any press releases and made a lot of effort with the research. I would ask you to reconsider. Failing that, could you be a bit more specific on 'coverage about total media'. Does that mean you do want some press articles (in large publications of course) to be mentioned? I understand why editors need to preserve the neutrality and quality of content on Wikipedia, but having this rejected based on a lack of sources just seems a bit too strict? Bazsha (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks :)

Respected hasteur sir, i request you to delete the "article creation of sadhana rao".In future i try to create an improved article because i feel that i need to collect more information about her. Manavatha (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Hasteur,

Hello there. I see that you have high standards, and I appreciate that. However, I am a fan of Nordic Noir fiction, and I do think that Robert Karjel is notable - as the next big thing in Swedish crime. As in, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." I included many references to prominent publications, from Publishers Weekly to the Wall Street Journal to Sweden's largest daily newpaper, Dagens Nyheter. I know that the article was well written, as I was a professional journalist myself for more than a decade, and worked at the Baltimore Sun.

So what can be done here to win your approval?

I've been doing some wiki editing and would like to write more articles, but only if I feel the process works smoothly and fairly.

Many thanks for your help.Gecko990 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, even here, you try to hang the notability of the biography on "Girl with the". "Notability is not inhereted" and "Other stuff exists..." are arguments for why this will not work. Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

When a novel signs for hundreds of thousands of dollars with HarperCollins and is being translated into nine languages, its notability is not inherited. (Correct your spelling?) But I'll wait until it's out and then add more. Many thanks.Gecko990 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is HasteurBot removing categories from users talk pages such as in this edit on User talk:210.212.230.197? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 Are you sure about that? Take a look at the entire diff. It did relocate the categories to the bottom of the page. Hasteur (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Should it be relocating those categories to the bottom of the page, or should it be leaving them with the warnings so they will get archived properly? I would say that they should be left with the warnings as such things are not suppose to be a permanent scar or black mark for the IP or user. Wouldn't you agree? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Think about what you just said. Warnings on IP talk pages should not be archived. They help editors determine if advanced measures should be taken. If the scar category offended that much, then the IP editor or any user could remove the category. I'm sorry, but unless you can present a concrete policy based justificaiton for keeping the categories next to their warnings I'm inclined to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout and specifically Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_sections as it's the traditional method in which WP pages are structured. Furthermore the relocation of categories is being driven from the PyWikipedia page save logic, specifically the portion that involves "cleaning" the page. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• I see, and how does a MOS that specifically only applies to This is a guide to laying out a typical basic article. (articles) apply to IP user talk pages? I'm guessing that Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout and Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Design guidelines which support the idea that these categories should stay with the section of which they were substituted in and be archived as is appropriate don't apply? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Picking a fight never turns out well. Both of the pages you claim are not policy, nor do they seem to say what you claim. So you know what. Start a RFC to establish support or kindly see your way off this complaint because I'm done arguing with a stubborn mule. Hasteur (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Quite simply, the bot is performing a function not declared in its BRFA and I'm asking you to make it stop preforming that action. Is that really so hard to do? Hellknowz, is the fact that Hasteur's bot is preforming a task that is not approved a violation of the bot policy, and shouldn't that bot stop doing that immediately until there is approval for it to avoid the issues outlined in WP:BOTISSUE? Consider this also your notification that I will be posting a note about this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard per the instructions on WP:BOTISSUE since you seem reluctant to comply. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• T13, the time for objections has long since passed on this. It's quite clear that if the functionality is in PyWikibot, it's probably a good thing to do, but this is now the 5th time you've come to my talk page looking for a fight missing the hints that I'm very irritated at you, so here goes. PISS OFF. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, I very much get that you are irritated at me, and that you think that I'm only here looking for drama and a fight (which I'm really not), but that doesn't give you any authority to IAR and ignore honest requests (not only by me, but also by Xeno now too) for your bot to stop doing what it is not authorized to do. I get it, you are bothered by me, and don't want to be civil and just discuss things out. There is nothing I can do about that, but that forces me into a position where I have to attempt to get other editors assistance at places like AN, which I honestly would rather avoid. So, please, lets talk out whatever is bothering you here, on my talk page, via email, on irc, or anywhere else that you want to. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Aw, how cute. After you get swiped at by the angry bear for being poked you try to claim innocence. You want to play that way? I claim you are deliberately disrupting Wikipeida to make a point and therefore should have your Template Editor privilege revoked for deliberately disrupting a process that has long passed the statue of limitations, for deliberately sneaking around trying to stir up trouble for me, for delibearately causing more work to be done by the WMF servers (or by one of the NullBots) by proposing the change of a seveal templates that are included in the "Highly Visible Templates" set. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just to chime in that I don't think these categories should be moved away from their attendant warnings. It just doesn't make sense to do so; is it possible to disable the category relocation on user talk pages? If so, please do so without delay. –xeno^talk 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• As someone who once spent a lot of time adding warnings to IP user talk pages, the current action of the bot (i.e., following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_sections) does make sense to me. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  That applies to articles. As far as user talk pages, having warning-based categories at the bottom of the page makes no sense to me. They would need to be constantly moved every time a new section is added! –xeno^talk 19:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with either point. But:

• There's nothing to say that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_sections shouldn't apply to talk pages, too.
• It isn't difficult (particularly for a 'bot) to move the categories.
• For a long, busy talk page, it is easier on editors of that page if the categories are grouped rather than having them spread throughout the page.

Just my thought. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Other than the fact that none of those things ever appear on talk pages...
• It isn't difficult, but it isn't necessary, and it is probably not desired.
• But then the editors have no idea from which section those categories originated.

–xeno^talk 19:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Not to mention that it is technically editing the talk page comment of another editor, which of course is considered bad practice (taken from {{Uw-tpv1}}). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Of note, the bot was moving categories during its trial and it was approved after that trial. Not sure if this was the intention of User:Hellknowz or if they simply did not notice. I still don't think it's desirable behaviour, but such is as it is. –xeno^talk 19:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Blah blah blah... "I feel" "considered bad practice". Come back when you have POLICY on your side. And to claim that this is new behavior, frankly is BULLSHIT. Take a look at [1] and [2] and [3].Oh wait, I forgot that you don't code The only way that the bot would do this is when it's notifying a user that their AFC draft has been nominated. So the set of all "Editors" filtered down to the set of "Editors who have a warning template on their talk page that has a category" filtered down to the set of "Editors who have a warning template on their page who submitted a AFC draft" filtered down to the set of "Editors who have a warning template on their page who submitted a AFC draft that let it go stale" filtered down to the set of "Editors who have a warning template on their page who submitted a AFC draft that let it go stale and now the bot is handling a deletion 30 days after it was notified on". Such a small subset of a subset of a ... that it doesn't make sense for you to be raising this level of coniption over. Hasteur (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been applied. Now Technical 13 this is the 5th time in the space of a week that you've caused trouble for me. Since you can't seem to keep your hands to yourself I formally dis-invite you from this talk page. No response is necessary. Any further responses on this page outside of required postings will be treated as harassment and dealt with appropriately (up to and including archiving without responding, filing for an interaction ban, petitioning to have your Template Editor privilege revoked, and requesting administrators to block you for your repeated attacks of significantly poor judgement). I have been approached by another editor who has an axe to grind with you and have been asked to participate in formal DR against you. Take a look at how many editors you have rubbed the wrong way recently and consider that it might be you who needs a holiday (enforced by block if need be). Hasteur (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

Many thanks for your review of my submission for Total Media. I am a little confused as to the rejection based on sources. Whilst there are a lot of awards (backed up by sources), there are also numerous profiles on several notable advertising and media regulatory bodies, including the IPA which is the largest advertising/media regulatory body in the UK. Also, the campaigns themselves have won industry awards, and the agency is recognized by a large number of industry bodies also as seen in the article. I would argue that the amount of industry recognition and awards won, coupled with the independent nature of the agency is what makes Total Media notable, and is well supported by sources.

I do really appreciate the time you took to look through, but would ask you to reconsider. I looked at other media agency profiles on Wikipedia that have made through submissions, that have far fewer sources, and are similar in nature to the ones in my submission. I kept the sources all completely neutral and didn't link to any press releases and made a lot of effort with the research. I would ask you to reconsider. Failing that, could you be a bit more specific on 'coverage about total media'. Does that mean you do want some press articles (in large publications of course) to be mentioned?

Also, did you delete my question previously? Apologies if this is in the wrong place but I wanted to open up this dialogue.

