User talk:Hasteur

Pinging on G13 notifications for HasteurBot

Hi Hasteur, I've noticed recently that when HasteurBot places a G13 notification on a user's talk page, not only is it a minor edit but also the user is not pinged. This seems a bit shady to me, since the user would be unaware of the notification unless they are actively patrolling their own talk page. I don't know if all bot edits are minor by default, but maybe adding a ping to the notification would help out. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kittens are so cute!! You deserve a kitten every day!!!

Bebfire (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Nodame Cantabile chapters

In "List of Nodame Cantabile chapters", all Kodansha links are dead. I wonder if you could research a bit if there could be an easy way to spot these and fixx them by bot. Probably, there are more Kodansha links in other pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts regarding CSD G13

Please note that, regardless of the namespace, I make G13 nominations only for the most hopeless pages that have zero chance of ever becoming articles. In many cases, these pages are not drafts at all, just putrid nonsense. These pages also do not carry the AFC templates, which is the reason they lie undiscovered and untouched for periods sometimes as long as three years. In my view, pages that have been reviewed by a reviewer have no reason to be speedily deleted, provided that it does not consist of any objectionable content which would qualify it for deletion under any of the CSD G criteria. I disagree with the concept of CSD G13. We don't need a criterion to speedy delete pages simply beacuse they have not been edited for some period of time. Defending such deletions using the arguement that WP is not a web host for indefinite hosting of content that could possibly be unfit for the encyclopedia is okay, but there should be a delay system of at least four days so that these can be examined. What we really need is a criterion to dispose off junk that were never intended as drafts, like this one. Drafts with which the only problem is that they are not being improved should be handled through PROD or XfD processes, or through the CSD process itself, but with a delay system, as is currently the case with C1 deletioms (4 days delay period), and with T3, F4 and F6 deletions (7 days delay period). 103.6.158.193 (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

103.6.158.193 G13 is written for a very narrow case where pages are not making any improvement in moving to being accepted. The vitaL link you presented could be eligible under G13 on July 8th, however because the way it reads, there's a case for CSD:G11 (Advertising) and CSD:G2 (Test page) currently. CSD:G13 isn't all that "fast" it's more an "You knew the rules for this process and now that you haven't improved the page (and been warned about the lack of improvements) it's now going to be deleted". Furthermore, if you don't think something belongs and it's not eligible under the G series of speedies, you can always nominate for MFD. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That page does not qualify G11 since it isn't advertising (although if anyone does nominate it for G11, the reviewing admin may still go ahead with the deletion). Neither is it a test page since it is obviously not intended for testing purpose. It is an "about me" description of a 15-year old teen, which is exactly what I mean by unencyclopedic! It's also worth pointing out that page is eligible for G13 deletion at present since the last non-bot edit was way back in October 2013. What you always fail to understand is that bot edits do not affect G13 eligibility. WP:G13 is very clear on this: Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits). (emphasis not mine). 103.6.158.193 (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Coming back to the other part of your reply, the reason I disagree with CSD G13 is that I don't think deleting content that could be salvagable simply because they have not been edited in a particular period of time, is going to do The Project any good. The existence of these drafts does not cause any harm. Deleting might even be harmful to the project since a good number of salvagable drafts unquestionably do get deleted, since the category reviewers won't be having the time to review each one of the hundreds of drafts that get nominated. See also Ivanvector's views on this subject. You say that I am trying to "lob every page that lives in Draft namespace under the G13 criteria", even though it is yourself who's doing that. Your bot has so shamelessly, if I may say, nominated thousands of pages for speedy deletion without once going through them, of course. The problem with G13 lies in the fact that any admin has the full rights to delete a draft even if its way to becoming an article is a 30-second Google search away. Of course, this is true, since G13 is a speedy criterion. And there are many admins who do carelessly make such deletions. Giving a 30-day leeway period to the page creator is rarely ever useful since it the original creator of a draft may just never return to it. In most cases, these drafts are created by casual users who may never be editing again after the initial efforts. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Two more things

1. Are you aware of the page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Old AFC submissions? It is a full list of all drafts that are there in the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation pseudo-namespace.
2. I see that the HasteurBot does not keep a CSD log. It would be useful if it has a CSD log as it would help in reviewing the bot's nominations more easily than scouring through the contribs for user talk page notifications. Looking at the number of blue links vs red links would be useful.

