Jump to content

User talk:Hasteur/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12

Change of the order of deletion of G13 eligible submissions

Dear Hasteur: DGG has set up a by-the-day order page for keeping track of which G13 eligible submissions have been looked at. You said that the bot would soon switch to nominating in this order. Will you please let me know when this happens so that I can switch to using his checklist instead of mine? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless DGG is using the ordered list that my bot is using, the bot may still nominate in a different order than "Date Created". I'll see if I can get the helper script written tonight and ran so it dumps the list in single "nudge day" units (probably located at User:HasteurBot/G13_notifications/2013-09-26 as an example) Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not in a hurry, don't rush it on my account. I am finding as many to look at as I have time to before they disappear anyway. I may miss some, but I can't be doing this all day every day... —Anne Delong (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to put the list in front of people interested in doing saving as much as possible so that we become contortionists over the AGF we extend to the submissions. If that means running extra procecesses so that the cleanup crew has enough time to evaluate before the sweeper comes, then I'll do what I can to provide. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The way I go by the dating is very imprecise: I just use the dated categories, from the pages Category:AfC submissions by date/2012 There are many factors that can make this different from the true date, but I'm just looking to find articles to save, and I find this the quickest way. The most important extra process would be to not have the bot nominate more than 100 a day, in divided groups, no matter how fast the cleared out. The problem is the people who clear them out without looking at them. Using a bot as part of deletion process requires intelligent and careful humans. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
DGG I say this with all respect, but your advocacy for no more than 100 nominations is not possible. We get at least 300 new AFCs every day, so we'd be in a sisyphian barter of doing effort but never making any headway. Short of a 90% consensus that overrules the recent WP:AN thread, I'm not going to reduce the rate of nominations. Please stop throwing your "No more than 100 nominations" into every conversation about the bot's actions until you've established at least a 5 person nucleus of support for your proposal. @Sphilbrick and Fram: to weigh in as administrative collegues of DGG to potentially talk some sense Hasteur (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the Ping, Hasteur. DGG, you have been trying to reduce the deletion rate for G13 since the day it was proposed. You have had consensus against you at all discussions about this. You don't have to like it, but please accept it for what it is and move on. Fram (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
And for the record the list of what page/who has been notified of G13 eligibility is at User:HasteurBot/G13 notifications. Each day (and in some cases multiple hours per day) is broken out so you can see what order the bot is progressing through the list. I'll remove records/pages once there's no more "active" nominations on the page. Hasteur (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
See subsection below about a discussion to reformat these pages to be easier to read by humans. Technical 13 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree here DGG, constantly pestering to lower the rate at which HasteurBot is nominating just needs to be dropped. I don't like it any more than you do; however, being on the AFCH development team and a member of the WPAFC project, I realize that it is a necessary evil. When I have extra time, I go through and try to save as many as I can as well, and have made/had made improvements to the helper script to make saving them and manually reviewing them as easy as possible. Feel free to suggest improvements to that system, and please just let the bot do what the bot does. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I didnt say no more than 100 nominations , I said said 100 by the bot . I assume that individuals will continue to nominate. If only the bot is going to nominate, than 200 or 250 might be manageable , and that would gradually clear up the problem; but if you do not agree, we can calculate the rate which would get us up to a proper 6 month horizon in another 12 months. Trying to clear up accumulated backlogs all at once is not careful work, but it happens when people panic. Don't misunderstand me: I want to get rid of the unsalvageable material as much as anyone.
But I remain absolutely amazed that anyone would think it to the benefit of WP to delete salvageable material. I do not approve of letting bots do what they do without the opportunity for proper manual checking at least not when the effect is to let admins make single-handed deletions.
So far from "continually pestering", most days I do not comment on this at all anywhere except my own talk p, where of course I comment to everything that anyone brings there. If anyone is interested in following what I think on AfC and related questions; I have collected my more substantial past user talk on the matter at my Archive on this subject. I am not interfering with what you are doing. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Easier to read G13 notifications pages

