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 Coranglais2001 (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 24 December 2013 (→‎GTCL: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 9 as User talk:Hasteur/Archive 8 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

AfC speedies

Thanks for your reply - and good grief. Do we have any stats on the backlog waiting for deletion (e.g. is it getting bigger or smaller)? Ben MacDui 08:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben MacDui I think like 2 months ago we were around 60k eligible drafts. We're making progress, and eventually the bot will stabalize around 9k pending AfC submissions while advancing about 300 a day to G13 nominations based on the current inflow of submissions. Hasteur (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like real progress against the backlog, but 300/day is still a large amount of effort - say the equivalent of a full time job. Was any thought given to just having the bot zap them? Ben MacDui 15:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ben MacDui Actually, yes. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT 3 was a proposed implementation for auto-deleting G13 eligible nominations. There was some thoughts that they community was ok with bot deletion of the eligible articles, however others pushed back and wanted a set of human eyes on the deletion to make a call as to if it really deserves deletion. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2 give the story of how the bot came to be. Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt these enthusiasts will be active in deleting these pages. Ben MacDui 18:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Likelihoodist's talk page.
Message added Likelihoodist (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi Hauster!

You recently declined my article for submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Baughman_v._State_Farm_Mutual_Automobile_Insurance_Company with the reason " Feels like a copy/paste of content from elsewhere."

Since this is completely original, in-house written content I left scratching my head on ways to improve the article for resubmission based off of your sentence fragment. Can you please elaborate with more detail of what exactly gave you this feeling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NurenbergParisHellerMcCarthy (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wbb standings templates

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

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

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

The full process is as follows:

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

Then my manual process starts.

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

Automation challenges.

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

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

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

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

Sphilbrick Hrm... I think I might be able to do you one better. It looks like there's an API I can grab at ESPN that I can grab the standings from each side (Mens-college-basketball/Women's College basketball) and then traverse through the result set making the mapping from the leagues/teams in the result set to the templates they belong in. I'm still interested in working on this task, but I need to complete Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 6 first before I start really rolling on this task unless this is a more urgent need. I'll let you make the call, but if I need to pivot, I need to start getting accounts registered, tool-labs accounts registered, BRFA started, etc. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm happy I listed the entire process, not just the step I wanted automated. That does sound like a better approach. It is not urgent. The current process works, it is merely tedious, and the world is unlikely to notice if I miss a day or two, so no problem if it takes some time to get started. Sounds like it is likely to more than I anticipated. I take it as obvious, that if it can be done for the women, it can be done for the men. My plan was to get it working for the women first, then check with those who are updating the men's side.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One other thought. At present, the templates do not identify a data source. I would like to add the source of the data to the templates. I haven't done so yet, partly because I didn't design the original templates, but partly because I was exploring alternative sources. However, if we settle on using ESPN, we ought to modify the templates to indicate the source. It occurs to me that I should do that, it isn't an item that needs to be updated regularly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, my interest in task 6 is waning, and this is the new shiney. User:BasketBallStatsBot is alive and is ready. I'll start the BRFA, file the tool labs request, set up the code repository, and file the registration paperwork with ESPN to ask for access to the API. Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that sounds great!--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marian at Childers

Actually, usernames like this are permitted, and can be a useful way of openly declaring an interest. See WP:ISU:

However, usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation"

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powerlifting Equipment AFC

Hi, thank you for the feedback on the proposed AFC Powerlifting Equipment. If I understand correctly, your recommendation is to add the new content to the Powerlifting article. In light of this, could you please take a look at the existing article on Bench shirts? It discusses a subset of powerlifting equipment and has less content than the declined AFC. Would it be reasonable to merge Bench shirt to Powerlifting if the main article were expanded to include a detailed explanation of powerlifting equipment? Thanks, 24.26.129.36 (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I woud work it. Hasteur (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the Powerlifting article accordingly and proposed this merge. Thanks again for the guidance. 24.26.129.36 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timing

The last significant edit of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Universal Personal Number was on July 28, 2012. Has the bot reached there already , or is it going out of sequence? How many did it nominate in the last 24 hours? How does that compare with the agreed quota?