Thanks! Bazsha (talk)

to make it clear that there is indeed a serious problem with the submission, I've left a note on the user's talk p. explaining why the current article would almost certainly be deleted if it had been accepted. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

As the editor who accepted this article, you may want to read remarks recently added to Talk:Marc Friedland and read the blocking-admin's comments on the submitter's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Friedland. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

...do not ever add my name to a list again anywhere on Wikipedia, for any reason whatsoever unless you have my explicit permission to do so. Thanks. BMK (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Then uncheck the AFCH gadget preference and quit bitching about the changes that the AFC community decided on months ago by a wide consensus. Oh that's right, you don't like consensus either, so you're kinda screwed. Hasteur (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I made no "appeals to other DR venues". Please check my contributions. I made it clear I was calling you to see if you wanted to continue with that DR and I asked two administrators to take a look and keep an eye on the dispute because it was clear that the editors were beginning to make personal attacks and assume bad faith of the volunteers. I asked Lord Roem to look and see if this was something that, if was not continued, would qualify for formal mediation. I did not ask for "outsiders" to step in, I asked you to step in. The only venue I posted to last night was Jimbo's talk page and it had nothing to do with a specific case...just that DRN has a backlog.

There is no Coordinator at DRN right now. Please take on the task. It appears you have much to say.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the pings you made from that statement which already flags others down and makes a back channel appeal for them do intervene. It's a wash anyway. Heracletus lobbed annother ABF and at me (intentionally trying to disqualify the volunteer) so I closed it with a reccomendation of an ARBMAC DS warning for Heracletus and a referral to formal mediation as it appears this isn't going to be fixed at our stage. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah...it isn't back channel appeals for them intervene, it was a transparent request for admin with tools to keep an eye on the dispute. I also wanted a mediator to look and see if they felt this was something to refer to them and not just dump it on them. What you just did was to threaten arbcom on a DRN filer and then basically close the dispute with almost the exact suggestions I already made but you did it by assuming authority or the look of authority. Yeah, please do not expect a request from me again. But thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC and WP:DS are serious things. When an editor is misbehaving for conduct reasons, you take the bat out of the case to show them what could happen. Me giving Heracletus a "I'll say this once" is a informal warning. You obviously haven't edited in any reasonably conflicted area. Serbia/Kosovo is hugely conflicted so reaching for the already authorized sanctions to help strong arm editors into doing the right thing (and not get into 3k byte screeds) is adhering to the purpose of Wikipedia. DRN volunteers don't have any authority in their aresenal, only the power to control the DRN request and to make recommendations about the further actions. DRN volunteers typically are trusted by administrators to evaluate consensus carefully. So It's fine if you don't bother me again. Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt here. You took the whole "we have no authority or special powers" and threw it out the window and...you deliberatley undermined what I was doing in favor of what you wanted, and it is not acceptable as it wasn't really that different to begin with (if you did something completely different I would understand that). What I did was to ask for an admin to look. You stated out right that you were having arb com interfer. And you accuse me of bringing in outsiders. Phht. Whatever. Happy editing. So sorry I "bothered" you. Trust me, that will never happen again. --Maleko Mela (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Call a spade a spade. Since you need a further education in how WP works, you get it. In no way is reminding editors that Discretionary sanctions exist is not a threat. Reminding editors about already existing discretionary sanctions is not a DRN volunteer activity, it's something that any editor at large can do. If you'd look at other threads, you'll notice that typically the long lived ones take some strong arming by the DRN volunteer to get the parties to agree. Hasteur (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw that you mentioned that Ontology creation, inference, processing is a deep CS idea. I am working on the above mentioned area. My area of research is "Temporal reasoning in OWL". One of the applications that I find viable is this supposedly deep CS idea. Since you denied my request, I plan to create an application doing exactly this. If things work out to be favourable, will my request be fulfiled? Geetha nitc (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Geetha nitc (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No Wikipedia's purpose is to put information on the page, not to implement esoteric computer learning ideas. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

My idea is to automate the information editing aspect of Wikipedia with common sense reasoning. I do not intend my bot to edit celebrities wiki articles. They are edited within a short amount of time. My concern is that of editing wiki articles of scientists, mathematicians etc. Geetha nitc (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Still No Please read Wikipedia:Purpose and think carefully. Please also read WP:BOTPOL and realize that your proposed task is a non-starter. If you to try to push forward with this I will campaign against the bot's approval as it's very much a very bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Gracefully accept your decision Geetha nitc (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am in the process of archiving the Request for clarification initiated by you. While the voting appears headed to a declination, the withdrawal of the request by Rich should make the request moot, but the request was filed by you not Rich, so I would like to hear from you that archiving with no action is fine.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Now moot per direction from arbs. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Sphilbrick I would have preferred the committee to indicate if actions that cause automation (i.e. The Thryduulf questions) were affirmatively answered, but since you've already archvied it and the committee has shirked their duty to clarify the boundries I really can't object at this point. I'll just stick the request in my Arbitrators Hope chest for when we have yet another perennial request about the intersection of RF and bots, or for when the next ArbCom election comes up to indicate the lack of activity that the committee presents to the community at large. Hasteur (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sphilbrick Pinging again because I think I botched the first one Hasteur (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is not any puffery language in this article. Other artists such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cy_Twombly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rauschenberg , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Johns , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Noland, more have the same language. There are inline citations through out the article. Hpatrick01 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"Other Stuff Exists" is not a valid justification. The very first paragraph as so much peacockery that it's clear it's a puff piece. Hasteur (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you force the closure of the dispute so suddenly? Earlier today you wrote that you were going to close it in 24 hours time and than you close it barely 6 hours later. If you have no patience you shouldn't be volunteering at dispute resolution really. I think the way this has ended is really unfortunate. I never said I didn't agree with your proposal. I was just trying to make the reason for why chose the side of the debate I chose clear. I have the right to explain my reasoning, haven't I. I was actually going to state my agreement with the proposal, but now I have been branded the perpetual bad guy who has no other intentions than to be counterproductive every time. That is nowhere near the truth. That last remark in your final response was completely unnecessary and unfounded. For you this might be done and dusted now, but I will have to coöperate and be productive with these users in the future and the manner in which you closed this is not going to help that by any means. I have already had to defend myself against bad faith accusations by Prisonermonkeys and this not going to help the matter by any means. Thanks very much for that! Just take a look at what the parties involved in the DRN have been discussing amongst each other here and here. That's some of the nonsense I have to deal with. Rest assured, I have no problem to accept the outcome of the Dispute Resolution and I will obey it without any resistance and, contrary to what some users seem to believe, it has never been my intention no to do so either. The only issue I have is the way by which this was closed and how I am left branded by it. Tvx1 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like how you've been branded by your actions perhaps you shouldn't have done the actions? Frankly the 24 hours is merely a nicety. That you appear to stick the thumb in the eye and try to shovel manure over the issue (trying to argue the 2 subpoints when the primary point is clearly settled) shows that you're only interested in having your own way. Based on behavior that you and others exhibited while this DRN was on (including filing competing Edit Warring reports and trying to use the others talk page strategy discussions) shows that any unresolved issues are CONDUCT issues. So in short, the content issue is resolved, if you want to make a conduct thing about this then be prepared to have a bullet proof case as your own conduct (especially with respect to having to be prompted on multiple occasions for a response) has been significantly poorer. Hasteur (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

see my comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mites of domestic animals. (Not that the article is really ready at this point.) DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you've come here because I or HasteurBot notified you about an Articles for Creation submission I regret to inform you that I am no longer associated with the Articles for Creation process. It has been asserted that my actions with respect to the project have been indicative of Ownership and enough to cause sanctions including admonishment and topic banning at the hands of ArbCom. I disagree with this statement and positively assert that it is the malfeasance of editors who are conducting a vendetta against myself that motivates this. Nontheless it is probably time I move on as I appear out of touch with general consensus, and because I've pissed off enough editors. I'm going back to 100% ineffectual wiki-gnoming as established editors who have GA and FA credits are worth more than editors who try to uphold standards on Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur, Part of me thinks I ought to learn how to program a bot, but a larger part of me is convinced that I ought to leave it to editors with the right skill set.

I see you weighed in at Wikipedia:Vpt#auto_updating_templates. I am intrigued about the possibility of doing something with Wikidata, but I see that as a long term solution. Plus, I reached out to Andy, and do not yet have a response, but even if I do, it will take months.

I am updating the templates daily, and it is boring me to tears.

The full process is as follows:

I use data at ESPN Standings to update an Excel sheet. One minor pain is that the data has some errors, which I have to manually fix. I run a macro to convert the raw data to Wikitemplates, then copy the 32 templates (all at once) to [User:Sphilbrick/wbb_standings_sandbox]].