103.6.158.193 (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@103.6.158.193: Ok, with your very narrow focus and proficiency, I'm going to stop responding until you resume editing with your account as you appear to be evading scrutiny on your actions. Hasteur (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN Clerk Bot

I think that a lesson we have learned about the DRN clerk bot is that if mediation is requested for an article, and it is declined, and it is then requested again, the duplication causes the bot to get stuck. My advice would be to have the bot check for an old mediation request with the same name. If it finds one, it can append 2 to it, as "Eurofighter Typhoon 2". That is a suggestion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bot is not authorized to change the titles of the sections (and I wouldn't want it to). Bot is simply digesting the status page and updating a template. Also, context would be good... Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. It was the mediation bot. Is it yours? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

From User:MediationBot This user account is a bot operated by Anomie on behalf of the Mediation Committee. Hasteur (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ozaku link update problems

Please check for errors such as the one found in this diff. The link to the archived page should either, have been left in place, commented out, or removed. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 08:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Zombie Threads at WP:DRN ?

You are said to be a closer of zombie threads at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't know for certain what is meant by zombie threads, but my assumption is that they are threads that are supposed to be dead that are not yet dead. If so, I think we have a few zombie threads that could use closing. One of them has had the statement by the filing party struck through, so I think that he wants to withdraw it. In one of them, the filing editor has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. In another of them, the editor with whom the filing editor had a dispute has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. Another of them appears to be a request to delete an article, and the filing editor has been advised to go to AFD (after creating an account). User:Steven Zhang has had a death in the family, and User:TransporterMan is busy. Can you please look and see if the zombies need to be exorcised (or whatever you do to zombies)? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Going to need some context of the threads you want me to look at. Hasteur (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The zombie cases are: Supercarrier (apparently withdrawn by filer), Rohingya people, where only one editor was listed, and that editor is blocked, and there appear to be other editors, but they were not listed by the filer; Pam Reynolds, where the filing party has been indeffed; and Zulu, which seems to be really about whether to delete the article. They should all be obvious, because they are all sitting on the noticeboard in a New status but with comments. I would normally let Steven close them, but he is on a break. Questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

12:03:35, 11 July 2015 review of submission by 97.118.114.219

• 97.118.114.219 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bemitil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

97.118.114.219 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Maybe because it is a proprietary Russian drug which has had no reason to elicit widespread interest from the medical community in the US...

wrong location for question

Hi, Hasteur! You reverted a question I'd asked (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard%2FFAQ&type=revision&diff=671497129&oldid=667335512) and I was wondering where would be the correct place to ask the question? Thanks! valereee (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Valereee: DRN talk page. Where you put it was breaking the FAQ include to the DRN talk page having a stealth section that can't be found. Hasteur (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

So just to clarify to myself -- I want to put it on the DRN talk page, rather than the "talk" page that is linked to the FAQ itself? (It did confuse me when I clicked to talk and found just an exact replica of the FAQ page. I thought there simply hadn't been any discussion.) valereee (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The FAQ talk is not exactly the same. I would put it at DRN talk because the FAQ subpage wouldn't get that many viewers as it's typically transcluded. (as evidenced by how quickly it was archived off once it was put on the talk page) Hasteur (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DRN Status Bot

It doesn't appear to be updating the status of cases today. Can you please check on it? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it working as expected? [1] (no time since last edited in the last modified column for one of the cases). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Going forward, youre going to have to provide more info than "It's nor working". Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang Ah... If the last update was less than 1 hour ago, it leaves a blank because it's smaller than 60 minutes. I've tweaked the LUA template to put minutes in if nothing else shows up. Hasteur (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Mail