Hey guys, I just looked at one of those pages and could not read that wall of text as it was. I suggest a simple modification to those pages to create a table making it a little easier to read. You can see what this looks like in this revision where I tested the idea. I simply added a table top and bottom, replaced all of the "#" with "|- \n| " and replaced all of the " by " with " || " and that gave a much cleaner and easier to read output. What do you all think of this? If you like it, maybe Hasteur will modify the bot to recognize that format and either it can go through and update them all or I can zip through them with AWB or something (probably easier). Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


WP:AN/I thread about you

Anon IP calling for you to be banned. Thought you might like to know, since the IP didn't bother to inform you; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_to_ban_User:Hasteur. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thank you. I have laid the groundwork for what I consider the start of a defence citing the appropriate policy guidelines, calling the question regarding the IP's own disruptive behavior, and turning the charge back that sufficient evidence for a community ban has not been presented. Hasteur (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Daniel Pappoe

Hello Hasteur. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Daniel Pappoe, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot Task 5

Please don't tag pages which contain {{WPAFC/project}}, {{WPAFC-admin}} (and other redirects) and {{WPAFC}}; see example edit at[1]. Regards, mabdul 05:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) oppsie! Technical 13 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll add those exceptions to the list. I apologize. I tried to deduce what the rules for the pages were, and now that we have a full tagging I can add these to the list. Next run for the task will probably be in a few months. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot gone wild

You should read my 1714 30Sep2013 post at “Bot gone wild”.Sammy D III (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AstRoBot.
Message added 21:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

W. D. Graham 21:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi Hauser

I'm pretty new to wikipedia so not sure if this is the right place but I'll try anyway. You reviewed my article on Joey Cupido and I'm not clear about the problem. There is nothing in the sports figure guidelines about professional lacrosse players but I know that the NLL is the highest league in the world and pros that play there are considered the best lacrosse players in the world. Many NLLers have wiki pages. Could you provide more info?

Thanks

Thebigshadiw (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)thebigshadiwThebigshadiw (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at EuroCarGT's talk page.
Message added 23:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

///EuroCarGT 23:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Hasteur, AFC, and "I didn't hear that". Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 For abuse of Wikipedia process and Wikipedians (namely myself) you are now Persona non-grata from my user page and user talk page. You could have dropped the issue when I suggested you take the hint, but you didn't and have now drug me into yet annother pointless ANI thread. Any posting, including any future required notices, will be treated as an act of harassment and will be reported as such. Hasteur (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

NRHP bot again

It appears that Doncram has been indefinitely topic banned from articles related to the NRHP. As such, would you be interested in picking back up the bot project that was requested before? Feel free to decline if you wish. I can ask at WP:BOTREQ, but I figured you would still have the code available if not the will. Sorry for exposing you to all that; it was a long time coming.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dudemanfellabra: Nothing personal, but I'd rather see the result of the "12:01" plea before moving forward. Hopefully the appeal will be resolved before Friday. If it is, I may start working on the task again. Hasteur (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, no hurry. By the "12:01" plea, are you referring to this comment by Doncram? If so, I believe the admin replied here saying he wouldn't accept the appeal. Even if you have already seen that, however, I can understand the desire to wait until the paint is dry. No worries. Just let me know. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
In case you didn't get my ping, some members of the NRHP project are wondering if anything is moving forward with the bot to tag NRIS-only articles. If you don't have time to take up that project again, that's fine. I can ask someone else. We really would like to get something moving on it. Sorry for the rush :\.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for making OVPsim a "real" article. --DavidCary (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Insects of domestic animals

Thank you for your editorial work on my two submissions (Insects of domestic animals, and Mites of domestic animals). I am condensing them into a single article as asked, and I will resubmit soon under the title Insects and mites of domestic animals. Regards. Wadudu (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'Tent Platform'

Hi Hasteur,

I have now added more book ressources, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tent_Platform — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.42.5 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Hasteur! With regards to your revert [2], the RfC has closed and the consensus is that it should be a requestable permission :s See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Pol430 talk to me 15:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there is not permission currently and no process for requesting it currently, therefore it is inappropriate to just blank out the wider range of response in favor of a narrower definition untill those roadblocks are dealt with first. Having a more permissive set of instructions is better than no instructions at all. Hasteur (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
My blanking was only intended to facilitate a new canvas upon which a new requirement could be formulated, nothing sinister :) Pol430 talk to me 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Er, what?