Then my manual process starts.

1. Open each of the 32 templates listed in the collapsed Standings list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Basketball/Women's_basketball/US_College_Division_1. (The count goes to 33, there is a single Independent, which is ignored)
2. Cycle through each of the open tabs to see if someone has manually updated the template. I confirm this through the As of date at the bottom of the temple. In other words, If, As of Date equals today's date minus one day, close template Else leave open for updating.
3. Starting with first remaining open template, check to see if any team are ranked (indicated with a number sign). If so, manually change the sandbox.
4. Copy the code from the sandbox to the same section of the template. (Easy to do manually, if automated, I assume we need to identify start and end position in template, as well as identifying the conference in the sandbox.)
5. Update the As of date in the template to the current date (typically, the day before current date).
6. Add an edit summary, typically "Updated as of date "
7. Save template

Automation challenges.

1. Some of the conferences have divisions. For example, {{2013–14 OVC women's basketball standings}} has an East and West division. The "copy" step really is two sub steps, one for each division. Easy to do manually, adds a challenge to the automation.
2. The addition of the rankings is tedious to do manually , and may be harder automatically. The information exists, for example at [ESPN rankings], but I have not tried to copy to the spreadsheet and figure out how to incorporate into the macro. I am intrigued that a source such as this does have the rankings, and is better suited in some ways, but that site does not break out the divisions. For example, they treat Ohio Valley as a single division. I've written to them a few times, but my emails seem to be swallowed up by a black hole.

My hope is to persuade someone to help with a bot that could be run on command. My anticipated process:

1. Update my spreadsheet in morning with ESPN data.
2. Copy results to sandbox, including adjustments to the rankings.
3. Run a bat which would:
   1. Check each of the 32 templates to see which ones were not current
   2. Update, copying from the sandbox, and save.

What do you think?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Hrm... I think I might be able to do you one better. It looks like there's an API I can grab at ESPN that I can grab the standings from each side (Mens-college-basketball/Women's College basketball) and then traverse through the result set making the mapping from the leagues/teams in the result set to the templates they belong in. I'm still interested in working on this task, but I need to complete Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 6 first before I start really rolling on this task unless this is a more urgent need. I'll let you make the call, but if I need to pivot, I need to start getting accounts registered, tool-labs accounts registered, BRFA started, etc. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy I listed the entire process, not just the step I wanted automated. That does sound like a better approach. It is not urgent. The current process works, it is merely tedious, and the world is unlikely to notice if I miss a day or two, so no problem if it takes some time to get started. Sounds like it is likely to more than I anticipated. I take it as obvious, that if it can be done for the women, it can be done for the men. My plan was to get it working for the women first, then check with those who are updating the men's side.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

One other thought. At present, the templates do not identify a data source. I would like to add the source of the data to the templates. I haven't done so yet, partly because I didn't design the original templates, but partly because I was exploring alternative sources. However, if we settle on using ESPN, we ought to modify the templates to indicate the source. It occurs to me that I should do that, it isn't an item that needs to be updated regularly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, my interest in task 6 is waning, and this is the new shiney. User:BasketBallStatsBot is alive and is ready. I'll start the BRFA, file the tool labs request, set up the code repository, and file the registration paperwork with ESPN to ask for access to the API. Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow that sounds great!--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Ping! The Director of Business Development for ESPN is finally responding to the request to get access to the more premium tier of data. I'm coordinating some time to talk with him so we can move forward with this project. Sorry for the long delay, but until we have a API to harvest from, it doesn't make sense to code a screen scraping bot. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. user:Bigddan11 has been updating them all manually, but is now doing a subset (I think, we haven't chatted recently.) It is a lot to do manually. I will do the whole set on occasion, but it will be great if automated. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I always update the WCC standings at the end of their game nights, but I do the others when I've gotten some spare time or on weekends. I don't have any problem doing them Friday- Sunday, but once that work week starts, my availability becomes very unpredictable. Since I'm going through and updating all the Texas schools schedules and records, then I'm updating those conferences as i get to them (Southland, WAC, SWAC done today so far, and I'm looking at the American and Big 12 as well), but if there is a way to make it easier, as long as it is accurate, then I'm all for it. To be honest, I've been spending a lot of time working on my sports blog, which is the one site I know of that lists all the women's games on Tv or ESPN3 during the week. For example, here's my entry for January 6- 12. Getting all the broadcast information probably takes me up to 2 to 3 hours each day, depending on the number of games.Bigddan11 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick & Bigddan11 my plan is:

At 4 AM Central time fire up the API call to get all the data

Start composing the data into the template format

Write the data into a userspace page for each template (so it doesn't affect the current templates) including a individual version link to the one it would replace.

Once we agree that all the bugs are ironed out, I'll change the configuration of the bot so that it writes the template fresh each time it runs. Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. One thing I'm not sure you thought about - the AP rankings are used. I guess those are in the API, btu I do not know. They typically change Monday early afternoon. Currently I manually change them Monday afternoon. If they are in the API, I will probably just let them fix themselves Tuesday morning. I am pretty sure if I stepped in and did them manually Monday PM, it would not be a problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I have provided enough references. How should I take this forward? Harishamj (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Harishamj

Obviously there are lots of authors who have the similar problems with Hasteur (just read his archive). If this is the standard on Wiki English then it is hopeless!Eiswasser (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Harishamj: The issue is not the quantity of refererences, it is that there is no inline citations for us to verify any of the assertions. This is doubly so since annother editor has also declined. I've removed the AFC submission template. Do not replace it until you've fixed the problem. Hasteur (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Eiswasser: The reason why your submission (Draft:Forum Chriesbach) is patently clear in the comment below the statement. Your casting aspersions on my efforts when you haven't even taken the time to read the decline indicates that you're attempting to make an end run around AfC. I've declined your submission again beccause it's almost entirely sourced to the government agency's site. The only outside reference is nothing more than a PR repost of the content on the government agency. Do not resubmit for review until you've corrected the problem as I will continue to decline it until you resolve the problem. Hasteur (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and I see not only references to the official site, but a number of decent newspaper articles, which , although possibly somewhat inspired by PR, are the most reliable newspapers in that country, and are usually considered acceptable sources. There is no actual need for inline citations except for disputable facts, and it is clear from the titles of the references what they are supporting. (I agree it is highly preferable to use them in general.) The problem is much more the promotional writing, and I've made some suggestions to the editor. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thk you DGGfor your support. Missed your input though. Where can I find your suggestions? Hasteur rejected the article again, now stating it trivial. I am lost here and don't want to conflate it with the article on Eawag (research institute). The Forum Chriesbach is important due to its architecture, energy-use and sustainability, in these areas it is a model building which the ref I gave (case study form indepentdent Swiss Uni, Elsevier article, and others)are showing clearly.Eiswasser (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Eiswasser, you are not dependent on on any single reviewer. . Any experienced editor can accept or decline an article. The usual standard for moving an AfC to mainspace is that is have a reasonable chance of passing AfD, If one editor thinks that it meets this standard they can accept it regardless of previous declines, and if anyone should disagree they can nominate it for deletion at AfD, and the community will then decide. I have when I think it appropriate. nominated articles that other people have accepted for deletion for an AfD discussion, and what happens to them is what the community decides at AfD--sometimes they are deleted, sometimes not. I have also when I think it appropriate accepted unchanged articles that others have declined--so far none of these have been even challenged at AfD, though inevitable some will & it is quite possible that some will be deleted.

However, the current tone is indeed promotional, the wrong tone for an encyclopedia article--as the most recent decline indicated. It has now been reviewed by three separate people, plus myself. Although two of the declines hare in my opinion for the same wrong reason, what I think happens at AfC is that when we see an inadequate article, we make a global judgment, and pick any reason from the list that seems to apply. That's why I normally write a custom explanation, not use the prebuilt reasons, since often none of them exactly apply as written.

I should say again several points that Hasteur emphasized & I agree with: since the press accounts do seem based on PR use, it will be clearer if the refs refer to specific paragraphs, because the awards are independent. Business awards are of variable significance. Additionally, material on the general benefits of hiring the disabled is promotional, and not to the point, which is the notability of this specific organization.