You've got email. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And another mail after that one. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Amon Carter Museum Edit-a-thon Update

The date of the upcoming edit-a-thon at the Amon Carter Museum of American Art in Fort Worth has been changed to October 10, 2015. An event page for the event should be forthcoming shortly. I'll be serving as the technical adviser for the event and your participation would be very much appreciated. I'll let you know when the event page is up. TransporterMan (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page

Article on Dezeen

Hi, Hasteur. I have seen your message on the need to edit this article in order to avoid deletion. I am currently working on that and I have recently improved this article. Nevertheless I am now on hold before resubmitting it and keep on collecting more references (I admit it is still not completely clear to me how much reference is considered enough, thus I want to be sure my next re-submission will not be declined again). Best. jpboudin —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jpboudin: Hi there. It's HasteurBot that does the G13 warnings/nominations. It should be noted that it only checks time since the last edit, so as long as you've made an edit in the last 6 months, the bot ignores your article. Hasteur (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your continued technical assistance at the DR noticeboard. Many big thanks!! — Keithbob • Talk • 19:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Ditto —☮JAaron95 Talk 09:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

DRN Clerk Bot

The bot doesn't appear to have run since 0430 GMT. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That was really a terribly filed case. Yuck. Since the filing template is supposed to be added by the filing code, one possibility is that the filing editor filed the case manually, which is deprecated, among other things because it tends to confuse the bot. In addition, the filing party left out most of the editors who had been involved either on the article page or the talk page, failed to notify, and failed to list himself as an editor. (Doesn't the code automatically list the filing party? Does that further imply a manual filing?) Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Good faith mistake on ANI

Hey, I reverted your edit here. The proposal in question was for a mutual TBAN between me and another user, so inserting my name and not the other into the section title inadvertently biased it away from the original intent. I initially corrected it to a more accurate disambiguator, but since you disambiguated the RefHistory one as well, and since the discussion of me and the other user will likely soon be closed and archived, I figured it better to leave it the way it has been for most of the past two weeks.

Just leaving this message here so you know there were no hard feelings. I was initially very disturbed to see my name added to the section title, but when I found the reason I realized it was just a mistake. No harm no foul.

Cheers, and happy editing!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Hijiri: I named it explicitly because there is a second "Proposal" section on the page that made it difficult to figure out when navigating by anchor tag. I will be undoing it because the above section has your name on it. Please feel free to change the disambiguation to something else, however I think that since it's a TBAN involving you the descriptior is valid regardless of your "feelings". Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Retraction of Arbcom Request and Continued ANI Discussion

I did not realize that filing an Arbcom request would automatically close the ANI discussion; I initiated the Arbcom request at the suggestion of another user without realizing this would be the implication. How can I reopen the ANI discussion and close the Arbcom request until such time as discussions have concluded in ANI? That is what I would like to do. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

VeritasVincitUSA I would first like to assert that I have absolutely no involvement with either DailyKos or the subject you are singularly focused on. You must positively say in the Case Request "I wish to withdraw my reuqest". The case request must then be removed by an ArbCom clerk either at direction of the Arbitrators or by the clerk's own initiative. Prior to that you should not re-open the original discussion. Hasteur (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I posted that statement at the end of the case request. With respect to single focus, you will see from my participation in the Koch Industries talk thread that the content I was submitted was NPOV and, specifically, not advocacy (or political, at all). When I see something (incredibly) broken, I like to fix it. I hope that, if not banned, I will be able to work with a broad coalition within the Wikipedia community to fix a part of the site that is, and has been, broken for seemingly quite a long time. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Eligible for CSD:G13 sign-up

Hi Hasteur. I've been searching for where to sign up for your bot delivering the "The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13" message, but couldn't find it. Would you point me in the right direction? Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications. Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DRN Clerk Bot (again!)