Hi Hasteur, I find it somewhat disturbing that you refuse to stand behind your edits (specifically, AfC declines) when you repeatedly reverted/removed IHARVWD's question (which by the way was one of the clearest and most polite requests I've seen made on this site). You say they "did not read edit notice" -- might I ask what in the edit notice prevents them from asking you a question? You point them to the Help desk for the "fastest response", yes, but you hardly say, "I may have declined something that you spent hours working on and will now proceed to ignore you and leave my incredibly vague decline rationale on the submission in question." Care to explain? Theopolisme (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is there's over 1200 articles that need reviewing and we're over halfway through the backlog drive. If I were to stop and give every single editor the attention they beg for, I won't be able to focus on getting that backlog down. You've shamed me into restoring the question. Hasteur (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Theopolisme (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please delete the page "Articles for creation/Indian Synthetic Rubber Ltd"

Hi, I had created this article sometime back, it has been declined 4 times or so. I guess organization is still not notable. Can you please delete the page, I'll try after sometime when I'll have more references. Thanks, Gaurav Pruthitalk 08:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Understanding FAR Part 117 - Flight and Duty Time limitations and Rest Requirements: Flightcrew Members. (October 17)

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! TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 15:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

G13 nominations

To give those who typically focus on the evaluation of G13 eligible submissions time to focus on other things (like the AfC backlog burn), I'm going to suspend the hourly nomination pulse and the "Give me more" trigger on the G13 nominating bot. I will still notify on pages that become G13 eligible, but will not take the process of making any new nominations until October 31st.Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC) @Anne Delong, Sphilbrick, DGG, Kudpung, Davidwr, and Technical 13: FYI so you're not wondering why the bot has gone silent on new nominations. Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Hasteur. I will continue to work on these, but I'm glad the pace will be a little more manageable, because I'd like to take part in the drive. I believe that Ritchie333 has also been helping out with this. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. The timing is perfect. I've tried to look at them more closely, but that's very tedious, and I was running out of steam. Will be nice to do something else for a bit.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now that the bot is taking a rest, is it okay if I nominate a few really useless ones (blank or only a few words, or articles about one's cat? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Anne Delong I think the only thing the admins might want is for the "last date before nomination" to be populated. If you're using the AFCH tool for the G13 noms, it'll do that for you. Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I am. It doesn't appear to work on postponing drafts, though, and some of these are likely to need rescuing because they have never been submitted. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Anne, which version of the script are you using and can you give me a couple of example diffs so I can troubleshoot it for you. I know that postponing is working in the develop version, as that is what I'm using. Technical 13 (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I am using just whatever everybody gets if they choose the script in Preferences. It works find as long as there is a decline template, but when there's a grey draft template it appears to be working right up until the final save, and then says it can't find the template. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Anne, can you give me a link to an example page please? I need to see exactly what it is doing and be able to test and view the error log for the page. :) Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I won't be nominating anywhere near the 1200 a day that HasteurBot could be doing up to with just hourly pulses, but I expect to be nominating 200 - 300 - 500 on most days through October. I've decided not to participate in the drive directly as Theonesean's course isn't ready yet and I'm not comfortable with reviewing submissions past what I need to for script testing. Technical 13 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Technical 13, sorry that I haven't sent you the requested samlple. I have to wait until I find another G13 article that is both draft and that I want to postpone, and I haven't come to one since reading your request. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Annamariasophia Thank you so much for remember me that this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joon_Wolfsberg page isn't ready to publish. It would be nice, if you could help me to delete the unready page! Annamariasophia (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Perched for Vespers Nine

Hi Hasteur,

If you are going to delete my very polite and patient comments and questions having already deleted my well-researched article, the very least you could do is provide an explanation or a response.