With respect to merging the article, I need to do some further thinking, and also a bout the building. Please try to rewrite the current article along the lines we both suggested, and let me know when ready. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The AN discussion is closed, but I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your work on the bot. I have deleted dozens if not hundreds of G13 candidates this year that were flagged by your bot, and I for one appreciate you donating your time and skills in getting the bot up and running. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, call it something unintended that was missed during testing and QA and now you've got a group of users that don't like how it works. Some might, but like anything else, it's the squeak that draws attention. Users, life would be so much easier without them at times. Or at least, users that were consistent in all ways. Alas, I've never seen that happen so sometimes you gotta bit the bullet, roll your eyes at them and make the change anyway. I hope it won't be too difficult of a change for ya though. I truly do feel your pain. (Got 3 different users that all want an e-mail to look different for the same group and they won't get together to work out the difference. Instead, I'm supposed to mediate (somehow) and get a single version they all like. Yeah. Right.) Ravensfire (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

On 17 March 2014 you declined my article Reliance Foundation for Submission while suggesting to add references, on the behalf of your suggestions I have added some references to the article. It is my request that please review it and response for the same. Thank you!  D Mi^™ 10:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

DemonMiner Thank you for your efforts. If you feel that it is ready for review please use the Submit for Review option. There are over 1000 pending submissions and some that have been waiting over 4 weeks for a review. As such because you got 2 reviews earlier this week, it's not really fair to those who waited in line already. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems of the current "higher" forms of DR — DRN and MEDCOM — is that not much can be done at either place if some of the major participants in the dispute do not choose to join in. I've worked up a draft proposal for a fourth form of DR (3O being the third one) which would avoid that problem, but only in those cases which have been rejected at DRN or MEDCOM for lack of partipation. I'm inviting a small group of my DR colleagues — AGK, Hasteur, Keithbob, Macon, Miller, Strad, Writ Keeper, and Zhang — to tell me what they think of the feasibility of this idea. (And if any of you would like to invite someone else to the party, feel free to do so.) The proposal is located in my sandbox in my sandbox here. If you have a minute, I'd really appreciate your comments on the talk page there. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently removed perfectly polite inquiries about AFC submissions from this page without responding to them. In one of the instances, you said you were throwing the inquiring post "on the dung heap," which is an extremely obnoxious way to treat a fellow editor asking a reasonable question. I realize you handle a lot of the efforts on AFC, but responding to questions about your decisions there goes with that territory, and I hope I don't see this sort of thing again. (Incidentally, I also assume that the first section on this page is now out of date?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: If the user clearly hasn't availed themselves of the other options (like reading "Why was my AFC declined" essay in the edit notice or using the Help Desk or the other options) and quite clearly the decline reason indicates what I saw wrong with it, I exercise WP:TPO to completely ignore/delete dumb requests. The edit notice for my page is quite clear, but I still have to beat the warrens of rabbits away from my talk page door because newbie editors ignore the notice. But since you want an explanation, here goes...

[4] was the comment I put on the dung heap because it's clear that it's just another "hurt editor who can't deal with the reality that their precious snowflake of a submission was declined". The Nick Grey submission was in this state when I declined it. I would also note that the rubbish decline reason they were complaining about was from 23 April 2013. I would also note that that draft was declined again by myself on 24 Feburary 2014, and by Ktr101 just yesterday so it's clear that my declines were not out of line.

The Russel Blake draft also was declined for cause. Failing WP:NAUTHOR. The best claim for notability is being a co-writer for Clive Cussler, and I would wager that Cussler's name will appear in 40 point font with Blake's name in 12 point font at best indicating that it's Cussler that is the draw for the book and not an equal writing. Having started his career less than 3 years ago and being marketed as an "indie" author is not significantly supporting of the SNG that the draft is applying for.

In conclusion, the problem isn't with me, but with ignorant editors who clearly haven't read enough to figure out that "I will not be responding to pleas for re-review here" is what I mean. Hasteur (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Also per [5] it's clear that Anna Roy has an axe to grind in terms of new articles, therefore as her actions were perpetuating the vendetta removing the comments and calling them what they were (ala WP:SPADE) should nip the negative attitude in the bud. Each advocate for a Draft is perfectly free to re-submit once the decline reason has been remedied and a different editor can review and determine if it passes. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My point is not the worthiness of these particular articles or the reasons you gave for declining them for publication into mainspace. It is that each of these editors posted good-faith questions on your page asking for more specifics as to the reasons you declined the articles. Although you had given a reason for each of the declines, your explanations were fairly cursory. This is quite understandable given the quantity of requests that come through AFC, but when an editor asks for a bit more of an explanation, he or she should receive some sort of civil response. Depending on the context, this could be a cross-reference to a policy or guidelines page, links to a couple of articles on comparable topics that satisfy the relevant criteria, or even a reiteration of the original problem or a citation of the "why was my submission declined?" essay if there is really nothing to add. But simply removing this sort of good-faith question without responding to it, much less doing so with a reference to a dung-heap, is not acceptable and I urge that you not do this again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad Prior to you sticking your nose in here I held you in high regard, but now I see that you've spent so much time in the ivory tower cathedral of bureaucracy that you are completely disjoint from the bazaar of volunteers slogging through the dirtiest and messiest portions of Wikipedia. I invite you to walk a mile in my shoes before criticizing as your "Down from the heavens" attitude only serves to distance yourself even further from the community at large. I will however remove dung-heap and go with the wonderfully bland "Your post has been removed per the edit notice". Hasteur (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Incidentally, while I think my concerns here are valid, I understand your point about me. When this year ends I expect to participate in the project in a very different way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hasteur, I guess the point Newyorkbrad is trying to make is that WP:BITE applies to AFC as much as anywhere else. If you can't restrain your frustration (which we all feel when dealing with the clueless), you may need to take a break from AFC. I don't know whether this complaint is warranted, as I haven't looked in detail, but if you previously held Newyorkbrad in high regard then perhaps you could consider more readily whether his concerns are justified. We all, after all, overreact occasionally :-). I am more inclined to think, going on my own experience, of ArbCom as less an ivory tower and more a chocolate tower. It feels solid in the first month, but it soon becomes apparent that no matter where in it you stand, you're still covered in messy gloop. (Substitute chocolate for a far less pleasant but similarly-coloured substance as you wish.) AGK [•] 23:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: So what you're really saying is that someone complained to ArbCom that they feel I'm overstepping the bounds of the admonishment now that I have a second Arbitrator sticking their nose in. I intentionally used the ivory towered cathedral to make a point that the ArbCom has been )for at least the past 3 years of me paying close attention to it) a cathedral of introspection and very little use to the people making an actual difference in the day to day work of Wikipedia (see The Cathedral and the Bazaar to help understand the metaphor). But as I said before I'l drop the bitey commentary, but I still hold out that the complaint was entirely BS and I will passively excise the petitions. Hasteur (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the example given [6], both of the questions asked seem reasonable. The first question is a complaint that you have declined an article because " feels like bullet points with the multiple very short paragraphs"; The version in question was [7]. This is a trivial style error which is not a valid justification for declining an article. If you don't like the style--and, personally, I agree with you that the style is undesirable-- it is open to you to fix it, before or after accepting it, or leave it alone, along with all the hundreds of thousands of other poorly written articles . (there now no need to do anything, because it was turned into a redirect to a proper mainspace article). The second question was about Russell Blake in this version: [8]. You commented "Still fails WP:NAUTHOR". But you were asked "his is also nonsense as cites are given from the Wall Street Journal, The Times and the Huffington Post. How is this not: "the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? " This is a reasonable question; the article does indeed have such references. . The article is a little tricky, because it is one of the cases of authors self publishing and selling via amazon where the large number of sales gets press comments, while the ordinary book review media (and libraries) totally ignore the author. I do not think it notable under NAUTHOR, but a case could be made that it meets the GNG, and decisions on such articles at AfD have varied --though I personally have almost always said delete, the consensus has sometimes been otherwise. The contributor needs to have this explained--after all, they do have the right to put it in mainspace herself and take their chances. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

continuing more generally, to the extent that the contributions from a particular editor pose frequent problems. I consider that all the more reason that careful specific advice be given, at least if it is clear the person is or might be a good faith contributor --which this contributor clearly is. (And, for that matter, I do not see this editor as causing frequent problems: I notice that not a single article they created has ever been deleted, and there have been many major contributions to important articles. Yes, there are some problems, as for almost all editors--in examining her articles just now, I marked two of them as being overly promotional) Some other editors who have asked for help here are of course real problems: the way to decrease is to give full advice as long as there is any chance of it being helpful. We are responsible for what we do, and if any action of mine is questioned, I consider that I have the obligation to explain it. When people ask for advice, we have an obligation as experienced editors who know the consensus to give them advice according to the consensus, not according to what we individually think ought to be the standard. (I know that in some cases my own opinion is different from the consensus, and I will sometimes say that also, making sure that I give a clear distinction),

Our job at AfC is partially to keep out the junk, but equally to see that improvable articles get improved. The accepted standard seems to be that there's a reasonable chance that the article will pass AfD. It's part of the general policy that in possibly doubtful cases, no one editor should judge. Obviously we want to encourage good articles, but if it would not be deleted by AfD, there is no reason to reject it. Editing can continue in the ordinary way.

