Jump to content

User talk:Hasteur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guptakhy (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 21 August 2013 (→‎Opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at WilliamJE's talk page.
Message added 17:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

...William 17:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sydney Urshan

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sydney Urshan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article was deleted by speedy while I was preping the nomination

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with your Pro Forma submissions

Hey! It appears that when you have been submitting articles as "Pro forma submissions", you have been adding the template in such a way as to break the AFCH script. The way to fix it is to add two extra pipes (three total) in front of the "ts = " parameter. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Awarded for your comment here. I've seen so much vitriol lately between editors on Wikipedia's pages that when I saw your courteous/kind/affirming post it stood out to me. Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kursk at DRN

Hey, Hasteur, if you're done there could you close it (or drop me a note and I'll do it)? It's way beyond its normal life span had it been listed prior to the subpage experiment and would have been autoarchived already. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: I wash my hands of that thread. When I read the back information and what appeared to be the loose interpertation, I got completely shot down by both sides who were much more interested in fighting than resolving it. Hasteur (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I've closed it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk

I'm on IRC now, and should be for the next few hours. Theopolisme (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/7-way intersection

Dear Hasteur: I replaced the missing template on the above article, which the user had deleted. The template clearly had the original submitter's name in it. However, when you submitted it the submit template ended up with my name in it and the decline notice came to me instead of the actual article creator. Did you add my name manually, or did the submit button do it somehow? I have been adding a number of these, so it is important to know what went wrong. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong In the AFCH Beta I used the "Last non-bot editor/time" option. The purpose for that is to be able to quickly run a article listed in the Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template through quickly to get a Accept/Decline on the books that also establishes the submission category for traversing old AfCs. When you did this you should also have removed the "missing AfC template" category so that the submission was no longer in the category. It's my understanding that old submissions need a straight up/down vote so that we can demonstrate we've considered every possibility and not let articles remain as drafts in perpituity. The "Last non-bot editor/time" submit removes the category so as to reduce the memberhsip in a reasonable timeframe. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hasteur: When I did this I didn't know of the existence of the bot, but once it was mentioned on the talk page I have started removing the category. However, I don't think "last non-bot edit" is going to be very accurate. I know that when I decline articles I often make improvements to them first, such as fixing up invisible references and messed up lists so that I can properly review. I can't be the only one. Why not use the first edit instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Delong The last editor would have been the AFCBot to add the "defect tracking" category, so that's not an option. Tagging the page's creator isn't a good idea in my mind (what if someone started as an IP, but registered). I agree that it might not be a good choice for the "Last non-bot submitter" and just filed a dev ticket to add the same remove the category logic to other methods of dealing with this backlog. Hopes this closes out the complaint. I was just trying to come up with a very easy way to deal with the backlog. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the decline box to the correct user. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers comment : Null

Hi there,

For my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Harneet_Singh you have given the review as null and rejected it. Kindly let me know about the improvements that it needed. ~~siddharth~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharthyit (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Way2veers 14:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Way2veers: I was only trying to draw your attention in a non-combative way to the sillyness that you exhibited in welcoming a bot to wikipedia. Please explain your need to trout me for trying to draw your attention to your failing? Hasteur (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For trying to draw my attention in a non-combative way to the silliness that I exhibited in welcoming a bot to Wikipedia, I officially award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar (and a wet trout)! Way2veers 14:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to the Hall of Pride Hasteur (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wrong reason

at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Perm Tsar Cannon you gave a comment: All the sources in Russian make this difficult to verify. ... Please remedy with English Language sources or consider making this article on the Russian Wikipedia. That comment is contrary to established policy. According to WP:RS, as you surely know, sources in any language are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: With all respect, I firmly disagree... WP:NOENG is very clear. At the time of the decline there was only a Russian forum and a scan from the first page of a russian document. The ballance of sources need to be English to verify the facts. Please be so kind as to have all the facts before attempting to brandish a wet oily fish at others. Hasteur (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
from WP:RS at the place you linked to: Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred: I agree they're preferred when available & equally informative. There are hundreds of thousands of articles on non-English culture area topics with only non-English sources; counting all the geo-stubs, there might be a million. I shall continue to use & quote the correct policy, until consensus decides to change it, which I think singularly unlikely. (It's not my style to throw fish around each time I see & correct incorrect policy statements by other editors, but I think it fair to send you one single reminder , because I assume you intend to follow policy.) DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new face of DRN: Hasteur