I thought it was agreed there would be time to scan in a predictable way. I've scanned the July submissions in 5 days, which is about as fast as can be done in a month, and this should be enough to keep up. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I came to comment on the same thing. There are a lot of May ones to be deleted before going on to June. Please don't go too fast! —Anne Delong (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG and Anne Delong: Once again, from the top, no holds barred, with feeling. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Universal Personal Number was submitted twice. Once on June 30th, and once on July 27th. If you go to the bottom of the page you'll see that there are 2 auto-applied categories Category:AfC submissions by date/27 July 2012 and Category:AfC submissions by date/30 June 2012. The bot used those categories to seed in the initial records of pages that were eligible at the time of the scan. The bot keyed off the 30 June 2012 date during the great notification spree of August 20th and entered an appropriate record into the check table for the page. The page was nominated today because it was the oldest notification left that was not (already deleted or G13 no longer eligible(edited)) that had yet been nominated for G13 by the bot.
The nomination process fires every hour and nominates up to 50 articles at a time. There is a slight bug where page titles with unicode characters don't translate well into the notification record database, so I personally find the articles in question and use the AFCH G13 nomination button on them and remove them from the database. These Unicode titled pages do take away from the count of 50. If during the process where the bot is nominating, an admin starts cleaning out the G13 nominations, the bot has an extra pass (up to 4 more passes) that it can start at the top of counting the number of current nominations and nominate more. This functionality has been endorsed by multiple admins who would rather deal with more in a single pass than having to wait for the next hour pass.
There is one last lever that admins may push on to request more nominations if they so wish. User:HasteurBot/KickoffNom. The purpose is to let those who can edit through full page protection (which is only admins/bueracrats) to indicate that they want more nominations and to trigger a new set early.
Finally, there was a reason why I created User:HasteurBot/G13 notifications, for the simple reason of giving the order in which the bot would be doing nominations, as during the initial cleaning, the last modification date may not be consistent with the order in which pages were submitted for review to G13. Hasteur (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since your comments are mainly about ways that the bot can move faster, I can see that we are at cross purposes. Since you say that the admins are with you on this, I will stop whining, get back to saving what I can, and try not to stress over the waste. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do understand what Anne and I mean, though you may not think it important and possibly regard both of us as being somewhat quixotic in the matter--for so I interpret the bolding at the beginning of your answer. I would be very disappointed indeed and very surprised if you did not take our concerns seriously. As a general observation, as we get nearer to the present I find a considerable number of important articles worth rechecking or immediately accepting--the oldest ones were by far the worst, if only because the system was not used as much.
In any case, I assume you are willing to discuss the technical points. First, when there are multiple submitted dates, the bot should be using the most recent, not the earliest!. A submission and the comment on it are an indication that the article is being worked on, and the six months should start from that date. This matters & matters very much, because though Anne scans it somewhat differently, I scan by submission date. So I hope very much that you can change it,
Second, no admin should have the over-ride capability of using a bot faster than designed. Certainly admins can nominate additional G13s--I do it myself when I see a good reason, but I do it manually. This is especially true since many of the admins reviewing bots would use the capability not to review G13s, but to delete them without reviewing them. No admin should ever be using this over-ride capability--the rule has already been breached that two people are necessary for a routine speedy, reducing it to one apparently unintelligent bot and and one admin. Some admins have reduced it to one bot and an admin acting like a bot, and I think that this exercise is turning into a very unfortunate precedent. Has this capability ever been used? Can you tell by whom? I think the feature would be easy to remove.
third, is there any practical way to see the articles to which the warning has been applied, in chronological order? Are you making a category of them. If so, We would have the ability to cancel the warning in good tim, anbd do what should instead be done, giving focussed advice.
