User talk:Hasteur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

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

Article on Kash Gauni =[edit]

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)

Enough with the attacks, please[edit]

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 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, look for them in reference blocks, try asking both web-cite and 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" 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 with 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 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 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)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Information icon 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 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice from Technical 13[edit]

Information icon 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}} (etc) 19:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Hasteur/HasteurBot6 TestPage[edit]

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)

Reason for mention?[edit]

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)

The Pacific Pumas[edit]

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

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

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

AN discussion[edit]

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

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

Username warning on AustralianThreston[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal re June BED[edit]

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

Resubmission of edited article "International Test Commission"[edit]

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

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

Use the correct collective nouns when personally attacking your fellow editors[edit]

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

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

Media Viewer RfC case opened[edit]

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

Your edit to RFC 3[edit]

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

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

HasteurBot G13 Notifications[edit]

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

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

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

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

Helpful in new pages[edit]

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

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

Thanks for Looking at my proposed page[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Swan House (Chelsea Embankment)[edit]

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

User:Adamsec/Don Hanlon Johnson[edit]

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

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

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

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


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