User talk:Hasteur

CONSIDERING RETIREMENT

Hasteur is strongly considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...

See Section below

Solid Concepts

I thought I should tell you that since you removed the histmerge tag I sent the old draft to MfD. It hasn't been edited since February and if the current draft gets accepted it is just going to make a mess. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Note on your AfCing

Please stop using custom decline reasons and use the built-in ones. They contain links to policy pages and have much more info for new users. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I will not use the built in decline reasons. When I would use those I would get 2 to 3 times as many "What does that mean" threads here on my page, whereas the custom message explains quite clearly what the problem is and keeps the discussion on the user's page. Your pestering on the other hand and trying to get everyone to fit into the pre-defined boxes is equally as useless due to the fact that over 3/4 of them don't exactly fit the decline reasons and therefore only confuse the article submitter more. Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I hid the custom decline reasons in the script on consensus because users were leaving reasons without linking to relevant policy. I understand if you don't like the pre-built reasons, but please link to valid policies when declining. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Another thing, you have left very BITEy declines in the past, such as this one. That's why the feature was hidden. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When we're down to 200 pending AfCs then we can look at tone. You're using a "End Justifies the Means" argument. I'm looking at trying to burn down the log, now throw more roadblocks and red tape up. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The goal isn't to burn down the log, it's to review articles and help new editors. I'm not threatening anything, but I would seriously stop BITEing the noobs. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in (and I'm normally not a talk page stalker) but I have to support Hasteur hear. Almost all of the messages on my talk page about AfC are new users contesting some tiny part of the form-letter response that is the default. I either use the custom decline reason, or a form response and a comment outlining precisely what is wrong here. Perhaps a compromise could be reached? However, for the mean time, a specific, non-generic response is better than the built-in catchall responses. See the following discussion here, here, and here. These are all cases of me being contacted because the author didn't know what the template meant. Thanks, TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 18:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC) (Post Scriptum: Please Talkback me if you reply.)

Reference and Citation follow up

Hello Hasteur, "References, but no citations" was your comment; what specifically needs to be adjusted at this time? Best, Novemberflower — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novemberflower (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gordon Dougan

If OTRS is too backlogged, consider removing the image and accepting the article. It's the only one over 15 days old in the queue right now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE. It's better to take time and consider it more than moving it to mainspace faster. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Doc Popcorn

Hello, I recently submitted an article for your review. It was declined; but, I attempted to follow the same format of a business in our same business. Here is the link to their Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auntie_Anne's Also, another business similar to ours has a Wikipedia page that is obviously franchise advertising driven. Here is their page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menchie's. How did theirs get published? Can you give me some advice on how I can get Doc Popcorn's story on Wikipedia? Thank you for all of your help! Brie Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briejones (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF says that just because a similar article exists or doesn't exisist, doesn't justify the inclusion of annother article. Please read the comment I left as it explains better why your article was declined. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at AN

I would have commented there, but it was closed. Leaving comments like facpalming me are not needed or wanted. They are just trolling an already irritating situation. If you don't like me or my onctributions I don't really care. Keep the stupid comments to yourself. The fact remains, I spent hours of my time making changes to the code only so my request to admins gets ignored after several days showing a complete disrespect for my time. I shouldn't have to ask for permission to implement the change and then have it done by someone who doesn't even understand the changes being made because they are "trusted". Its one of the fundamental problems with this site. Kumioko (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being an even bigger gasbag than you demonstrated at AN. There are 2 issues here: First the community's distinct lack of confidence in your editing, communication style, and temperament. Second, minor changes that you propose for your pet project that you've claimed multiple times that you've walked away from (yet can't ever seem to let go). I was offering you advice on how to turn the perception of your contributions around, but further lashing out at other editors in good standing only further alienates you from the day to day wiki-gnomes who are doing the good work and not demanding attention or holding out the "I have seniority, deal with it" card over and over. You, Kumioko, are formally dis-invited from my talk page as this is now the 4th time you've come with righteous indignation to my talk page only to be pointed out that you were in the wrong. Fool me once, twice, thrice shame on me. No longer. Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked a question at your ANI report. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC

Thanks for backing me up on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shady Blaze but I respectfully disagree with your logic when you said "GNG is the minimum, however because there's claims for music notability WP:MUSICBIO applies."

It's my understanding that GNG is the criteria for notability, but not all topics that meet notability standards should have articles (WP:ONEEVENT is one example of notable topics that don't get stand-alone articles). It's also my understanding that the specialized notability criteria are "shortcuts" that exist because almost any topic satisfying one of the specialized notability topics will meet GNG if only someone would dig hard enough to find references. For example, a 1930s Major League baseball player in the AL or NL is presumed to meet GNG and there is little doubt that someone with access to every newspaper from that era would be able to find significant coverage from sources independent of the subject, so we will not flag such an person's biographical article as "non-notable" even if the only reference is a one-liner from the MLB web site giving his official career statistics. Only after a diligent search through contemporary newspapers and other media that came up dry or after demonstrating that there are enough 1930s-era MLB players with similar career statistics that are not notable would it be reasonable to flag such an article as "non-notable." In the latter case, the special notability guideline would need to be amended as it would no longer be supported by facts.

I contend that there are musicians who fail to meet WP:MUSIC but who, for whatever reason, meet WP:GNG. Whether they deserve their own articles or not depends on disqualifying criteria, such as WP:ONEEVENT. Besides the lack of reliable sources, one of the major reasons I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shady Blaze was that his only real claim to fame was a single album, and that was too tenuous to support even an article on that album (although I admit a weak case could be made for an album article).