Finally, I do not remember it was intended to be used as frequently as every hour. That kind of speedy, 600 a day, is impossible for any team of workers to check, DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG How many more times would you like me to explain how the process works? I traverse the Submitted date categories. As I said before, during the first phase of cleaning up the G13 eligible submissions, we're going to be proceeding for the most part cronologically based on the time the AfC submission is how the bot is configured. I strongly suspect you're suffering a Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt attack.
Let's say that a submission was originally worked on 5 months ago, was submitted, and was declined. It lay dormant for a while, and the author decided to submit it again (let's say last week). There's now 2 categories for the 2 submission times. The bot will latch onto the 5 months ago time, but because it has been edited less than 6 months ago, the bot won't nominate. The bot would check the reasonable categories every day and once the page did become 6 months un-edited, the bot will drop a notice on the creator's talk page about the eligibility (and log the notice in it's database).
Because there was a great mass of submissions that needed to be evaluated, a lot of notices had been dropped on users pages on August 20th. Here's the breakdown of Submissions that were notified on by date, and on what date they were nominated for G13.
+-----------+----------------+-----------------+
| count(id) | date(notified) | date(nominated) |
+-----------+----------------+-----------------+
|     22561 | 2013-08-20     | 0000-00-00      |
|       117 | 2013-08-20     | 2013-11-27      |
|       376 | 2013-08-20     | 2013-11-28      |
|        16 | 2013-08-22     | 0000-00-00      |
|        43 | 2013-08-24     | 0000-00-00      |
|       155 | 2013-08-27     | 0000-00-00      |
|       340 | 2013-08-29     | 0000-00-00      |
|       147 | 2013-08-30     | 0000-00-00      |
|        62 | 2013-08-31     | 0000-00-00      |
|      4949 | 2013-09-02     | 0000-00-00      |
|       529 | 2013-09-03     | 0000-00-00      |
|        39 | 2013-09-04     | 0000-00-00      |
|        62 | 2013-09-05     | 0000-00-00      |
|         3 | 2013-09-06     | 0000-00-00      |
|         1 | 2013-09-07     | 0000-00-00      |
|         1 | 2013-09-08     | 0000-00-00      |
|         1 | 2013-09-09     | 0000-00-00      |
|        56 | 2013-09-10     | 0000-00-00      |
|        99 | 2013-09-11     | 0000-00-00      |
|       130 | 2013-09-12     | 0000-00-00      |
|       209 | 2013-09-13     | 0000-00-00      |
|       120 | 2013-09-14     | 0000-00-00      |
|       341 | 2013-09-15     | 0000-00-00      |
|       157 | 2013-09-16     | 0000-00-00      |
|        75 | 2013-09-17     | 0000-00-00      |
|       163 | 2013-09-18     | 0000-00-00      |
|       128 | 2013-09-19     | 0000-00-00      |
|       284 | 2013-09-20     | 0000-00-00      |
|       284 | 2013-09-21     | 0000-00-00      |
|       234 | 2013-09-22     | 0000-00-00      |
|       144 | 2013-09-23     | 0000-00-00      |
|       141 | 2013-09-24     | 0000-00-00      |
|       148 | 2013-09-25     | 0000-00-00      |
|        82 | 2013-09-26     | 0000-00-00      |
|       356 | 2013-09-27     | 0000-00-00      |
|       339 | 2013-09-28     | 0000-00-00      |
|       246 | 2013-09-29     | 0000-00-00      |
|       196 | 2013-09-30     | 0000-00-00      |
|       214 | 2013-10-01     | 0000-00-00      |
|       118 | 2013-10-02     | 0000-00-00      |
|        63 | 2013-10-03     | 0000-00-00      |
|        96 | 2013-10-04     | 0000-00-00      |
|       110 | 2013-10-05     | 0000-00-00      |
|       159 | 2013-10-06     | 0000-00-00      |
|       173 | 2013-10-07     | 0000-00-00      |
|       108 | 2013-10-08     | 0000-00-00      |
|        78 | 2013-10-09     | 0000-00-00      |
|       148 | 2013-10-10     | 0000-00-00      |
|       136 | 2013-10-12     | 0000-00-00      |
|        94 | 2013-10-13     | 0000-00-00      |
|       127 | 2013-10-14     | 0000-00-00      |
|       154 | 2013-10-15     | 0000-00-00      |
|       181 | 2013-10-16     | 0000-00-00      |
|       228 | 2013-10-17     | 0000-00-00      |
|       232 | 2013-10-18     | 0000-00-00      |
|       391 | 2013-10-19     | 0000-00-00      |
|       328 | 2013-10-20     | 0000-00-00      |
|       194 | 2013-10-21     | 0000-00-00      |
|       242 | 2013-10-22     | 0000-00-00      |
|       140 | 2013-10-23     | 0000-00-00      |
|       116 | 2013-10-24     | 0000-00-00      |
|       120 | 2013-10-25     | 0000-00-00      |
|        96 | 2013-10-26     | 0000-00-00      |
|       151 | 2013-10-27     | 0000-00-00      |
|        89 | 2013-10-28     | 0000-00-00      |
|        53 | 2013-10-29     | 0000-00-00      |
|       120 | 2013-10-30     | 0000-00-00      |
|        50 | 2013-10-31     | 0000-00-00      |
|        52 | 2013-11-01     | 0000-00-00      |
|       162 | 2013-11-02     | 0000-00-00      |