At least, I see that you are referring people to the AfC help at the Teahouse. If you need to be selective in whom you help, referring the others there is a good idea, because the help there is generally quite useful. And I certainly think that, by my standards, when you do choose to give detailed help, it's generally both accurate and effective. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi I think you may have made a mistake somewhere either that or I messed up somewhere but I never submitted anything to AFC so im just curious on how the AFC decline template made it to my talk page. Thanks for your attention and Happy editing. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrd10 I'm sorry to have distracted you. This is where you inserted a AFC submission template on the Justin Blayney article and therefore you are the user of record who requested a review. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur,

I have made changes to the All Power Labs page that I resubmitted in response to your review, shifting the focus to the history and details of the company as you suggested, and adding a number of additional references. I wonder if you feel that it now meets wikipedia standards, and if not I'd appreciate any other notes on how to further improve the article.

Thanks, Nesdon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesdon (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 March 2014‎

Link to the page? Hasteur (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think he means Draft:All power labs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nesdon: I see that the page is now more appropriate. Per the unspoken rule I'm going to let someone else review it to give a more broad based review point. Hasteur (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I did mean Draft:All power labs looking forward to additional input. Sorry I forgot to sign Nesdon (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the above article back to the draft space. I assumed it had been approved at AfC and the user hadn't removed the tags, my bad - next time I will check and save you the effort. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 13:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: Not a problem. I was patrolling the Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space when I cought the error. Based on what I saw from the previous AFC reviewer and your comments (as a WP:China subject expert) I decided to yank it back to the Draft namespace and have the redirects point at that so that the user can work on fixing it. I saw that the user in question pushed it to mainspace because of the requirements for the course. Remembering our own requirement "We don't do anything at the requirements of an external entity" I felt authorized. Hasteur (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and you were quite right to do so. I'm still not comfortable with the article's title but hopefully that will be addressed by the creator at some point. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 13:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've closed the discussion about Dennis Brown's closure of a Crimea-related merger discussion. However, your closing statement is somewhat vague. Do you mean to say that Dennis's closure has been endorsed, or that it has been overturned? I take it that you meant that the closure was endorsed, but that a new RfC could be held on the matter. Could you potentially clarify this? RGloucester — ☎ 02:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester Since you're one of the disputants, I think it's really bad form (in addition to WikiLawyering) to try and get a "Is the closure endorsed" evaluation. I came in to shut down the thread because it went far far far too long with you and Ahnoneemoos providing much of the talking past each other without looking for a way to compromise. If you both want to fight it out and come up with a community endorsed split then go for it. Or you could work together to craft a new RFC to help figure out how to merge topics together... Hasteur (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not know about bad form, nor am I a "disputant". I don't particularly care about the result, one way or the other. I just want to know what the result is, so that I can continue to work on getting various articles in order. People are already asking as to whether the merged article should be recreated. I do not know if this is the case, so I'm asking you, the closer of the AN discussion. I might direct you to Talk:Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol, which has such a query. There is no compromise to make. The AN thread was a review, meant merely to determine whether Dennis's closure was appropriate. If it wasn't, so be it. If it was, so be it. Am I to understand that we did not reach a conclusion either way? RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Requesting input at the discussion: !Vote requested to clarify matters about awards sent. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Hasteur. I saw my article was deleted today. In terms of the message Philg88 left you above, I guess now I know the reason why my article is deleted. I have different opinions with both of you.

The first comment you saw in the top of my Wikipedia page is made on March 29. After that, I made a lot of changes on my article. Actually, my article was not original research. The reason it looked like to be an essay maybe because I am an international student, so my English expression made it like an own research. Therefore, after I got the comment, I went to the university writing center twice to modify it last week and my instructor also helped me to do so. The article you see today is the revised one. Both my instructor and I think the deleted article is ready to move.

For the second comment of my article, Philg88 made on March 31, except the problem of original research, one problem Philg88 mentioned was the title. Actually, I don't know why the title is questioned. I also explained it to Philg88. Missing women is a terminology in gender area coined by Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize winner. There is already an article called "Missing women of Asia" in Wikipedia, so I think "Missing women of China" is ok as well. My instructor of my "Gender and Economic Development in the Third World" course also think the topic is ok. Missing women is different with what Philg99 suggested "Gender imbalance".

I'm sorry for that the move reason I said was course requirement. If it makes you uncomfortable, I apologize for it. Actually, it is part of Wikipedia Education Program. I just simplified it when I filled in the move box.

I'm not sure if you will change your mind after viewing my explanation. If you still think my article should be deleted, could you tell me the reason and how can I correct it to get successful move? Thank you. Yangtana Li (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Yangtana Li: In short

1. You submitted your article for review to Articles For Creation. You submit to our expertiese. Either you do or do not. Because you moved the article to mainspace when it clearly had problems you decided to disregard our advice.
2. You keep using the phrase "my instructor and I". Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing independent thought. If you paid close attention to your course page (and to the Wikipedia Education Program) you would have seen that your page must meet the inclusion/content requirements. Yous page was still not yet meeting those requirements.
3. Your professor is not an authority on what should/should not be included in Wikipedia. We operate on a consensus of editors and subject experts. Based on the fact that Philg99, who responded to a request for advice at the WikiProject China board, found cause to seek improvement with your research paper, there was sufficent cause for it to be declined.
4. Finally your page was not deleted, but was moved back to Draft:Missing women of China for you to continue to improve it (and to give it time for another Articles for Creation volunteer to evaluate it). Hasteur (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Yangtana Li: Posting messages on multiple editors' talk pages is not really not going to help you with what you want. I have already explained what needs to be done on my talk page and Hasteur has now been kind enough to explain once again. Please follow the advice I left on my talk page and we'll take it from there. Keeping conversations in one place avoids crossed wires. Thanks, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 05:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur. I have deleted the redirect 'The Wiggly Finger Catalyst'. Do you want to go ahead and move Bilorv/sandbox there? Regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Malcolmx15: I thought it was clear that I was wanting the item I was CSDing to be replaced by the content. I've taken care of it myself, but now we have Bilrov/sandbox polluting the main namespace. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Saw your post on the bot's bug page. Did you see the notice atop that page? Smith609 is rarely logged in. If you expect attention, I suggest an email. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

An arbitration clarification request(Rich Farmbrough bot issue), either involving you, or in which you participated has been archived, because the bot request has been withdrawn.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

...you've still got the battlefield mentality ArbCom admonished you for. Of course, you'll delete this too so that no one can see it. BMK (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Friends of Sabeel–North America draft: Reading the CITEKILL article you suggested, I see that I've often gone over the desireable maximum of 3 citations per sentence. My question concerns the last part of your comment, that "great collections of citations mixed with competlely uncited staements". I see only one sentence without a citation, and I can easily delete it. But is there something else you had in mind that I'm missing here? Clarifying this will help me do a better job on the next edit. Thanks for whatever help you can give. Oscarwildecat (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my article on U-47700. I've about tripled the size of it, included all of the patents that relate to it (10), compared with AH-7921 & Bromadoline and added the usual 'expectations' on untested opioids. I chose this one because the paper I reference (which is on the web) gives the QSAR, at least of ring-substitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your feedback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dave_Malloy. I made the suggested change, replacing all but one reference (for a list of works) to the composer's website. Would you be willing to re-review? Thanks.

I received a message from you earlier today stating that an article I had made would be deleted. However, the confusion is I have never created a page entitled 'The Marantha Centre' or any other for that matter. I assume this is just some confusion with IP addresses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.217.173 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur,

Thanks for reviewing my submission, Shrewsbury Town F.C. 2014/15 season. Whilst I appreciate that the new season does not start until August, the 2013/14 season is now complete, and with close season activity now underway I hoped we could create the page for next season in order to be able to keep it up to date as events arise. Could you please consider/advise how we can move towards getting this article created? I see other clubs (eg: Manchester United) already have their pages for the 2014/15 season up and running, and as Shrewsbury will still be competing in the Football League next season, it should still be considered notable in my opinion!