If you don't, I will take away a sorry impression of your editing credentials and find some higher, more skilled and more responsive administrator to address my rookie queries to.

Sincerely IHARVWD (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume this was in relation to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pierre Kaan? If so I have expanded on the decline reason. Hasteur (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sir/Madam, Thank you kindly for fleshing out your vague rationale. It's reassuring for us to know that our administrators are concerned with guaranteeing Wikipedia's substance and not simply chasing their next 'backlog buster barnstar'. IHARVWD (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
IHARVWD
  1. I'm not an administrator.
  2. Your message is nearly a personal attack. Please be cautious with how you phrase things.
  3. Your repeated changes are causing me notifications. "Show Preview" is a wonderful tool. Use it
  4. I'm a He, and if you're not sure what gender pronound to use, always default to a gender neutral one (i.e. "To Whom it may concern", Hasteur, "Hey You") or don't even use a pronound.
Hasteur (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

FreedomPay Page - Sources Revised

Hasteur,

I believe I have corrected the issue with my sources. I was not aware that we can't use our own websites or press releases. I have leveraged alternative sources in the new version of my article which is located here: [FreedomPay Page] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WickLynne (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

SysIQ Page - Edits

Hasteur, Thank you for reminders. The page have got some edits and the more will come soon. 213.109.80.41 (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for the help regarding multiple G13 questionsSPhilbrick(Talk) 18:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sphilbrick This has been transcluded to my Hall of Pride. If you object, please feel free to remove this star. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria.
Message added 23:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It appears that davidwr already replied to your point before i could, but he did cover all the points why I added that particular rule. Please do check that message. Thanks! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

dispute

Hi, Eleven days ago you notified me about a dispute that I filed Steamtown, U.S.A.. Among other things there was a death in the family and I did not get the message in a timely fashion and I do not know where the dispute is now, or what happened. Meanwhile, one of the people I was disputing with has altered the article AND that same person put it up for re-FA- review and that review is taking place now. The reviewers are trying to decide it the article can remain an FA as it is, and yet changes are being made. I do not understand how or why it was put up for review while a dispute was going on. Can you explain any of this to me. Thanks, --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If you had let us know you were going away, then we would have held the discussion. Because you went completely AFK, the dispute was sumarily closed because disputes can't move forward if people go afk. Now it's in the hands of FA-Reveiew. Hasteur (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me how it ended? Or tell me where I can view it. I'm sorry I did not put my grief aside to inform you that I was a little to preoccupied to play. --Ishtar456 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_79#Talk:Steamtown.2C_U.S.A., much the same place that any noticeboard would archive things... Hasteur (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-submission of article: Insects of domestic animals (new title = Insects and mites of domestic animals)

Dear Hasteur I am about to re-submit my article Insects of domestic animals. This will be re-named as Insects and mites of domestic animals. That will conform to your requirement that my two original submissions Insects of domestic animals, and Mites of domestic animals, be combined. The new single article has also been condensed and is now approx. 5,500 words including references etc, compared to approx. 8000 words total for the two original articles.

I think you will find the re-submitted single article more succinct and clear than the originals. Thank you for your editorial work for Wikipedia.