|       128 | 2013-11-03     | 0000-00-00      |
|        61 | 2013-11-04     | 0000-00-00      |
|       138 | 2013-11-05     | 0000-00-00      |
|       107 | 2013-11-06     | 0000-00-00      |
|        65 | 2013-11-07     | 0000-00-00      |
|        51 | 2013-11-08     | 0000-00-00      |
|       190 | 2013-11-09     | 0000-00-00      |
|       111 | 2013-11-10     | 0000-00-00      |
|       207 | 2013-11-11     | 0000-00-00      |
|        61 | 2013-11-12     | 0000-00-00      |
|       202 | 2013-11-13     | 0000-00-00      |
|       136 | 2013-11-14     | 0000-00-00      |
|       127 | 2013-11-15     | 0000-00-00      |
|        97 | 2013-11-16     | 0000-00-00      |
|        32 | 2013-11-17     | 0000-00-00      |
|       231 | 2013-11-18     | 0000-00-00      |
|       125 | 2013-11-19     | 0000-00-00      |
|       118 | 2013-11-20     | 0000-00-00      |
|       144 | 2013-11-21     | 0000-00-00      |
|       224 | 2013-11-22     | 0000-00-00      |
|       188 | 2013-11-23     | 0000-00-00      |
|       190 | 2013-11-24     | 0000-00-00      |
|       124 | 2013-11-25     | 0000-00-00      |
|       100 | 2013-11-26     | 0000-00-00      |
|       121 | 2013-11-27     | 0000-00-00      |
|       107 | 2013-11-28     | 0000-00-00      |
+-----------+----------------+-----------------+
Now, once we get down to maintenance mode, we're only looking at around 300 a day that will need last minute checks. (RE to point 3 (again)) As I said before User:HasteurBot/G13 notifications is a programatic rendering of the records of the database into something that people who are interested in saving can tackle as the the subpages list exactly what order the pages were notified on and in what order the bot is intending to nominate on.
Now to your point 2. As was evidenced in the recent AN* (I forget which one) An admin can directly apply a CSD rationale without it having been nominated before as long as the rationale applies. As was discussed in the BRFAs, in the follow up at AfC, at the CSD page, at Village Pumps, and here at my talk page in the archives and in the mainspace, there was endorsement for a bot to nominate for deletion those submissions that under the strictest interpertation of the CSD rule (Any AfC submission in WT:AFC/* or in userspace that is 6 months without any changes). Yes there's currently a higher throughput because we still have over a year's worth of data to clean up. If you object to the rate that the pages are being deleted I assert that you should not be trying to get the nomination process to be slowed down, but rather the admins who are satisfying the G13 nominations. If they're missing potential, then take it up with them. My bot/system follows the simple rule:
  1. 1x a day: Look through the Category:AfC submissions by date subcategories that break down the submissions to Day-Month-Year granularity (ex: Category:AfC submissions by date/01 October 2012). Evaluate any member of the the subcategory that starts with "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" (ex: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/86 (street artist)). If the last modified date of the page is over 6 months ago log the page title and creator of the page, drop a notice that there is a concern about the submission on the creator's page
  2. Is there less than 50 pages currently in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions;
  • Yes
    1. Select the oldest notifications that have yet to be nominated for deletion up to a limit of the difference between the current count in the G13 nom category and 50
    2. Evaluate each page from the selection to see if it's been 90 days since last edit, it's been 90 days (G13 criteria) + 30 days (notification window) since the page was edited. If the page has a newer last edit time, drop the notification record and move on to the next candidate page.
      • If the page doesn't qualify for G13+30 extra days, is a redirect (Probably a move to mainspace), or doesn't exisist (Deleted before the bot could get to it) the bot deletes the notification record and moves on.
  • No: Do Nothing
Finally I'm going to refer you to the code base where the scripts that the bot runs are [1]. g13_nudge_bot.py is the script that does the checking for new AfC submissions that have just become eligible for G13. g13_nom_bot.py is what actually does the nominations. I can't think how much further I could describe this without having you read through the salient parts of the code. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Also I knew these objections sounded familiar. Looking back to September (User_talk:Hasteur/Archive_7#Bot_limits) I see we had this exact same conversation then and the resolution was that there needed to be no further restriction of the bot's workflow. As such, if you want to make further objections, I am going to have to refer you to the BAG or to one of the admins who resolves G13 nominations as this is becoming a WP:IDHT style re-calling of the same question. Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page on Spastic Society of Gurgaon