Just a FYI when a value is days without hours, a comma appears after days (see here). Sorry for nitpicking! Kharkiv07 (T) 01:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Shruti Reddy appeal time

Just curious, did you look at the deleted content? Instead of just declining the request because we don't normally refund A7s, I'd appreciate it if you treated this as an appeal. Please tell the guy "Nyttend made the right choice; speedy deletion was the right choice", or please decide that I went too far and immediately undelete it. Background information (all pro-deletion) appears in the "Removal of Speedy Deletion request" section of my talk page and the "Shruti Reddy" section of User talk:Josu4u (basically, it looks like someone's trying to promote a minor actress), while since I've not heard any anti-deletion arguments, I unfortunately can't present any of them to you. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend I'm not an admin, however any refund requests that were deleted because of any CSD are procedurally declined at Undelete becasue they are not uncontraversial. Hasteur (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, somehow I thought you were an admin. Sorry to bother you. I understand that they're normally procedurally undeclined, but it's normal to review an admin action at the acting admin's request — but of course you can't if you can't see the content. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend I guess that makes me an adman. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Hasteur (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I copied the request to Bbb23's talk; let's see what he says. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

drn

why did you kick me out of being a drn volunteer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nms642 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 October 2015

• Well, Hasteur said "Unsuitable for DRN as they've only been registered 3 days", and that's fair. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nms642

Hi. Next time you come across something like this, please do the candidate a favour and just revert it before its gets transcluded or get an admin to quietly G6 it. That's what we usually do, Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

IMO, I'd rather not G6 things like that. It points to the candidate's mentality/wisdom both in the negative (They didn't realize that they were too soon) and in the positive (They've learned a bunch since their abortive first attempt). Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur, I had come here to say something similar to what Kudpung said, but he got here first. Your point about not deleting it makes sense, but there was no reason to transclude it whatsoever: the candidate had post-dated his acceptance statement and posted to his user talk that he intended to start his run on Sunday. In my view it would have been kind to drop him a note about its being premature, but in any case it's not a good idea to transclude someone's RfA unless you're sure they're ready to go; candidates usually do it themselves or ask a nominator more familiar with the technicalities. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Answer to message regarding to Brianne Siddall

Hi, Hasteur. I hope this is the correct way to get in touch with you. I received a message from you. Yet, I couldn't find a button to answer it, only this page here. this is in regard to your message to me / comment about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brianne_Siddall and I know that I'm just a noob at this, but I really need your help with this, even if you have to work on The references just a bit, cause Ms. Siddall is an important Voice actress to all Otaku fans everywhere, and she must be remembered for all time, cause she underwent surgery as well: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2015-03-26/digimon-.hack-sign-voice-actress-brianne-brozey-underwent-5-hour-surgery-after-accident/.86373 so in a way, she has done a lot of work that involves voice acting, and the character which are shown in anime series or links that were added to the page. Please let me know what else you need to legitimize this account and bear with me - I'm just a wikipedia editor in training and don't know much about the technical ways of communicating in here, also I'm don't usually login to wikipedia on a regular basis. However, if you write to my site again, I should be able to see it sooner or later. Thank you. :) P.S. i also just send a request for an undeletion as i intend to work on this as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Draft:Brianne_Siddall so i expect for you to do the same, ok. Norozco1 (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Hasteur, I've started up a discussion at Draft_talk:Brianne_Siddall#Sourcing about this. Basically, what we have here is an American voice actress that has performed major roles in multiple notable series and you can see some of these brought up at the draft talk page and at User_talk:Spartaz#Draft:Brianne Siddall, where I listed 8 instances where she's portrayed a major character (one of the characters was even in 3 games and 1 TV series). VAs rarely get coverage for their roles so notability for them almost always has to be judged on how major their roles were and how notable the series themselves are. IE, reviews and coverage for the series will rarely call out a specific VA by name but will review the series/game/etc as a whole. IMO Siddall is notable for these roles, so notability isn't an issue here, rather it's more of a BLP one. However this can be easily rectified by us monitoring the page and ensuring that any biographical data is backed up with a reliable source of some kind, even if it's a routine database listing like Anime News Network, and given the amount of work Siddall has done in her field I think that the coverage in databases and primary sources trumps the lack of secondary sourcing that focuses specifically on Siddall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Norozco1 What you recieved was a notice from HasteurBot (a bot that looks at AfC submissions) that noticed your draft has not been edited in 6 months. It was purely an informative message that the page was eligible for CSD:G13. HasteurBot's talk page is fully protected so people don't use the talk page to try and communicate with a bot. I've responded back at the Draft talk page about the re-evaluation of this draft. Hasteur (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Tokyogirl79 See my response at the draft talk page. Hasteur (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Ok, we see your point, but still, you should try checking Tokyogirl79's response as well, and if it's good enough, then you can at least take her response under consideration, ya know! :-/ Norozco1 (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yuri Lowenthal