Regards, Wadudu (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bangalore Tamils

I'm inclined to delete this and tell the editor to start from scratch. Like some other AfCs I've seen, it's full of copyvio -- in this case from our own articles, but nonetheless copyvio. He can recreate it but in my opinion he has to make it clear for each bit of text that he copies from another article where he has copied it from, with a link in the edit summary. Could you let me know on my talk page? I might point Sitush to my comment here. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, sorry for the delay - I see that you did attempt to ping me but it doesn't seem to have worked. The submission seems to be a case of someone not being willing to take no for an answer. It really is not a notable subject in its own right but instead an assemblage of whatever they can find, compiled without any coherent basis and seemingly for the purpose of coatracking something or another. It seems that you are aware that I've said this before. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Question on AfC policy

Hasteur, I was surprised to see you decline Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Training and Education Resource when I had it marked as under review. But maybe I don't understand AfC procedures. I had left a comment on notability, and assumed that it was appropriate to give Rfincher58 (talk · contribs) a week or so to respond. Is that not how it is usually done? RockMagnetist (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: That's strange, because it was not marked as under review just before I reviewed it. At that point the submission was 4 weeks old and is sitting at the tail end of the backlog which means it deserves the most attention. If you wanted to mark it under review you should have used the {{AFC submission/reviewing}} banner. However the reviewing banner is not supposed to be used for reviews over 2 days. When we have pending submissions that are under 18 days old, you can have it on review for a longer time, but at 4 weeks, we need to definitively respond to a request for review. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist: If you object to my interpretation of policy, please feel free to post on the project's talk page, however based on my experience, I have the strong impression that you will be in the minority viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I haven't done an AfC review before, so I'm just asking for information. I followed the reviewing instructions and installed the AFC Helper Script, and then used it (I thought) to mark the submission as a review in progress. If that isn't enough, then the instructions need to be modified. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victor Ginzburg

Hasteur, would you please tell me specifically what the article lacks to be approved. Clearly Victor Ginzburg is prominent enough to have a wikipedia entry, so I don't understand why you declined my article. Ginzburg has an imdb page, his latest movie was shown at the multiple international film festivals and won awards. I don't see why this is not a "significant claim" for an entry. Fightnot (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles for Creation: Economic Summary of the United States

Thanks for warning me about my project.

I recently edited the article so please do not delete it.

Those articles are part of a bigger project called the Global Economic Map. Here is a link:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Global_Economic_Map

This article will someday be used in the project so please do not delete it.

Thank you

Articles for creation/Mario Petrucci - condensing of Books, Films and Awards

Dear Hasteur Thank you for taking the time to look at my submission again. I was somewhat surprised that I need to reference all the Awards and Books as looking at other Wiki pages of poets this is clearly not standard (eg. Ruth Padel). However, I don't mind putting the references in as it is no big feat for me, what I do query is the condensing down to the top three in each category. This just doesn't make sense for an author. The books are especially important; they show the history and progression of the development of the author's work. The awards are also an indicator of the acknowledgements and achievements the author has gained and show why the author is considered significant. I have not found another 'poet page' that has had to do this. Please can you reconsider this condensing down with the light I have shed on this? With thanks. Poppy Dickson (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure

if I should discuss the actions (good ones) of your bot here, but I will. You recently tagged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K M Oswald Hoepfner, Sculptor for some sort of deletion and that would probably be a good thing. The article was published as Oswald Hoepfner some time ago and what you, or your bot, discovered was some sort of leftover that will not be missed. Keep up the good work, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Carptrash (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Is your bot now going with the oldest ones first? DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

DGG The bot did notifications based on the the date of the submission (Ex: Category:AfC submissions by date/01 January 2013). When the bot did the notification it stuck a record in the database that tells which article was notified on and who was the creator (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Village Harraydar, and User:Ashwaniojha10). The Bot takes the database records and takes the oldest 50 off the list and re-evalutes the page to make sure that G13 is still valid for the page. If the page is no longer valid, the bot removes the notification record from it's database. If the page is already deleted (someone else deleted it) the bot removes the notification record. The one exception to this is pages with unicode characters in them. When the bot saves the notification record, the characters get mangled and when they come back out, the bot cannot figure out what page title there is. Those are left to me to manually nominate after running a database query (and deleting the records out of the database. Because the notifications for G13 eligibility are effectively in order, the bot's nominations will be in order. Sorry if this is very long winded and overly detailed. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
this is exactly the detail I need; I will let you know if I see significant anomalies. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on proposed Robert Heller article

I am somewhat confused. The first reviewer turned the article down saying that there were tioo few citations. So I added citations to every sentence and now you argue that there are too many citations. Do you argue that Mr. Heller is not noteworthy? Almost all members of the Feberal Reserve Board have a Wikipedia article devoted to them. I would appreciate your full and candid comments and help.