The page of Spastic Society of Gurgaon was adequately supported with enough references etc but was protected without justifications. Kindly help in opening to enable us to edit and republish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.132.149 (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spastic Society of Gurgaon does not have any protections on it, nor has the article Spastic Society of Gurgaon ever existed. Because you claimed that there were references where there were not, I have elected to short circuiut the process and nominate for "Stale AfC draft" immediately. Hasteur (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The form of Hasteurbot's notices

I can see why you simplified the notices from Hasteurbot about G13 deletions by having it show "<article title>" instead of "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/<article title>", but it is causing confusion and cross-purposes discussions in the not uncommon case where a newbie has given up on AfC and also created the article directly. They read the notice as saying the article has been deleted and rush in panic to WP:REFUND where (unless we remember to check) we are quite likely to undelete the AfC submission. See User talk:Seattleatya for the latest case, but there have been several others.

I really think it would be best for the bot to use the full AfC title. Alternatively, I suppose it could it check for the existence of an article with the same name and take some special action, but that seems complicated.

Incidentally, I am amused to notice that just as I have more confidence in the AIV reports from Mr.Z-bot and Cluebot NG than in those from humans, so I feel more confidence in your bot's G13 reports. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD Unfortunately that language is out of my hands as that notice is actually rendered by {{Db-afc-notice}}. I would suggest you raise the objection there. Hasteur (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - we edit-conflicted, I was just coming back to say that, looking again, I saw that I had done you, or your bot, wrong, because its notice at the top of the page did indeed use the full title. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update regarding AfC backlog drive auto-updating with AFCBuddy

Manual updating of your Backlog Elimination Drive page is no longer necessary. The AFCBuddy bot is now automatically updating AfC reviews that are performed when using the Helper script. The bot-generated pages are located at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[Your user name].

Importantly, please note that any re-reviews you may have performed will need to be manually copied and pasted to the bot-generated pages. Thank you for participating in the drive. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have the wrong AFC submitter

Wizardman isn't the creator; that would be Mercudo. Seems Wizardman tried to review it or otherwise fix it, and his name got inserted somehow or other. Have to admit I laughed out loud seeing his name on an "AFC declined" template. :-) Risker (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... The scripttool assumes that the submitter is correct. I've moved the notices to the right page. But I was on the threshold of CSD:Hoaxing it, but am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Hasteur (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MMA article for Marcio Stambowsky

Hasteur, let me know if you'd be interested in helping me build a page for Marcio Stambowsky. I read on your page you are involved in the MMA world, you may be in a better position to judge correctly and give me useful pointers. Thank you in advance. Galho96 (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galho96 Um... You might want to not have me not be involved. I've been characterized as the great destroyer of MMA by supporters of the sport. I'll be happy to review the page and provide pointers on how to make it as good as possible, but it would probably be best to not be the creator. Hasteur (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