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Worlds first 80+ hockey tournament

Hi, I am too stupid to figure out how to undelete the page you deleted yesterday. hockeystu2 Hockeystu2 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockeystu2:
  1. I did not delete the page in question. That would be Mark Arsten.
  2. The instructions left at your page are quite clear on how you can attempt to recover the page.
Thanks Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertære Socialister

You have not made a compelling case for inclusion of this minor anarchist group. Please do not post here any more about this topic. Please consider the AFC help desk or WP:TEAHOUSE Hasteur (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Hasteur. First, thanks for reviewing the article on Libertære Socialister: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertære Socialister

But I need some help now. My article has been declined submission 4 times now. The 3 first times the reviewers requested to add citations to secondary reliable sources - and I have done that 3 times now. I have practically added all mainstream media sources to be found and an academic report from Roskilde University, and now I'm in a situation where I really don't think that there are more to be found on this subject. You write that this article is on one hand "Still very heavily cited to the group's own writings" and on another hand "Over cited in using clusters of 3 references where one alone might work". There are 34 references - 7 of them are from the organizations own website and 6 of them are related to Anarkismo (the international network which Ls is a part of). Only one of these are related to a citation - the one where they describe themselves - the rest of them are simply references, so that the reader can check the informations given (link to their political platform, link to their rules, link to their publication and statements about their participation in the Anarkismo network. The rest of the references are not related to the organization.

It's a relatively small political organization, so as mentioned, I don't think that I will be able to find many more references in mainstream media (that would also make it more over cited). The only thing I could do is to remove references to the organizations own website (link to platform, rules, publication etc.), but I really don't see how this will make the article better. I could also remove links to secondary sources - but that would only make the next reviewer decline the submission because it will be too "heavily cited to the group's own writings". So I don't know what to do to have this article approved.

I'm an historian (specialized in the international labour movement) and I really think this article is properly covered with references - especially when you take the subject into account. So instead of adding more or removing references, I will ask you to help me. Where in this article (exactly what information) do you think need a better reference? I would like to know, so that it can finally be submitted.

I had an idéa about writing small articles on all the anarchist platformist groups around the world, but after this one I really don't think that I have the energy for it. And I must say that I find it hard to understand 4 declines of my article when I look at references in the articles about similar organizations: Alternative libertaire, Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland), Common Struggle, Federação Anarquista Gaúcha, Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front, Federation of Anarchist Communists

Please help me Hasteur :-)

Makhno partisan (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Makhno partisan: "It's a relatively small political organization" Right there is the indicator that it might not be notable enough to be accepted. When I read the article I saw a lot of "We're allied with this Anarchist group" inclusions so it's not best for attempting to claim notability Hasteur (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Hasteur: I wrote "a relatively small" but in danish standards it is a significant left wing organization and one of the only organizations with a printed publication. If you read the academic repport from Roskilde University, you will see that "Libertære Socialister - LS (Libertarian Socialists) is the most important and most visible representative of the anarchist trend in Denmark". This should indicate that it is notable. I don't understand this part: When I read the article I saw a lot of "We're allied with this Anarchist group" inclusions so it's not best for attempting to claim notability - you have to be a little more specific, because I don't see it. I'm an historian specialized in labour history and therefore interested in anarchist and syndicalist organizations - and want to write articles about the platformist tendency within the labour movement. If this article is declined because the organization in question is too small, then you should delete thousands of articles - because there are many articles about "relatively small" but still notable organizations on Wikipedia (you could begin with all the platformist organisations i linked to above).

Makhno partisan (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla

Dear HasteurBot,

thank you for your message. I have been trying to get more references on my article in the internat'l wikipedia, on Prof. Holm-Hadulla ( Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla), e.g. on his role in IPA, but I couldn't, so herewith I give up on that article and request it be deleted. Thank you in advance and best wishes Cvfriede (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)cvfriede Aug 9 2013[reply]

PS: Is there some kind of reply function to messages people get from you? I could not find any.