Hi Hasteur, re: your maintenance template addition at Yuri Lowenthal, I wanted to point out that I raised a discussion about the scope of the article a while back here. Clearly the filmography needs to be bounced out into a new article, but even then I'm a little unclear on what the scope of the filmography should be. Every thing the guy has done? If he lives for another 40 years that could be tens of thousands of credits. Are we IMDb? I raised the issue again at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers but I don't think anyone felt that listing every role the actor has performed was much of a problem. I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I don't know the right answer on how to split the article, I was mainly looking at the page in the context of Draft:Brianne Siddall (as evidenced in the previous section) where a argument was advanced that because Yuri had such a long credits dump, Brianne deserves to be in mainspace with a large credits dump. I was going about it in the context of "We should remove these large credits dumps because we are not IMDB/AnimeDB/etc". Hope this helps with understanding my intention. Hasteur (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps creating a seperate "list-article" of roles and related achievements would help to solve this? Mention only "award-winning"/"major production" on the main article? Just my suggestion, though I haven't looked too deeply into the article. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102Cyphoidbomb the problem with that is it then reduces the "main" article to effectivly makes it a stub article. It's a odd Catch-22 situation. Hasteur (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

HasteurBot overwriting user talk page redirects

Hi there. Looks like HasteurBot has a bug, in that if it encounters a user talk page that's been redirected to a different namespace, it overwrites the redirect.  — Scott • talk 11:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to say not a bug as the reason the page is redirected is because the user is CBaned and a sockmaster. As evidenced by the many people who are failing at the talk page and user page, I have undone the redirect of the talk page, but also placed the CBan and Sockmaster templates on the talk page so it's clear to any visiting users that the user isn't going to be able to respond. Hasteur (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Scott With respect, part of making these notices that the page is Eligible for G13 is so that if someone else is watching the user's talk page might be interested in salvaging the page. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think a bot should ever blindly overwrite a redirect, even an odd one - it should report that it encountered something weird and let a human decide. But that's a minor thing. But yes, about the notices - I can't help thinking, however, that the use case you described would be better served by a templated message that doesn't seem to be addressing a user who can't respond to it. Likewise, I don't think that being banned disables email notifications, so it's quite possible that every time your bot leaves one of these messages on the talk page of a banned user, they get an email about it. In the case of someone who's been a serious nuisance to the project, as in the prior owner of this particular talk page, we should aim not to do anything that might encourage them to circumvent their ban. I think a separate location for announcing orphaned drafts would be a better idea. Best,  — Scott • talk 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(watching, and for the record:) User talk pages are for talking to a user and those who watch the page. To make them a redirect seems not helpful. Redirect the user to the talk if you have to. I will play the record until you stop. Repeating: in response to one of these messages I nominated an article for GA, successfully so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Collapse parameters

I changed the parameters on the collapses you put on ANI. I'm not sure if it violated a guideline somewhere or not, but it seems kinda pointless to collapse entire sections including their titles. You were of course right in collapsing in the first place (thank you!) but for the archives' sake I uncollapsed the section titles.