I appreciate that the actions of Kafziel have led to levels of frustration. Unfortunately, that frustration is evident in the opening statement of the request for Arbitration. Fortunately, the committee decided to take the case, so one can hope that the case will now be based upon evidence. Would you be willing to collaborate on a statement of evidence? I don't know whether such a concept is allowed, but I have the luxury of not having endured the pain, and may be able to write a bit more dispassionately, which I firmly believe will be help to achieve a good result.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All things being equal, I think it is fairly evident in the User's talk page, in the ANI thread, in the request for Arbitration, and even in Kafziel's OWN RfA promotion (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 3 question 4) that their interactions with editors who challange them that they are unfit for holding Admin bits. Perhaps if they had improved, but their interactions when being challenged (even by newbies) is to the level of habitually in-civil editors that ArbCom has previously sanctioned. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur, I really hope your action here will not backfire, not just on you, but on the entire project. Provided an admin follows the actual guidelines, we have each usually taken a good deal of independence in how we interpret them. When we really disagree, we deal with it by persuasion, which sometimes works. or by patiently dealing with individual instances. It's certainly the rule that no project is autonomous, and an argument that it should be will not succeed. Had you asked me, I would have given my usual advice: nobody who every goes to arbcom comes out the better for it. The better remedy would have been to continue to deal with his improper deletions in detail. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG If Kafziel had agreed to abide by consensus or let other admins deal with AfC, I would have dropped the issue. When they repeatedly continued to assert that they were right and promised to continue acting the same way it moved from an isolated incident to a Rogue Admin who needed to be leashed in. In my mind, WP:NOTPERFECT covered the initial mistakes, WP:ADMINACCT covered the calling the question (including their serious failure to adhere to the guidelines), and WP:ADMINABUSE/WP:TOOLMISUSE covers what we're in now. Hasteur (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Baughman_v._State_Farm_Mutual_Automobile_Insurance_Company

Hi Hauster!

You recently declined my article for submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Baughman_v._State_Farm_Mutual_Automobile_Insurance_Company with the reason " Feels like a copy/paste of content from elsewhere."

Since this is completely original, in-house written content I left scratching my head on ways to improve the article for resubmission based off of your sentence fragment. Can you please elaborate with more detail of what exactly gave you this feeling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NurenbergParisHellerMcCarthy (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fairly clear. It feels like you copied the text from somewhere else with the way it is writen and formatted. Hasteur (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to jump in and respond, for a reason which is largely an aside, (I understand UM coverage), plus I work extensively in copyright areas.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC René Orta Salgado was accepted

René Orta Salgado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Hasteur (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist Bankrupcy

In order to reduce what I feel is an imennse amount of stress at all the various articles and pages that come across my watchlist (and RSS feed) I've declared watchlist bankrupcy (per Wikipedia:Don't overload your watchlist!). I've removed a lot of items that I'm no longer interested in, almost all the user talk pages that I don't interact with (or follow for being luminaries), and a great many noticeboards. If you think I should be watching a thread that I haven't responded to, please send me a {{ping}} so that I can add the page back to the list. Hasteur (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Hi Hasteur. On several of the discussions, a Foundation employee stressed repeatedly that AfC is not within the remit of the WMF. I'm therefore curious and skeptical of their continued participation now that they have done what we asked for and rolled out the Draft namespace. It's my opinion that the AfC team knows best what it wants and is capable of developing its own solutions for the use of the new mainspoace. IMO, the WMF should only become involved again if some of your developments require further tweaks to the site software. That said, I have a realistic suggestion to make, which I would like your opinion on, so we should have that live chat as soon as possible. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung I've poked you via Skype as I get the impression you don't want to have this conversation on wiki. Hasteur (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No secrecy. It's just so much easier. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Codependents Anonymous" liable to be deleted. I see no objections.2601:1:E80:619:A0E0:F847:2460:CCE8 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)jbr1970

I do not know how wikipedia works so I don't understand this action. Nor do I know where to reply. This is the only article I seek to post. Please help me do what is needed.

Bot glitch (sort of)