@Cvfride: The message that you recieved has done what it indended to, to either jostle you into doing something about the page or to request deletion on it. I'll take care of the deletion. The message is also intended to start a 30 day countdown where if the article is still not edited, the (ro)bot will go through and procedurally nominate the article. The purpose is to give editors, like yourself, an opportunity to remedy the problem. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. or Mrs. HasterBot

See WP:HD, section "HasteurBot" — someone's talking to your bot like a person :-) I think that others have answered the question fully, so I'm here basically just to tell you to check it out if you want to have a smile. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Thank you, I took the liberty of adding an additional response to hopefully get the message across as clearly as possible. I find it disheartening that rather than try to open a discussion at the bot's talk page or to click into the bot's user page they went straight to the help desk and complained. Hasteur (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexis Ríos Rovira

Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexis Ríos Rovira. I follow WP:WPAFC but didn't know all of the details of the bot-management of the G13 cleanout.

There is one huge difference between a WP:G13-cleanout and a discussion-based deletion: G13's are eligible for a WP:REFUND, discussion-based deletions generally require a WP:Deletion review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

APerson (talk!) 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the Earl Peyroux page. I cannot find better references and near as I can tell his show has not been rebroadcast in years. I do not know a way to better justify creation of the article beyond what I've already done.Cobaltcanarycherry (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Poker Player

Hello, I will try to improve my submission on Professional Poker Player for your approval. Thanks. Vincent Michael Consolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmoEmc2 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JB Young Ltd

Hi there

HasteurBot noticed that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JB Young Ltd had not been edited for a long time. However for this one I had already accepted it, but ChzzBot out of sync, restored the article again! This is probably a bit of an edge case for the bot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett My most sincere apologies. I'm wondering what I should do in peculiar edge cases like this. I'm almost thinking that an edge case this far out is ok to accept a "false positive" notification on. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Hasteur (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, but the bot was working according to the plan. It probably does not matter, but perhaps if the bot detects that the first creation of the page is a redirect it can add some special maintenance category, or perhaps alert you that something funny is going on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add this to my developmen plan for this weekend. Hasteur (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{U|Graeme Bartlett}} Tracked and finished as [1] Hasteur (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about 'context'

Hello Hasteur: I have a question about my recent rejection from a few minutes ago. I have made the article completely encyclopedic in tone. All of the "peacock" words are now removed, leaving it as dry as possible. You said that it needs more "context" though. I went through the FAQ page ("Why was my AfC declined?" page) and it seems that what I submitted now fits those rules perfectly. It also does not talk about context at all. Could you explain what you mean by "context?" Could you also point out a part in my submission that needs more context, or give me a general example of what it is you are looking for so I can get this fixed for you today? Thanks!

This is the article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jose_Luis_Marquez_%282%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryhorwitz (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Larryhorwitz: You removed one word, and then re-submitted the article. That didn't correct the underlying problem. Please take a look at Kidd Kraddick as a radio personality to get an idea of how an article such as the one you're advocating for should be structured/written. Hasteur (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lanci rejection

Hasteur,

Lanci is running as a Dem, not an Independent. He previously was an independent but is a registered Democrat and has been for quite some time.

Second, it is not TOO SOON. Simply google "Ken Lanci."

Thank you.

I will re-submit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mefordwashington (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Hasteur! You're receiving The Invisible Barnstar because you reviewed 65 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question about HasteurBot

Resolved
Extended content

I found a message on my talk page informing me about a dormant page in AfC space, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Battle of Mount Tabor. Any idea why this is coming up now? I sent the submission in some years back and haven't thought about it since. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're being notified as part of the bot's activities due to CSD:G13 now being a legitimate way to remove dormant/stale submissions from the AfC space. We currently have ~80 thousand submissions that are over 6 months old that are eligible for the CSD. At this point you have a few options. First, you can do nothing and no sooner than 30 days from when you recieved the notice about the stale AfC the bot might come around and nominate it for speedy deletion under G13. Second, you can edit the page to make improvements on the page and potentially get it to the point where it could go to mainspace. Third, a editor could come in and nominate the page under CSD:G13. Fourth, you could take the proactive measure of nominating for speedy deletion under "Houskeeping" (G6) or "Author request" G7. I hope this answered all your questions. Please note that currently the bot is in super-extended trial mode and is not yet fully authorized for performing the G13 nomination on it's own. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understood, and thanks for the thorough response! I'm not worried about the article; it's a disambiguation page I submitted back in 2010. I'll complete the G13. Thanks again, —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Chelikowsky article