However, I REALLY want to uncollapse the lolcat picture, too. It was just so hilarious and cute. Would you mind if I did? (Or, rather, if you approve of uncollapsing it, would you mind doing it yourself? I'm trying to keep ANI posts to a minimum at the moment, for obvious reasons, and I can't imagine anyone opposing uncollapsing the cat.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Forte Tenors RfC

You are invited to comment if you so desire. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Hasteur:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

Hasteurbot null editing pages from G13 cat

I noticed that when Hasteurbot is sending out its notifications, (such as this one) it seems to be doing a null edit or something to the page so that they aren't showing up in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. For example, see this version and the current one for Draft:Grassroots Bookroom which claims a null edit by Hausterbot. These edits are all allegedly zero seconds ago although Hasteurbot was working prior to that so maybe you can provide some insights at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#G13_eligible_AfC_submissions_issue on it (maybe template:AFC submission is the problem?). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

They will never understand

Sometimes they just need to trust other people, but they will never understand. Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: RE G13 inquiries? Hasteur (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the ones. Fiddle Faddle 16:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: would you mind slapping JMHamo around for being a blazing idiot? Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat and explain with new words the same fucking concepts? Hasteur (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If there were any point in doing so I would. I suggest you trout them. This is not hard to understand, unless one chooses to find it hard to understand. Fiddle Faddle 15:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

HasteurBot G13 notifications

The bot should first check {{AFC submission}} template for the u= parameter, which is used to indicate the draft creator. E.g. Draft:Maria Dakake, a draft I moved to draftspace on behalf of Quran Scholar, yet I got the G13 notice and they did not. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The bot looks at the page history and notifies the first user. Whatever you have done that displaces the original creator actually violates the Attribution clause of the licence we force on contributors. Hasteur (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus regarding UFC articles

Hi, I noticed your comments on the dispute resolution noticeboard. You didn't provide any links to the consensus you mention, but you say that there were many discussions so it is probably not easy to link to. I am not really involved in the UFC 193 dispute either, but I described my edit history and opinion on the topic.
To be honest, I can't understand why there are all these minute details about the background (who was supposed to fight but pulled out, who was selected to replace them but got injured, etc.), but when you get to the section containing the actual results, it looks like an afterthought when presented in the table format. To someone who is new to editing the topic, the opposition to expanding upon the course of events makes it look like people don't really care for what happened. Of course I don't believe that is actually the case, but it seems like a strange approach.
I don't plan on participating further than my statement at the noticeboard, but for the sake of my curiosity could you give me an insight into why there is such opposition to describing the fights? Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

With reference to the submitted article 'Adi Dharam'

Hi,

I am writing with reference to an article submitted by me titled 'Adi Dharam'(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adi_Dharam). You had declined accepting the request citing that the article is already on wikipedia and had asked to wrtie back if the article mentioned by you was different from the article submitted by me. This was perhaps due to an already present article named 'Adi Dharm' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Dharm). Though 'Adi Dharam' and 'Adi Dharm' have very similar names, the subject matter of these articles are very different from each other. The earlier one refers to the umbrella term used for the religion of the Indigenous Peoples in India while the later one refers to the religion of the Adi Bramho Samaj, these two societies are very different from each other and also are the content of these two articles. I request you to kindly go through both the articles, and the references and citations once again to clearly get the difference between them.

Looking forward to hearing from you

Gimunda (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC) user: gimunda

Season's Greetings!