Thanks Karolinehermann (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi,

I received your message about my article on the Cockayne Farmstead Project. It took me to the place where it was rejected because it already exsisted (because I found another way to enter the information and fulfill my class requirement). If you are going to remove this second article, great because it is no longer needed. If you are talking about removing both articles, then please tell me what to do. The museum I created the entry for was very excited and happy to have a spot on Wikipedia and I would like for that to continue.

Thanks. JohnHospitaller — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHospitaller (talk • contribs) 12:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see what happened. The bot was warning you that the AfC submission had gone 90 days without any edits. Per CSD:G13, the submission could be deleted. What I've done is change the AFC submission to a redirect to the mainspace submission. You should not be bothered by this in the future. Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joi Bangla

Hi Hasteur. Got your bot-created message regarding the above attempt at an article for Ravi Shankar's Joi Bangla. Please go ahead and delete this. I've been working offline on an expanded version, in fact, which I'll create soon without going through AfC – having learned a lot about pulling together song and album articles over the last year or more, I'm confident it'll be a pretty strong one. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure Island (Borger, Texas amusement park)‎

Think this might be a WP:HOAX? Abandoned/closed amusement parks tend to be fairly well documented, but I can't even verify that this place ever existed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

IMO, I'd let the article die a quiet death without invoking the special policy keywords. I don't think it'll raise from the dead. Hasteur (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I asked because it's been around for six years and would make a great entry on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hoax takes a very specific meaning, and the 2 disparate IP addresses and their "testimony" seems to suggest that the thing did exisist (or they're incredible liars) Hasteur (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Solomon

Is there anything I could do or say to make you stay this "judgement". The RFC, regardless of the outcome, will be the final argument. If it is not favorable, I will leave A&M. The discussion I begged and longed for from the DRN and was denied in mediation has finally come. If I can't beg you to rethink this - than switch it to a topic ban for me. Ryulong is more valuable and can maintain the integrity of the articles - something I cannot compare with. My absence will not cause deterioration like Ryulong's absence would. I worry more about the loss of his contributions than my own. You'll see more on the ANI thread, but I've gotten my community RFC and both of us removed from "bickering" over it with Sven's proposal. I'm not very persuasive, but either way. The conflict will end now. Even if a favorable outcome of the RFC results in Ryulong starting something... its clear I'll refrain from it. This judgement thing is only going to hurt Wikipedia... since I'm worth less than Ryulong and only a small part of my edits are in A&M - its easier to punish me alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glen Campbell American Treasure concern

Hi Hasteur, your bot contacted me. You can delete the above article. Thanks! Lumdeloo (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Hasteur! You're receiving the AfC Barnstar because you reviewed 281 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down.You are also receiving the Teamwork barnstar for re-reviewing over 25 reviews! We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 

‎

AFC reminder

On October 1, you put Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NYC °CoolRoofs under review. There have been no edits since. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

NRHP and G13.

Hi there. I found a G13 eligible article that was about a place on the US NRHP, and the state level one. Being the only member of that project I know was Doncram I posted on his talk page, unaware the internal issues with that project had worstened so much. Can you point me in the right place to flag the article I found for development? Thanks if you can help. Rankersbo (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Rankersbo WT:NRHP is the right location to try and sollicit a viewpoint on a historic place. Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Rankersbo (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

odd notice

This draft was nominated by DGG on November 18, 2013.
It MAY qualify to be deleted per WP:CSD#G13 as the edit before that occurred on June 22, 2012 (1.41 years ago).:

I thought that the bot did not list AfCs that had been edited within the last 6 months, regardless of when the previous edit was. Due to the vagaries of the AFCH, sometimes the only effective was to stop a soon to occur G13 is to make an edit. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Um... HasteurBot is only up to March 2012 so far. [3] was the last one nominated. Hasteur (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Application of a Uniform Standard

Hi, Hasteur, may I ask you to give one more look to the article I wrote, namely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bogdan_N._Nikolov

I am sure you have some criteria to decide who is notable and who is not, even at remote places. But let me draw your attention for a minute to the hundreds(!) of articles about Bulgarian football players who you wouldn't likely hear anything about, not in a million years, even if you lived in Bulgaria and were at the same time fan of one of the big football clubs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bulgarian_football_biography_stubs

On the other hand, many people in Europe and elsewhere have heard about Nikolov, as the article very, very clearly shows. As I wrote you 2 months ago: "What concerns the independent sources, there may be other Bulgarian economists mentioned on one of the official pages of the National Library of Germany, or the University College Cork, but I have no knowledge of any such case other than Nikolov. "

On your user page, you put articles in two categories: "Either they belong, deserve the benefit of the doubt or are so beyond hope that deletion is the best remedy for them." And, it is in a way difficult for me to believe that "deletion is the best remedy" for my article. My answer to your question "What makes this Biography special?" is: Given the standard of 'special' widely applied in Wikipedia for Bulgarian citizens, it IS special. Probably, given a standard applied to a much larger country, like the States, it isn't special at all.

Please show that miracles happen at Christmas time, and a uniform standard is applied to comparable articles. :)

Best regards, Martin Georgiev (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin Georgiev Since you want a Christmas miracle, here you go
  1. Category:Bulgarian football biography stubs - These are athletes, not club/league organizers. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why this kind of comparison is a bad idea.
  2. A special appeal to get Bulgarian content may be wanted by specific projects, but they cannot override the site wide rules. WP:CONLIMITED
  3. Notability is notability the world round. If we were to take the subject and put them in the United States, it would be patently obvious that he's not notable enough to warrant a creation of an article.
  4. You still haven't answered the question I asked in the decline. Following wikipedia's procedures on notability, what makes this biography worthy of an article? Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I get your point, and I also see the fact that this is obviously the last discussion on the issue. Still, I will answer your question: Nikolov's notable, as the following is given simultaneously: (1) at least a third of the Bulgarian population that watches regularly TV, hears radio or reads news, have heard about Nikolov, (2) he is mentioned in sites of European institutions, (3) it took more than a month before someone decided on December 3rd he's allegedly not notable, and (4) the Wikipedia rule says that one example of a less notable person with an article is no argument, but I showed HUNDREDS. So, I wish you nice Christmas holidays, and now it's time for me to go to the Christmas market in Sofia where there is some clear structure, some clear rules, and some nice wine. Martin Georgiev (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

howdy

You asked Callenecc to wipe my evidence, on the basis that "it consists of no evidence".

There were two direct quotes, one from Kazfiel, and one from AGK. What more inclusion of evidence to you need?

I have no beef with you, or with anyone else at AfC, but I do support WP:IAR, even if I may disagree with the way in which Kazfiel made use of that. Feel free to reply here, or at Callenecc's page (which has a more detailed response to his removal per your request). If I don't respond promptly to your reply, please leave a talkback for me on my talkpage. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Does that help explain? The specific wrong-doing is an arbcom member saying that WP:PG trumps WP:IAR ... not just in their personal use of the admin-bit, but as their blanket statement of the will of the community. I saw similar statements at AN/I, which I can dig up if you feel that only non-arbcom-folks can be used in "evidence" diffs. Is that your issue? As I said elsewhere, I read the AN/I, and although I like AfC, and AfC folks, I thought the AN/I outcome was perfectly correct: Kazfiel was implementing WP:IAR, and although they were not 100% perfect in their actions, that is not required. Some folks at AN/I thought that Kafziel *had* to do what the guideline/policy/essay/helpdocs/whatever *said* but in fact the fifth pillar trumps all those. Anyways, I don't think I need to provide diffs about other editors that said Kafziel had to follow the rules, and that WP:IAR didn't really mean he could ignore the rules, because AGK said exactly that, and by their !accept are also now involved. I'll seek such additional diffs if you think I must, to satisfy the rules-of-evidence-or-whatever. As you can probably tell, I'm an amateur at this arbcom business, though not at editing. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of core policy

