User talk:Hasteur

AfC notification: Draft:GoRuck has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:GoRuck. Thanks! Hasteur (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GoRuck (December 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HighKing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GoRuck and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:GoRuck, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GoRuck has been accepted

GoRuck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

GORUCK

Hi Hasteur I think I have put my foot in it. Sorry. Do you want to give you a hand to fix your article? I'll can possibly find good references. scope_creep^Talk 13:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of GoRuck for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GoRuck is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoRuck until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor

Please remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA, e.g. at [1][2] and [3]. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Don't be a twat and you won't have that problem. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Relationship to GoRuck

Someone pointed out that you once said you were "asked by the company" (GoRuck) to help develop an article about them on Wikipedia "so that we could potentially move to mainspace" and acknowledged that "there is a COI". Did that asking involve some potential form of payment? Do you have some close relationship with the company, or was this just in some arms-length casual email conversation? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: I was not paid for the editing. This was an arms length "Could you work on this please" type conversation. That is why I put it through AFC. Hasteur (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I have made a couple of adjustments of Talk:GoRuck to clarify the situation. Based on what you said, I wouldn't even consider that something that needed mentioning. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

September 2019

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherency (homotopy theory). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Specifically, calling my comments "kibbitzing" is inappropriate (I'm as free as anyone else to participate in AfD discussions), as is accusing me of trying to "modify your intent". If you think I misunderstood something that you said, then please point that out, but comment on content, not contributors. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Abdel Aziz Mahmoud

I reverted your review of Draft:Abdel Aziz Mahmoud, since the draft is clearly in English, not Danish.--Auric talk 22:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see you didn't read and see the danish quote that was CV. Fine. G11 it goes. Hasteur (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A quotation in another language doesn't count as "draft in another language."--Auric talk 10:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For pitching in on Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. -- Worldbruce (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Revive HasteurBot?

Since you are back, can you revive HasteurBot, specifically the task that sends pre-G13 notifications, and does G13 taggings? Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14. Feel free to go and support Hasteur (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of old HTML Tags

Hello! I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I tweaked your comment at WP:AN per WP:LINT. Specifically, I removed <strike>...</strike> because it's an obsolete HTML tag, and used <s>...</s> to replace it. Obsolete HTML tags run the risk of creating readability issues in the near future when old HTML tags get retired from MediaWiki, so editors are trying to fix formatting issues whenever possible. Cheers! OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hasteurbot

Hi,

Apologies I've not done this earlier. I've now unblocked your bot. Good luck with the BRFA :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

DRN Clerk Bot

The clerk hasn't been updating case status for 48 hours. It may be stuck (maybe on a misformatted case?) Can you check on it? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I gave it a swift kick in the nuts. While I was at it, I also converted it over to the better version of pywikibot so that it should be even more stand alone. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Every now and then computers need that, as I learned in my 45 years with them. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion tags

Do not re-add declined speedy deletion tags. If deletion is legitimately needed, one might consider WP:MFD. WilyD 06:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Explanation

Just to be really clear about my revert: a generalized request for other editors to watch out for "non-constructive edits", separated from the locus of the dispute and not naming anyone, does not involve anything related to personal attacks and certainly not AGF. Extending your dispute farther, as your comment did, is pointless and unpleasant. If you want to chide Taku, do it somewhere other than WT:WPM -- there is no need to pollute yet another forum with the absurd arguing. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Taku non-neutrally canvassed and cast apsersions at the page. Directly in that location is the right place to call it out and request it be redacted. Your substitution of your personal feelings does not trump WP:TPG, Specifically refactoring other editors comments. Hasteur (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You do not apparently understand what canvassing is, nor aspersions. I have no feeling about the underlying issue. Please stop extending your argument to WT:WPM, where it does not belong. I will absolutely continue to revert you until we are both blocked for edit-warring, if necessary, in order to keep this fight off WT:WPM. --JBL (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

See you at WP:EW since you and Taku are attempting to overrule WP:TPO Hasteur (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to report me anywhere you want; as long as you keep this fight off WT:WPM, I will be content. --JBL (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You mean well

...but please back off. There's NO need for this situation with Taku and others to be so contentious/hostile. Buffs (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Leave Taku alone. Stop wikistalking him. If he moves these to userspace, what the hell is the problem? Buffs (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Buffs: The problem is, I've seen this exact damn playbook from him 4 times already. Ignore friendly advice, Get in trouble because someone has a policy reason to start taking harsh action with respect to his drafts, kowtow to whatever is needed to get the heat off (AN-Flu anyone?), return to the previous behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. Tiger don't change his stripes. Hasteur (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I never said anything to the contrary about Taku. I'm ONLY talking about YOUR actions. Buffs (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

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/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Institution-based resources for Graduate Students and Post-Doctoral Candidates

please delete this entry, it is no longer needed a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acerase (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding notification from your bot

Hi there, I received a notification from your bot regarding a page in draft space (Draft:Hollywood.con). In the wake of the somewhat ludicrous reaction to the creation of the original page I lost all interest in further engagement with it. Further, I am no longer editing on Wikipedia. I don't expect or need any response from you. This merely serves as notification that as far as I am concerned, the page can simply be deleted. Thanks. Cadar (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

DRN clerk bot 2nd request

Dear Hasteur, the DRN clerk bot doesn't seem to be updating the case status in {{DRN case status}}. Could you take a look at this? Thanks, MrClog (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hasteur. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@Galendalia: Can you please point at what you think is wrong? The bot appears to be updating the template. Also you didn't need to send a Off WIki mail for this. Hasteur (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi it had been posted on your page for quite sometime by another edit and there was no response so I went to the next feasible option. It is not updating the case statues on the template. Here are the examples:

1. How it currently looks Template:DRN_case_status
2. How it should look at the moment Template:DRN_case_status/sandbox

Even though we have manually updated the DR case from blank to open or resolve, the status and coloring are not showing, as it shows all cases as 'new'. I hope this helps clear things up.

Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 18:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Getting the DRN Clerk bot working again. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I will 2nd that!!!!! --Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 00:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

DRN Clerk Bot Died

The bot stopped pushing at 11am PDT (aka my time). It is now 4pm PDT my time. Can you look into this please? Thanks. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 23:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC) _{DRN Volunteer}

Update: It came back to life! Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 00:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC) _{DRN Volunteer}

@Galendalia: is 5 hours that critical of a issue? Trying to estimate how much effort I'm going to be asked of after running this for years with having less than 1 interaction every 6 months to have 3 interactions within a week. Please establish consensus at WT:DRN for the level of support expected. Hasteur (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

it’s all good I see what happened. There were no updates to process. That is my bad. I’m new to bot world. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Swiftships

Dear Hasteur, you reviewed my article in April (swiftships) and I'm grateful for the comments you left. I edited those as per your recommendations and insights. I hope you can check my article again and advice if all is fine this time. Kind regards

Kristinapaskev (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC) @Kristinapaskev: I don't do re-reviews independently. I review submissions based on the order they come up on the AFC submission queue. I've put your draft back into review for a second reviewer to consider it Hasteur (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Hasteur, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)