Resolved
 – Not A Bug

Hi Hasteur, I was going through the AfC CSDs that your bot tags (nice one by the way) and I picked up a sort of glitch. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cedric Thorpe Davie, the article was submitted but a malformed reference (used a \ rather than / in the ref tag) prevented the submission template from showing up at the top, so it never registered as submitted. I declined the deletion because the subject can likely have an article based on notability anyway (left a note at the creator's page, he happens to still be around). It's not really a glitch with your bot, more with the way AfC templates are placed if the reference formatting is incorrect, but I don't know if your bot would be able to note that and either flag or fix it. Just a thought, I don't know how common it is. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kelapstick That task only pays attention to a very small set of rules (Is the article listed in the "AFC submissions by date" hierarchy, Is the article 6 months un-edited, Is it 30 days since the bot found the article as being 6 months unedited). Looking at the state of the article just before nomination, there was a AfC Draft template on the page (which applied the AfC submissions by date category), and the page met the criteria laid out (as the notification that deletion could happen occured on August 20th). In the future, don't claim that the bot glitched when you don't know the rules the bot operates under as you've now given the impression that the bot has errors. I positively assert that with over 50k articles processed through the bot's hands, it is more likely there is a defect elsewhere in the system. Hasteur (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I understand it isn't a problem with the bot. The real issue wass the tag is at the bottom of the page, and if there is a problem with the referencing (a typical issue for people using AfC) everything below the reference is buggered. I must have mistakenly thought that it had to have actually been submitted/declined, rather than not edited in six months. I don't mean to suggest that it has errors, it has been doing great work. Apologies if I gave that impression, my mistake. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick While it's a visual problem (that eats the text on the page), unterminated tags aren't really a major problem to the text mode that the bot uses. Obviously if someone sees that, the best plan is to go ahead and adjust the page to make the references tag appear. WP:G13 is the gold pressed standard for what qualifies as stale. I tend to take a narrower view of the rule (Only pages whose title starts with Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/) to ensure that userspace drafts aren't unnecessarily deleted. Hasteur (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crossbar Name Change

Hi Hauster,

Thanks for changing the Crossbar article name from Crossbarinc. I was trying to find the way to make this change, so I really appreciate you doing it for me. However, I still can't figure out how to change the name and was wondering if you might be able to guide me through the process or change it to Crosssbar (Semiconductor Company)?

Thanks!

RWTanis — Preceding unsigned comment added by RWTanis (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

I only wanted a quick chat over Skype to run a couple of ideas past you, but as the dedicated computer I use for Skype and some other communications is out of service for a few days, and as there is no secrecy, I'll mention it here.

The feeds from the Article Wizard should now be tweaked so that the pages are created in the Draft mainspace and no longer on the former AfC talk pages.

The AfC Helper Tool has served us well but it's time perhaps to look at some new ideas. One idea that I have tried to start discussion on is that the New Pages Feed / Curation Toolbar system be cloned and adapted for the draft articles created from the Wizard - these include not only submissions from IP editors but also those where registered users opt to submit through AfC having gone through the Wizard process. This would involve creating a Special:Drafts feed similar to the Special:New pages, and taking the page Curation flyout as a basic shell, use it a s the user feedback feature for accept, decline, and reviewer comments. The feed and page curation are MedWiki components and can technically be implement for AfC. I have the code for it, but I'm no programmer. I think if the AfC team under your guidance could investigate the possibility of doing this, the code could be adapted (perhaps by you) and all we would need to do would be to ask the Foundation to implement it at MedWiki server level. The downside is that that there is always resistance from the Foundation to implement good ideas from the community that were not the Foundation's own ideas. This appears to be eveiden from the Foundation's manner of involvement in getting the Draft namespace finally created, and in spite of their repeated insistence that AfC is absolutely not within their remit (being a local en.Wiki project), they still appear to be leading the discussions on what we can do for AfC with the Draft namespace now that we have got it. Several prompts from me (immediately following posts from the WMF) in various discussions, some going months back, on this idea have been ignored. I've also pinged DGG to comment here.

Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung It's doable, I'd have to familiarize myself with the code. I know there was talk about trying to standardice the AFCH into one architecture, so this would be a good opportunity. I know I've been asked to do code reviews for some WMF components, so I probably have the "interior" hook to actually submit new code. Hasteur (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hasteur, I'm very relieved that you think it is doable.
Kudpung and I have discussed this several times. We both have the same expderience: the Article curation process, despite some early difficulties, work, and works much more efficiently and effectively than the current AfC process. (I think this may have been due partly to what I see as the more centralized and coordinated development of Article Curation, but even more to the advantage of basing it on a process, NPP, with which we already had long experience. Now that we have experience with AfC, we should be able to do it better.
The purpose of the two processes are identical: In terms of articles, (1) to quickly accept decent quality articles, (2) to get acceptable but imperfect articles accepted, but appropriately marked for improvement, (3) to get not-yet-acceptable articles improved to a state where they can be accepted and improved further in mainspace (this particular one has been more the role of AfC, but it's just as applicable to much of what comes in NPP) (4) to keep what appear to be unlikely articles out of WP--at least until they get rewritten to become acceptable (5) to get what are evidently the absolutely hopeless articles or topics rejected, and rejected firmly enough that we do not have to deal with them further. In terms of contributors, (1) to facilitate for experienced or well-trained contributors the process of getting their articles into WP (2) to continue guiding contributors with only a small degree of experience (again, this has more been the domain of AfC so far) (3) to instruct good faith new contributors what to do to contribute effectively, and keep them interested in doing so (4) to discourage contributors who may be in good faith, but whose purposes are incompatible with WP, and have them understand our role properly (5) to precent contributors who are no in good faith from damaging the encyclopedia. In terms of the reviewers, (1) to assist the most experienced reviewers to teach the less experienced or beginning reviewers (2) to facilitate the reviews by those who already know how to do it (3) to teach beginning reviewers who are ready to learn how to do it properly--which requires also helping them further understand WP (5) to keep unqualified would-be reviewers away from the process until they are ready to start learning.
Obviously we accomplish those to different degrees of effectiveness. On reflection, it is probably impossible to avoid the different goals to conflict with each other in some cases. And u, unfortunately, some of them we may not yet know how to do adequately, or may e prevented from dealing with them by fundamental considerations, such as the principle that anyone can edit.
There are several considerations in developing this process: to have it work well, to have it understandable and easily documented, to have it robust for the common problems, to have it fixable for unanticipated problems. All of these will be best accomplished from start with what works best--and in all these regards, what works best in Article Curation. ANd it not only works best, it has shown a remarkable degree of acceptance, in contrast to the disagreements and confusion accompanying AfC. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Hasteur

spotting
Articles for creation/John Carr (writer and scholar)

I don't know why this remain, it was converted to a "proper" article and later amended by others to John Carr (writer) please remove the article for creation page thank you Alan from Wakefield Alanfromwakefield (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alanfromwakefield Based on your suggestion I converted the page into a redirect to John Carr (writer). You should not be nagged by this any more. Hasteur (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 21 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hasteur,

I have received this massage from Hasteurbot:

- It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Jan Lucanus".

I don't understand why I am receiving this message, as I have made several edits to this page within the last 6 months. I just made a major edit in condensing it, and am still working on the page. I just want to make sure my edits are being registered to eventually move the article beyond the Start Class. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kershawdraw (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jan Lucanus

Hi Hasteur,

I have received this massage from Hasteurbot:

- It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Jan Lucanus".

I don't understand why I am receiving this message, as I have made several edits to this page within the last 6 months. I just made a major edit in condensing it, and am still working on the page. I just want to make sure my edits are being registered to eventually move the article beyond the Start Class. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kershawdraw (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rule, that page had not been edited in over 6 months from August when you were warned that it could be in danger of being deleted. When the bot came back through the page the page still met the requirements of not edited in 6 months and fulfilled a second rule of 6 months + 30 days unedited. I suggest you talk to RHaworth who deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jan Lucanus. You can also petition to have the draft restored per the instructions left at your page. Hasteur (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 03:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GTCL

vis a vis the following: Better served by having a section in the university's article, though I cannot think of any other specialized masters degree we would use a 4 letter acronym for.

Generally speaking, I would agree with you. However, the entire point of this article is that the British conservertoires of music validated their own professional diplomas before 1997 and had nothing to do with the universities.

Also, the four letter acronym GRSM (the equivalent model for another British music college) has a similar page.

Finally, this is not a masters degree. It is well understood in the music world - in UK in particular and so it is important that it should appear.

Do you think however, that ALL of the (now discontinued) British graduate music diplomas might be amalgamated into one page for ease of use? If so, I would be prepared to rewrite a more comprehensive article that serves them all, if it were possible to put redirects on the separate pages for GTCL, GRSM, GLCM, etc.?

This is the first time I have written an article...please bare with me.

Best wishes, coranglais2001

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hasteur&oldid=587553011"