By the way, please see Special:Contributions/114.145.9.69, where this same editor undid some notability tags I applied to related topics. I plan on re-examining those topics later and if I still can't find notability even after using search engines, I will re-apply the tags and open discussions. If you are interested in musical topics and have the time, I would welcome another person's thorough examination of the notability of Main Attrakionz and Chance the Rapper. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been my understanding that GNG only applies in the case that a SNG does not cover an area. SNGs are how you can use more definite rules specifically tailored for a specific case. Hasteur (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. If this is the case, the language near the top of WP:N needs to be revised. It currently (June 3) states

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. / A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."

I haven't picked apart all of the notability guidelines to see if I can find text that contradicts the section above. If there is no such contradictory text, then I'll stand by my claim that notability is "GNG or SNG, either one works." If there is contradictory text which supports your reading of the guidelines, then the issue will need to be discussed at WT:Notability or perhaps elsewhere to see what the community consensus is. Ditto if AFDs and other proceedings that invoke the notability guidelines indicate a community consensus similar to your reading of the guidelines.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ride and Tie - New Page Patrol

Hi Hasteur. Is that an ancient god? You seem to have un-patrolled a page I patrolled as reviewed at Ride and Tie for some reason, the reason being I'm the page creator. I can assure you I never created that article. I never even knew such a thing existed until I saw the article. I think I did correct something on the page. It could have been that you seen. scope_creep (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize... Somehow the tool thought you were the person who makred it as patrolled and were the author of the article. I still think there's problems with the article and am taking a swing at correcting them. Hasteur (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at QuantifiedElf's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QuantifiedElf (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at WilliamJE's talk page.
Message added 16:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lazy editing. ...William 16:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

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

Questioning why I bother with WP

1. Why bother with trying to work in a colaberative enviroment if any user can elect to ignore consensus and not get penalized for it?
2. Why bother trying to clean up the largest compendium of knowledge if more and larger roadblocks to cleaning get thrown into the mix?
3. Why bother with trying to resolve disputes if the only way to enforce the resolution is by holding the morningstar of doom over the combatants to follow the resolution?
4. Why bother trying to provide suggestions when others are willing to throw moltov coctails of words and never even get cautioned about it?
5. Why bother trying to clean up cespits of "It doesn't hurt anything" that a sockpuppet can argue over and over if the sockpuppet can abandon the account and start ALL OVER AGAIN?

Once these questions get answered, I'll make my final determination about retirement.

Hasteur, I hope that this is just a moment of doubt and that you'll stick around. You do good work and are a valued contributor. Let me give a general answer to all five of your questions. Because at the end of the day Wikipedia works. You and I get all tangled up in the minutiae and it becomes frustrating, but when Joe from Plano wants to know something about Widgits he turns to WP and gets good information. As frustrating as it may be, good editors like you are the thin Wiki line standing between that quality and the predations of Randy from Boise. And hanging in there is important. Most bad editors have no sticktoitiveness and if there's one thing that I've learned in life, and that's as true here at WP as in RL, it's that time wounds all heels. We need good editors to stick around and hold that line, even if it's just one electron at at time. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, don't leave! Just find something different to work on and explore a new area of the project. I'd suggest doing something local or regional of importance; a local library has a great amount of information that could be used to make some good or featured articles on different subjects. Don't let a momentary bump deter you; try to keep the greater focus of building an encyclopedia in mind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Review Josef Kote?

Hi Hasteur

If you have a chance could you review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Josef_Kote ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCorbu1987 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't abuse wikipedia templates

MMA SPA trying to reverse a decision based in policy

You were already both quoted and linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Archive_top, which gives clear instructions for use. If you continue to keep abusing this, I'm sure wiki has the appropriate mechanisms for dealing with persistent bad behavior. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Pot, Meet Kettle I have used the policies and guidelines correctly. You on the other hand have taken a bare snippet and using it incorrectly. Hasteur (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Since you seem to be trying to delete evidence of the violation, here's a clear record: current page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC#Straw_poll:_the_current_format_is_less_useful_as_an_encyclopedia_than_the_previous_individualized_format. linked and quote I wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_UFC&oldid=561922044 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_UFC&oldid=561977204, which you'll probably try to delete again. The one and only rule from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Archive_top: When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. I'll research this matter further of who to take this case to since you'll like re-violate again as done twice already but it's pretty clear this is in blatant disregard of the template's most basic rule. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC) I invite you to ceace immediately. Your familiarity with a very narrow interpertaion and subsection of Standard Operating Procedure (Rules, Guidelines, MoS, etc) with such a new history suggests that you are not a new editor and therefore are appropriately warned with GSMMA in addition to not reading and understanding the rules. You are already at 2 reverts, and when you do the 3rd I WILL report you WP:ANEW for edit warring, failing to observe WP:BRD, and failing to observe the primary purpose of Wikipedia which could earn you a topic ban from all MMA articles as an option authorized by GSMMA. Hasteur (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC) When I looked up the template you used, it's so clear that you used it illegally that there's no room for "interpretation". I guess we'll see how the wiki admins see this, because I reported you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hasteur_is_blatantly_violating_archive_template_rules_to_shut_down_discussion.2C_etc.. Thanks for the link to that board, btw. 75.172.12.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you can abide by admin "decision" and stop closing down discussions. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)