Thanks, JMoore1987

Other stuff existing is not a really solid justification for why this should be promoted to articlespace. Furthermore, Many people are familiar with Manchester United, whereas Shrewsbury is somewhat off the beaten path, so whereas the coverage of ManU's season will easily be in depth and across multiple reliable sources, we cannot be sure if Shrewsburry will have enough written about it to justify it being created beyond the game summaries that are already covered by the reliable sources. I strongly caution that you wait until at least October before trying to push this to mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hasteur! I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and New Year period, and I would just like to inquire as to how the bot for Society & Medicine taskforce is coming along? Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_57 I have been greatly looking forward to its arrival! --LT910001 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

LT910001 Not done anything with it recently. I'll look at it again and start fiddling with it today. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm making some presumptions about your username, but if I'm right you might be interested that Carcosa and The King in Yellow were mentioned on HBO's new series True Detective tonight. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Youre correct about the inspiration for my username, unfortunately, I don't get HBO I'll take a look at the series in the future. Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I recently stumbled on a talk page where Hasteurbot left a message. I noticed that it spells "occurred" incorrectly. I'm not sure it's relevant, considering the first section of your talk page, but I thought you might like to know. — trlkly 22:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Hasteur.

First, an apology: I've definitely been short-tempered at times with the helper script, and I appreciate you bearing with that. I'm hopeful that we'll able to work productively together on helping reviewers. As you're aware, I myself haven't conducted an AfC review for quite a while -- mainly because I enjoy creating the tools to do this much more than the actual task of reviewing. This does produce disconnect, though, which is why I'm very happy to have you helping with the script: as an active reviewer, you provide far more insight than any of my testing.

To be completely honest, I myself am not too in touch with the plans for AfC. (Is the WMF still trying to take it over? Is that still happening?) I think it would be great to have a roadmap somewhere -- and maybe there is, and no one has ever pointed me to it :)

Lately, I've been working on the rewrite script, and you've seen why. Your feedback would be invaluable! At this point the script is at a point where it could be rolled out to the general reviewer population -- basic feature requirements are all met -- but I think having your insight can help us rejuvenate interest in the process by creating a much more finely-tuned product.

WP:AFCHRW has more details -- and again, thank you. Here's to much more collaboration in the future!

Theopolisme (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I don't always agree with you but I'm impressed when you point out that "When determining what course of action should be taken about a disruptive, tendentious or bothersome editor, the primary concern – more important than precedents, consistency, fairness or even AGF – is which option will best serve the building of an encyclopedia." Chris Troutman (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: It's not my original thought, but I did like the sentiment. Please feel free to give the original thinker of the thought credit. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You can find the originator of that thought here, and other ideas by the same editor (me) here. BMK (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello sorry i'm disturbing you i wanna know what are problems in my article and what changes i need to do to improve my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangram-Salunkhe (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• 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. The decline reason explains why. Hasteur (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this edit was a scam or if Misao Okawa really did die, but can you tell me if this is true or not?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misao_Okawa&diff=next&oldid=607853395 Deaths in 2013 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I see that my page creation was declined yet again. Your reasoning states that the discography section is unreferenced - which I find to be untrue? Further, I had assumed that since pages exist in both Dutch and French for this artist, his notability has already been 'established'. Could you please advise me regarding exactly what I should change, since my own page is actually much more informative than the above-mentioned two?

Thank you!

Nikify (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

All significant content on that page was written by me. If you do not cease interfering with WP:G7 I'll take this to arbitration. You have absolutely no leg to stand on, trying to interfere with self-deletion in draft space, when it's clear that all significant content was written by me. Matthewhburch (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Matthewhburch A few points for you

1. DB-self is invalid. The reviewers comments and declines are significant to the state of the draft and per the licencing rules governing wikipedia, we cannot use that rationale. When you created the page you gave wikipedia a copyright licence that makes the page the communities and not your own. You cannot choose to delete it if other editors have contributed substantially to it.
2. You are edit warring to restore a invalid CSD rationale.
3. Please read WP:NOTVAND and realize that my actions are not vandalism, where yours (coupled with the willful intent to not understand the rules) is.
4. Your request for arbitration will be bounced so fast that it won't even have an opportunity to be considered.
5. The only thing you have to do to let the article be deleted is walk away from the site. That's it. Based on the current way the winds are blowing in the MFD it'll be deleted.
6. Your persistent attempts to bully me into your view are only causing further Streisand effects.

I have removed your CSD request again and claimed the patent vandalism exemption as you refuse to educate yourself about the rules. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur Not worth my time to deal with this. You go ahead and vandalize Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source all you want, since it apparently makes you feel big. Matthewhburch (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am musician from Lahore, Pakistan. Thanks for commenting on my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AliImtiazHere/Ali_Imtiaz for the improvements. Actually yeah it's a user page, not autobiography you are right. I slightly messed it up there but I have removed biography from categories now, thanks. And NO, page on my name does not already exists. There is one "Imtiaz Ali" but he is from India and he is director. But I am "Ali Imtiaz" and I am musician from Pakistan. We both are differrent people. :) Furthurmore I have added bit more references as well. I hope it gets passed this time. Fingers crossed. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliImtiazHere (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AliImtiazHere I read your comment to indicate that you wanted the page as a "Who am I as an editor" and as such I have removed the AFC banners and moved the page to your user page. Please remember that writing about yourself on wikipedia is a really bad idea per WP:COI. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your volunteering efforts. I have what's intended as friendly improvement feedback. Since I'm not interested in the DRN dispute I'm posting a process note here about this comment. "Neutral" is ambiguous, and your neutrality is impossible to assess at this point. I think the question you intended was whether everyone agrees you have no conflicts of interest that would disqualify you? "Neutral" is ambiguous because it could be read to imply other things, however no one has any reason to believe, either way, whether you're neutral about the article as written, about the proposal as presented, or about the issue in general. Even though you haven't edited in this area you could still have strong opinions. We just don't know. We all hope mediators are "neutral" but the word is so mushy the real world mediation trainings I have attended all recommended trying to avoid that word, and instead use descriptive phrases to avoid misunderstandings. Carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy DRN works because a neutral volunteer sits as a type of mediator to help both sides try and find some sort of compromise that they can work with. I give the disputants an opportunity to object so that I don't pollute the dispute. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand all that. The question you asked (paraphrased) was "Do you agree I am neutral?" and I'm telling you that logically no one knows what you're thinking so that's a question no one can really answer in all its meanings. In my real world mediation volunteering, we ask "Does anyone think I have a conflict of interest or for some other reason am unable to mediate your dispute?" We were specifically trained to not ask people to opine if we are "neutral". This isn't to imply you're not neutral, its only to suggest something for you to ponder, from a professional development point of view (though your a volunteer and in real world so am I). Please assume that *I* think you are 100% in every imaginable way "neutral" and am not doubting that all, and then read my comments again, because I'm not convinced you heard where I'm coming from the first time. It isn't a question of are you neutral, its a question of whether using that word in a question is the absolute best way to accomplish the introduction and acceptance in the mediation prelimary process? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Context: Douchebag talk page reversion.

Hi Hasteur.

I carefully read the talk page history and raised valid and new and reasonable question about the topic. I had no intention to raise a debate in the talk page. I just requested information and constructed a valid question to talk about it. I carefully checked I was not raising a case previously covered in the talk history.

I understand that the topic is sensible, but you just reverted everything without reading or explain and linked the WP:DENY page...

May you please clarify this?

I think this behavior is harsh and you are discouraging an actual question. I also think it would be more constructive to explain what were you going to do and what reasons you had.

Thank you. --95.16.22.232 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Any discussion about Tesla/Edison/Douchebag is unproductive. As a previous example please consider Malamanteau. Furthermore an existing consensus exists that any connection between Edison and Douchebag is to be immediately closed, removed, Denied. If you disagree you can certainly raise it at one of the village pumps, the help desk, or at Administrator's noticeboard if you feel that this is wrong, but at this point based on the fact that you are continuing to push this debate after it's clear that the community will not entertain any sort of linkage between Edison and Douchebag to prove a point. Want to improve the coverage of The Oatmeal's poke at Wikipedia, do it on The Oatmeal's wikipedia page. Hasteur (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur. Thanks for your time to respond to my question. I was not pretending to relate/link the Edison and Douchebag articles. In fact, I started my comment with a statement about it. I was curious about how to apply the current Wikipedia guidelines to the case I proposed in the comment. But also, I understand that your time to read the comment is limited and it can be considered as a waste and I do not want to take more time from you than necessary. I am very grateful about Wikipedia and I understand it takes a real deal of work and time. I do not think that anyone may be forced to answer questions in talk pages, but I also think I made a comment that was valuable as a talk topic even considering the present warning and the talk history. Again, it was not an intent to connect Edison with the Douchebag term, but some questions about how disambiguation pages adapt to primary sources data pointing them directly. I guess I should wait another place or time more convenient and less crawled for raising such questions. Thank you. You work for Wikipedia is invaluable. --95.16.22.232 (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I go about changing my username? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherarch (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that my contribution on Swan House (Chelsea Embankment) has been combined with earlier material; it's already up at the site. I don't know how deleting the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Swan House (Chelsea Embankment would affect the actual article, but I doubt it would have any effect. But you know best.  :-)

Hello, the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven can be deleted, since it is a duplicate page. Thank you.