Hi Hasteur,

Thanks for your comments. I addressed what I could. Although some of Dr. Chelikowsky's alcaldes may not stand out to you, they are in line with accomplishments listed on other Wikipedia pages of his colleagues at the Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. Can you look over the article again and see if it's up to par before I attempt resubmitting? Thanks.Mkortsha (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's gone

You left this message for User:Offender9000. He probably won't see it because he is blocked indefinitely. Moriori (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moriori That may be so, but the forms approved for the bot must be obeyed. If you as an interested user, wanted to step in to save the AfC submission page mentioned in that message you can or you can elect to speedy it along under CSD:G13. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bot in RC

Hasteur bot shows up in recent changes when hide bots is set to true... not sure if bug or intentional. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

aunva6 Because it's not been 100% approved yet (because the BAG member working on it with me has gone idle with respect to the issue) and collected it's special bot flag from bueracrats. Please feel free to poke at Bot Approval Group if it's sufficently annoying. I'd love to have it be correct, but at the glacial speed of BAG, we should expect the bot to get it's flag just before heat death of the universe. Hasteur (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Cheek Theater article

Resolved
Extended content

Dear Hasteur,

I got your message advising that the Leslie Cheek Theater article I was drafting under Articles for Creation might be deleted if I took no further action. Thank you for the message; I had forgotten that the draft article was still extent. I'd already copied its contents to a section of the article on the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.

I have now deleted the contents of the draft article, but I do not know (or I have forgotten) how to remove the article. Can you tell me how to do that, please?

Thank you!

KFFOWLER (talk)

Additional edits in Chelikowsky article

Hi Hasteur,

Thanks for your speedy reply and commentary. I incorporated some additional edits, including more internal links, a book list and a third party external link. As you suggested, I also requested the page be renamed to a more formal name. Please let me know if there's any further edits you think I should make before I submit the article for another review. Thanks. Mkortsha (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mkortsha Ok, I took a few more cracks at it. I think if you submitted this now there's a high probability of it being accepted. I'm going to pass the page around a few other reviewers to see what they think (and to make improvements upon it) at WT:AFC. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Susannah Wilkinson

Thank you for your prompting. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia editing, but would like to continue editing Joan Susannah Wilkinson's bio for possible inclusion. She is well known in the Bay area but it is hard to document her "notability." Your advice on editing would be appreciated. Tswilk3 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to HasteurBot's prompt, however you should have addressed the issue here. First of all, you will need to make improvements to the submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joan Susannah Sadler (nee Wilkinson). Start by looking at the reasons why your submission was previously declined. I gave the page a nudge so you now have 6 months before the page could be eligible for G13 again. Work on improving the article or we will be back here again and annother editor may not have the kindness to give the article annother stay from G13 eligibility. Hasteur (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


music lanka about Dinesh Subasinghe discogrpahy

Resolved

hi haster this is musiclanka regarding about Dinesh subasinghe discography,please help me to improve that article,its about sri lankan wellknown composer's works,explain me or help me to edit it,regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclanka (talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I moved this over from HasteurBot's user page because it's just an unattended/automated process runner. I see that the page you were notified about was Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dinesh Subasinghe discography. I also see that in your recent history you did work on Dinesh Subasinghe discography and in fact did some splices over from the AfC page. I have redirected the AfC page to the mainspace location as it seems only logical. You don't have to do anything more and you should not be notified about this going forward. Let me know if you have any concerns. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C.L. Jos

Hasteur, can we chat please, I would need your help. many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis.chakkalakal (talk • contribs) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to use this talk page to explain what you need. I know there are some Talk Page Stalkers that could answer the question if I am unable to. You received the notice on your talk page because the AfC page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days and may be subject to CSD:G13. The bot does not take a look at the worthyness of the submission, just the last modified date. If you want to try and save it, you will need to make an edit to the page and improve the article with the goal of getting it accepted to articlespace. Hasteur (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asteras Zografou