Hello Hasteur: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

AfC bot

I think the Hasteurbot has been placing the notices only at6 months instead of one month ahead as a warning to work on it,and various people have consequently been deleting the articles immediately. I rely very much on catching these for improvement, and it has made things much harder (tho I can and do view the deleted draft for checking, and I can and do sometimes retore the draft and edit it. ) If this was a deliberate change, it needs to be discussed, for as I see it is contradictory to the purpose of the bot. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: The bot is authorized for 6 months. We thought about doing 5 months, but I got boerd and stopped working on it. Hasteur (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not my memory of the discussions. My memory is that we decided to do it at 5 months. In fact, my memory is that G13 was only approved on that basis. The bot is worded as a warning, I do not want to be in a position where I feel it necessary to review all G13 deletions. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In that case, your memory is faulty. The bot was authorized for warning at 6 months exactly. and deletions a month later. The bots warnings also coincide with the date that the page can be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You were right, we did get the BRFA approved. I made the changes and have started a special June run of the reminder process to let people know their pages are eligible soon. Hasteur (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

so the current run is the 5 month run? I hope there isn't too much more of it, because I'm trying to keep up. Thanks for helping. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: The recent run notices to your talk page are on the 5 month notice. Observe the new language "The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly." Hasteur (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

RIGHT! DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Dungeons/Dragons

Thanks for your response. Your words leave me rather annoyed at others, and I fully understand and sympathize with your position: I have no wish to see others throwing a fit because you ignored a rule that was preventing you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. As you will see (or as you already saw) from your other notifications, I've started a community discussion about creating these specific redirects, and I've also made a related proposal that, if successful, would shield bot operators from criticism in future situations. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk trouts

Please do not trout the arbitration clerks, even if one of them were to overlook your request to omit notifications. I spent a year in that role, and can attest that the clerks' job is fishy enough as it is. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the clerks need to properly screen the list before they send the mass message. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha...

...Asking Arbcom to affirm the 5 pillars while they are in the process of emasculating it. Unintentional or ironic? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Or we could AGF that the Arbitrators will know what they really need to accomplish. Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

HasteurBot dealing with user talk page redirects and bots

Hello, HasteurBot shouldn't be notifying bots about article deletions, much less overwriting redirects. Graham87 03:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Graham87 I'm going to safely ignore this as a one off because MadmanBot did create the page and per the authorization for the Bot, were supposed to notify the page creator. Yes clobbering a redirect is a bad idea, and I'll open a discussion at BOTN to determine if I can make this change without filing a new BRFA or if I have to go through the longer burecratic method. Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Aha. It turns out that the page was already in the user talk namespace, but was later moved to draftspace. I've moved it back. Graham87 02:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

MfD nominations

You are an editor of significant experience here. Why have you suddenly started nominating articles which very clearly are speedy-deletable on the MfD page?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: Two Reasons: Because I'm being cautious in using the speedy deletion rules because I'm not 100% certain they qualify for the speedy deletion rules, and to establish the "Frequent" portion of Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Header. There's a greater possibility of getting a CSD enacted if there are multiple cases of previously deleted pages that support the proposition. Hasteur (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A1, A3 and A7 seem to me to be very clear. I have speedy-deleted several of your nominations, and see no reason not to. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: except the CSD A series is supposed to only apply to Article space pages and not other namespaces. As I understand it, the only class of speedy deletion requests that are valid in draft namespace are the CSD G series. Could you please help me to understand where I might have a deficiency in my understanding? Hasteur (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to educate you; you know at least as much about this place as I do. I was giving random examples, based on your earlier comment. Would it look better if I were to say G2, G7, G8, G11 and G13 (at least) seem very clear? My point regarding the nominations to MfD remains valid. I do, however, understand your second reason, and if you see a sensible reason for processing these micro-drafts through MfD I am happy to comply.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In a somewhat different but related query, what possible good do you portend from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quillen metric and similar noms? VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Either encouraging the author of a great many of these no-content/context drafts to either put their money where their mouth is and explain the concept or give back the "creation" credit for the page so that someone who really creates the content actually gets the creation credit for it. Land grabbing a bunch of titles is against policy regardless of what namespace it is. With several editors looking to bring in dynamite and blow up the entire namespace because of these stale and defective drafts, I think this is very much the least disruptive solution. Hasteur (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)