Hasteur, I noticed this and have deleted the page, which was indeed created by the same editor who made the mainspace article and who requested the deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:requested move|The Longford Trust |reason=There is a page called The Longford Trust which just redirects users to the page Lord Longford.

This was to help people who did a search for the trust, as there was no special page for it.

Please can you cancel the redirect and replace my content and history and everything under the article titled The Longford Trust. Many thanks.

All the content and history is currently at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Longford_Trust

This whole thing is equine necrophilia now. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent Because I want the properly conducted MFD (not closed early because a CSD happened) on the books because I've seen editors who DB-self to avoid the MFD only to come back 2 weeks later and start pushing the content again. If we get a admin to officially close the MFD as SNOW delete and deletes the draft (thereby arming the CSD:G4 switch) I have no objections. Hasteur (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I imagined fondly that you were an admin but I suppose you are also involved. Some days our processes do make us look very silly, do they not? Fiddle Faddle 16:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent I thank you for the vote of confidence (which I'm adding to my Admin Hope chest) but I'm not an admin and I was already hopelessly involved at the point that I commented on the codification of the rules. Hasteur (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

By contrast, my new friend, I never wish to be an admin. There is too much mopping and brushing and too little fun in that role. Might you ping a passing admin and ask for a speedy close? Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My hands are already fully soiled. I'm sure there are plenty of admins that troll MFD and this nomination is already in the 99% category for length and contention. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I used your name a couple time recently, and want to get you up to speed. I think the request Edit process needs to be done more professionally. I'm working with User:CorporateM on some ideas; they are still in the formative stages, but as you can see at User:CorporateM/request_edit, the format is a blatant ripoff of the AfC format. I know you have been active at AfC, am concerned that you are over-burdened, but trust that you will beg off if this is too much. However, given the parallels to AfC, I hope you can at least share some experiences if you see us headed over the cliff.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This is going to take a little longer than I thought. I just received an article I've been anticipating for weeks, and want to use it to make some article edits. I will get back to the Request edit issue when I can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hasteur; hitting the same page 80 times[9] in under 10 minutes is a little crazy. Could we possible have the bot back-off for 10 minutes, think before acting, and then make a single edit with all 80 notifications in the same edit? —Sladen (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sladen In short no. The bot evaluates the By Date categories (Category:AfC submissions by date) and then evaluates the individual submissions that are eligible. The reason why there were 80 at the same time is because I accidentally toasted my records of who has been notified so I need to rebuild the database of which editors had been given fair warning that their submission was under consideration. I would also note that users like DGG explicitly opt in to the notifications at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications. I could do some re-structuring so that the bot collects all the notifications for a single run and drops them at the same time, but that runs the risk of some notifications not going out. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur: Thank you for the reply. Could you help me understand why "some re-structuring so that the bot collects all the notifications for a single run and drops them at the same time" potentially "runs the risk of some notifications not going out". Perhaps we can come up with a solution? —Sladen (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sladen The re-structuring I would do is move all the notifications to interested editors to the end of the run. If the run terminates abnormally,then the "FYI this became eligible for G13" notifications will be lost.Hasteur (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur; Yes, re-structuring … move all the notifications to interested editors to the end of the run sounds a good solution. Would the following work for you? For the detection part:

1. Work through each rule/test-case
2. For any notification situation detected, append a notification to the database

Then, at the end of the run, move on to the consolidated notification part:

1. Work through each addressee, attempting to deliver all of the (consolidated notification) for that user
2. Atomically update the flag on each of the delivered notifications once the page containing that notification has been delivered, with the timestamp and when, and the revision ID.

In the case of unhandled exception at any point, the list of awaiting notifications will all still be there in the database. It sounds from the earlier my records of who has been notified … rebuild the database of which editors had been given fair warning that this nearly already exists; just perhaps needs tweaking so that in some manner. (If not, please could you help me to understand how (precisely) an exception is leading to loss of delivery-status information, which would prevent batching). —Sladen (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur *poke*. This is still going on. —Sladen (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sladen: I thought it was clear that based on DGG's response below (on whose behalf you were complaining) that this is more of an annoyance rather than a real need to change. I note that I have 3 other high priority projects (Monthlong AFC backlog drive, DRN noticeboard clerkbot, and Cleanup after a certain editor's mess making at AFC/MFD) that are higher prioritiy. If you can round up a consensus that the bot needs to change then I'll be happy to change, otherwise I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. I would also suggest you see if Martijn Hoekstra has problems with the way the notifications are delivered. Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to have, but I don't really care much, I have rarely more than one delivery a day. As a software developer I say yes, one delivery per recipient per run is nicer. As a software team lead I would say it's probably fairly low on the priority queue depending on other open issues, especially since it needs to be robust enough to withstand a crash without delivery loss. Long story short, my personal preference for batched delivery is small enough that it can be safely ignored. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I happened to spot a bot acting in sub-optimal manner within the User_talk: namespace. I followed the bot's User talk:HasteurBot page (a soft-redirect to this talk page) in order to notify the bot's operator[10] and to provide an example. The purpose of reporting the sub-optimal behaviour (ie. bug) to the bot operator was to enable it to be reviewed, analysed, and fixed. I'm keen to see this issue remedied, and would appreciate if you could share what I can do to assist you in that regard. I've already documented above how the database and delivery mechanisms can be designed in a resilient, atomic and reliable manner. —Sladen (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC) I'm unsure where the mention of DGG and "on whose behalf you were complaining" might have come from; I can't see it in any of my posts above.

@Hasteur: *poke* (again). Please could I highlight WP:BOTREQUIRE a bot … does not consume resources unnecessarily and WP:BOTCOMM Bot operators … will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general. —Sladen (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What part of that requires Hasteur to make changes exactly as you what? It's a design choice, that's it and others have commented that your proposal may be nice, but not needed. Ravensfire (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire:, the last time sub-optimal behaviour (a bug) with HasteurBot was reported, and it was being ignored (including the bot's operator swearing at the bug reporter), an editor using your signature[11] noted: "you've got … users that don't like how it works. Some might, but … sometimes you gotta bit [sic] the bullet, roll your eyes at them and make the change anyway. I hope it won't be too difficult". —Sladen (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sladen Please demonstrate how sending the multiple revisions is consuming resources unnecessarily. I observe that it is far better to have atomic changes for the individual pages that were notified on. Please demonstrate how I have failed to respond to inquiries resulting from the bot operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. Please review my previous statement regarding what other high priority projects are currently on my plate. Please review how I said that I was not going to add your request because I think it's a less than good idea. Please review how the two editors who are affected by the "bug" don't consider this a sufficent annoyance to get it changed currently. Please review how I suggested that if you really think this is a problem to establish a consensus that this needs to happen as opposed to "it would be nice". I prioritize "it would be nice" changes to after I've crossed out a great many other things (like a clean AFC backlog, no backlogged DYK nominations, the entirety of the AFC project in the Draft namespace, the DRN clerkbot activities being finished, and admins going idle) before working on this. Hasteur (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sladen In that case there was policy on the side and multiple editors came together in a consensus (which I still disagree with). What we have here is a single editor who is wanting a change. I reiterate my assertion, I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means "no". If you can round up a wide consensus that the bot needs to change, then I'll consider it, but not for the time being. Hasteur (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I find the current batching sufficient. As long as they are all together in one group at about the same time, I can go through the group and deal with them, and then delete all the notices. I would find it much more annoying to get them in driblets throughout the day. I am, btw, extremely grateful indeed for these notices. Most of mine are for items I previously postponed for 6 months. I find that I continue 1/2 for another 6 months,usually after making a start at improvements, and of the others, accept (or fix and accept) a few, and let the rest get deleted. As usual, the more I work with these, my tolerance for inadequate work decreases. What we need now is to systematically refer postponed G13s to the workgroups. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You told me to correct an error in 2001 Pepsi 400 to appease Template:Did you know nominations/2001 Pepsi 400, and I had replied; that was 20 days ago. Can you go check it out? NFLisAwesome 15:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all Thank you so much, for reviewing my article. Ya that has been decline by you. But next time i'll manage my best efforts to complete that article in appropriate manner.........

Thanking You, Wikipedia User.