I can do the corrections and spelling improvements in the yet-to-be-created article. I will do it. Some corrections will be made, it can also be made by other users, there are users and more users who can correct its spelling and translations from Greek who is experienced in football/soccer or from the eastern part of Athens, some elsewhere. I figure that there should be a few more users who can translate it from Greek into English. A small part of the translations that have not been improved fully, one of the reasons (lower part) is that Greece is in an economic crisis. It is absolutely intolerable and unbearable that Greece is continuing the economic crisis. There is no support especially the greatest scare that Greece experienced, the closure of ERT networks (temporary) and ERT World. The planned article is likely not to be removed and improvements along with verifications by me and other users will be done. I am very angry that ERT World has not been restored in my area and it's shameful. There is no room to put it in a sandbox, One place is transfer "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Asteras Zografou" to the "Wikipedia:Sandbox/Football (soccer) clubs from Athens#Asteras Zografou" to have the yet-to-be-created article temporary located, a sandbox article section. Proposed articles that can be corrected and verified, the number that can check and verify nine to fifteen planned articles in one page than one. It is likely to be moved to a larger Sandbox article or "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Football (soccer) clubs from Attica", there they can verify nine in one page instead of one in one page. If one is partly corrected, it is suggest to be moved to a larger one where it can be corrected with ten proposed articles that can be verified. Da Desirer 2 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel anger with respect to the articles you created that have been deleted. Please read WP:REFUND and WP:REFUND/G13 to understand the rules for requesting drafts back. Second, you can crate an unlimited number of sandboxes (i.e. User:Da Desirer 2/Asteras Zografou, User:Da Desirer 2/Athens FCA 1947-48, etc.), but once the page is in the AfC project space the 180 day clock starts ticking. Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was rarely updated for a year. If an article has rarely been updated. I suggest that the article (if checked by multiple users) is to be merged to a bigger temporary page where more experienced users can check their spelling at once. I suggest that Asteras Zografou is to be merged into "Wikipedia/Articles for creation/Sports clubs in Athens or .../Athens sports club section" which will be easier for experienced users to check spelling in several proposed articles in one page. Some users cannot find the title but they can find it with a single one. My anger is not on the articles that I created and have been deleted. My anger is on the economic crisis that is going on in Greece. When one is fully reviewed, the article can split and can be created. (New temporary article location: Wikipedia/Articles for creation/Athens sports clubs section or Wikipedia/Articles for creation/Sports-related section/Athens). Da Desirer 2 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's your responsibility as a page creator to take active action via the methods I pointed out. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neohumanism concern

Thanks for the notification. I did not realize that page still exists, as the article in question has already been created and overhauled. It may be viewed at Neohumanism. I have now blanked the page, which I understand amounts to a deletion request. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G13 tagging for redirects

This is confusing...the noted page is just a redirect to the mainspace article. One could make a case for deleting these redirects, or a case for keeping them, but the wording of the user-message is completely off-topic. One could make a case for deletion of the redirect, but the wording of G13 doesn't mention it. And following the given link to see just what actually is (possibly) to be nom'ed for deletion gets to the article, which is also not what the warning is about. DMacks (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DMacksThe problem is that that the page wasn't a redirect in the fullest sense of the term. For example: [2] shows that underneath the redirect annother user tried to restore content (which included the AfC decline banner, which matched the driver vector for the Bot (In AFC pages by date hierarchy in AfC space)). You'll see that I did remove the abortive page so that the initial page move is left and nothing else. Hope this makes sense. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, yes, makes perfect sense now. Thanks for fixing and explaining! DMacks (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the 1973 article from AFC. I had forgotten to remove it. I just set that page up on my own after AFC rejected it twice. I got your message. Thank you.Emeraldgirl (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. K. K. Nair concern

I added more references for the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. K. K. Nair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikian (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter lind concern

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter lind concern

Thanks for the notification. But I think its a robot notification of no importants ? Because there are now a new article Peter Lind that are up to standard ? Fa bene si (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hi Hasteur, please if you could kindly spare some time and drop in your thoughts on the new steps, moderated by admin Nick-D, that are being taken to resolve the dispute regarding blitzkrieg on the Battle of Kursk article. EyeTruth (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE : job attitude article

Please do not delete the article and spare me five days to research. Currently alot of things are going in life which I dont ha e control over. Please grant me few more days so I can properly do the research work. Thank you. Khyati Gupta (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hasteur&oldid=569578536"