The article has already been approved. Delete the page not the article. Please and thank you.Michaelgossett (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Heads up... —Anne Delong (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur, Thank you for your comments on the draft AfC. It is my first Wikipedia article and your comments are helping to get the level of the article correct. Do you have the time to look at the article now. I rewrote the introductory material to be much more explicit. The article is meant to expand on information found in the Post Quantum Cryptography wikipedia article. Thank you. Carvalho1988 (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

On 28 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prime Prep Academy, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Prime Prep Academy, which was co-founded by professional football player Deion Sanders, later fired him as the school's head coach? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prime Prep Academy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Egad, "troublesome"! Thanks for your comment, but the description of us is disturbing. So, here are some rough numbers to consider: Since the ANI was opened Binksternet has made about 500-550 WP edits, the vast majority of which are article/non-ANI related. He created or added 6 new images or articles. Steeletrap has made over 100 edits, the vast majority of which are ANI related. Thomas Piketty is the one article page on which she edited; she also contributed to the Piketty talk page and on some non-ANI pages (I think about 10 non-ANI edits in total). Specifico has made about 75 edits, largely concentrating on Stefan Molyneux and Fractional reserve banking; I think ≈ 30 are ANI-related. ‎ I've done about 240 edits, most of which are gnomish article improvements. I made 15 comments on the ANI, and "earned" this bit of commentary from an uninvolved editor. So it's unfair to lump us 4 together as troublesome. The second aspect is what does "that is judged to be not helpful" mean? I agree that it has gone on too long. For better or worse my suggestions were dismissed as "shifting". I really think Steeletrap has a simple solution available – stay away from Binksternet. Admin Adjwilley was about to close the ANI with a warning to that effect, but got thwarted when Steeletrap made remarks about bias. Alas. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)19:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC) PS: my total for ANI-related edits is 44. These involve the ANI directly, indirectly (such as on this page), and minor edits. Egad, more than I thought!!19:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I collapsed the discussion on WT:MFD, directing anyone to Wikipedia_talk:DRAFT#Process_for_deleting_drafts. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hasteur, I would like to say thank you for helping out on the Mockingbird Lane (road) article! Brmedia 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just gone through this & noted that virtually everything that isn't copyvio from the web (which I removed) is copied without attribution from other articles, and found that the editor had gone ahead and created Tamils in Bangalore. What should be done about the AfC version? I'll try to remove the web copyvio from the new article. Please ping me if you reply. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Odd, he's still editing it.[12] Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller I'd redirect the AFC version tothe created article... Hasteur (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know that was kosher. Done. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Josh_Mahinay. I have changed Further Reading both in format and in moving some to External Links.

I need clarification on this comment, "Most of the focus of the article is about the charitable organization. If we are going to keep this as a biography, the BAG943 content will need to be trimmed down to at most 1 paragraph." BAG943 is the name of Mahinay's business and product, and his business exists primarily to serve the disadvantaged (mostly children) in his country. He does this by partnering with NGOs throughout the Philippines and other parts of the world that also have a commitment to serve the needs of the disadvantaged. Every time someone purchases a BAG943, the company gives one bag free, working with NGOs. Without a strong business, there would be no community service, no collaboration with other nonprofits. Thanks for taking time to help me hash this out!

And thanks for letting me know about the TeaHouse. Judy Vorfeld 18:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judy Vorfeld (talk • contribs)

Judy Vorfeld Either the submission can be about the biography of Josh Mahinay or it can be about the charitable orginzation. One or the other with a singular paragraph on the other. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This will be tricky. But I can do this. He is the key. Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated!Judy Vorfeld 00:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judy Vorfeld (talk • contribs)

Hi Hasteur, thanks for your May 18 note of encouragement. I have made major revisions on my page, following the feedback as to why it was rejected. Any tips on how to get it looked at again and considered for approval? Slsw9 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Slsw9

Hi Hasteur , this article meets guidelines. No one is challenging it at this point. Its has gone through edits after edits and is 100% notable and genuine DanVanKant (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DanVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm challanging it. At this point you can debate it's merits at AFD. Hasteur (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(tps) DanVanKant, the best thing you could try now, is to add references to the article that mentions Gauni. But please, do not try to add more dupes of the same press releases. Sam Sailor ^Sing 16:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Noted; so the requested is to keep building. Will do; Thank you and Kind regardsDanVanKant (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)DanVanKantDanVanKant (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've said multiple times that if I believed it were possible for a bot to automatically replace archival links, I would do so. Your proposed pseudocode only works for the very trivial case of a link to content that has never changed. It's incapable of detecting whether the cited information is still present in the current version of a webpage, whether the cited information is present in any archived version of a webpage, or whether the archived version at a Wayback or any other archive matches the archived article at archive.is. Until you can demonstrate an algorithm that can accomplish those tasks, it isn't even pseudocode.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww In the space of 4 hours (and way past the Ballmer Peak in terms of sleep) I've slapped together a script that can go after instances of the string http://archive.is, look for them in reference blocks, try asking both web-cite and archive.org if they have a replacement, do a page text replacement, and save the page back out. I call BULLSHIT on your "It's too hard to undo the archive.is" assertion. This diff shows a straight copy I took from the mainspace article of the same name and ran a test over it. Hasteur (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is one more issue I got to work out with that CNN/Elen line where the regex grabbed too much content. Hasteur (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you proved my point: compare http://archive.is/0dnX with http://www.webcitation.org/6611tUXn0. Completely different pages with the same URL. All you did with your archive action was corrupt the article.~Your code does not verify that the archive you are inserting has any relationship to the page you are removing beyond having the same URL.—Kww(talk) 04:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, this edit summary was completely out of line.—Kww(talk) 04:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww So you're going to be a lazy admin/editor/bot-operator and throw rocks at the suggestion rather than work to improve it? "Herp Derp, I'm a big man because I can send people to the infinite hell of block. Oh look, someone's trying to undermine my pogrom to supress archive.is. Look at how their first test didn't work 100% correctly. Look how they admitted a specific class of faults, Oh my, there's a fault that is covered by the class of faults that they didn't self point out. Let's throw more rocks at them and say that the process, while partially right, will never work". I've proved that it can be done, and that all it takes is for you to not be lazy and for time to develop the replacement when not sleep deprived. Hasteur (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you haven't. The "specific class of faults" you can't handle is what is logically impossible to address, and is exactly what I said you couldn't do when you started. There is no way to write an automatic bot that:

1. Compares the current contents of the page to the archive to see if they are the same (note that they are both in different formats and include advertising and other variable content that varies from visit to visit.
2. Parses the content of the article to figure out what fact the citation is supposed to back up.
3. Compares the archived content at archive.is to other archives (again, different formats and they both contain variable content that varies from visit to visit).
4. Looks at the current version of the page to see if the fact that the citation is supposed to back up is still supported by the page.
5. Looks at a currently archived page and see if it supports the fact that the citation is supposed to back up.

You seem eager to paint me as some kind of evil lazy guy. I'm not, and I have no idea why you've developed such an intense distaste for me. The bot you are proposing is an insurmountable obstacle. The code that you've got is just a tweak to chartbot: I could do the URL replacement work and rearchiving in under a day of work. What I could never do is automatically determine when archiving is the correct thing to do: that requires human judgment. I'm not saying this can't be done because I'm lazy, I'm saying it because I've been coding for forty years and know an impossible problem when I see it.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template Editor User:Technical 13. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hasteur. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "HasteurBot6 TestPage".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Hasteur/HasteurBot6 TestPage}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur. I skimmed over thread in regards to T13 and the question over their use of the template editor permission; you had mentioned me and a few other editors in reference to topicons, but I don't see a place (in that ANI thread) where T13 mentions us by name or topicons at all. Perhaps I simply passed over it, or maybe we were discussed someplace else? I'm just trying to understand what prompted us to be mentioned. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I JethroBT The context was originally a concern at how T13 displays a horde of "Privilege" topicons, T13 used you and the other editors (without pinging you) as examples where a horde of topicons are also used that might need RFC/Us conducted (User_talk:Technical_13#Hasteur.27s_concerns). I rejected T13's comparison due to the fact that his are "Look at me, I have a userright I can use over you" topicons, yours are content creation topicons that should be celebrated. I wanted you all notified so that you had the opportunity to explicitly refute T13's comparison in addition to being experienced editors giving advice about the WP:HATSHOP nature that T13 appears to be conducting themselves in. Hasteur (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing me up to speed. However, I'm far less concerned about whether an editor uses topicons to display their permissions; the manner in which the editor uses those permissions seems much more relevant here. I'll review the circumstances and see how it all sits with me. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)