Hi, thanks for your interest in my discussion about core wikiepdia policy. I am trying to find out the relationship between content on Wikipedia and sources. My understanding was that Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of the world as described in reliable sources. Is that your understanding too, or do you, like Callanec, believe that, say, well-sourced facts can be excluded on the basis of editors' opinions solely (eg, in the absence of any debate about them in the wider world and in contradiction to thousands of sources that report these facts tacitly, or even explicitly). Thanks in advance for considering this question. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
No doubt these enthusiasts will be active in deleting these pages. Ben MacDui 18:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

That's how I woud work it. Hasteur (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
@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)
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)
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)
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 [4]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chicago Water Taxi (December 27)

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) 14:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Hasteur, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Disintegration Loops (compilation album)

Hi, I noticed that you recently declined this submission as "non-notable work". However, I think it meets both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS because the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources such as Pitchfork Media, The Austin Chronicle, NPR, Spectrum Culture, and Chicago Reader. Can you please take a second look? 114.150.60.216 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NALBUMS again, then the submission, and then think carefully. I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion that I did, that at this time, the notability of the album is not yet proven. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. I also note that compilation albums have a much higher standard as it is repackaged from other albums, in this case the 4 individual component records. What makes the compilation album even more notable than the 4 component albums? Hasteur (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the compilation album itself is notable because The Austin Chronicle gave it 5 out of 5 stars, Pitchfork Media gave it 10 out of 10, and Chicago Reader named it one of the best box sets of the year. Additionally, the submission includes not only a track listing, but also a "Release" section and a "Reception" section. 114.150.60.216 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Anybody can buy a review. That you have 3 picked reviews out of how many albums those properties review a year, it does not confer the level of notability and confidence. In addition you are electing to fixate on the "might be notable" portion while overlooking the second half of the criteria, the submission must have content necessary to stand alone on it's merits. What makes this compilation more important than the rest of his work? 95% of the "content" of the album is just repackaged content from previous albums. So that 5% is a new coffee table book and live performances. If we take away the other albums and the track listing (which I indicated is problematic already...) we're left with 1.5 sentences describing the compilation and the smattering of reviews. I would note that the reviews you picked are not mainstream reviewing sites, so the notability which is conferred by such a review is weak at best. Hasteur (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The compilation album has received more coverage than the original four studio albums. I've read WP:NALBUMS again, but it doesn't state that "compilation albums have a much higher standard as it is repackaged from other albums". 114.150.60.216 (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coranglais2001 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

G13

It looks like some of the admins are taking the holiday to delete G13s at the rate of one every few seconds. I think you have the bot limited to 50/hour which is normally OK. But if it actually gets done every hour, it's too fast for people who work like humans to keep up with it. Perhaps it could have a holiday also, or a half-holiday? DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

DGG I've modified the periodic G13 nominations call from "Every Hour on the Hour" to "Once Every 4 hours where the hour/4 is even" (i.e. 0,4,8,12,16,20). I'll keep the automated nominations suspended till the first of the year GMT (1 week vacation) or you give the go-ahead to dial the speed back up. I've still left the G13 request trigger (User:HasteurBot/KickoffNom) enabled if admins really want more nominations. Hasteur (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
this will help very much. I think we ca keep up it. at that rate we should be current with the 6 month cutoff by the end of April even if I'm the only person screenin --and I;m not--- DGG ( talk ) 10:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ,
DGG Hrm... In the past week we've made a lot of headway on the Pending Submissions queue. I'm going to leave the bot running at quarter speed as it's much more important to review pending submissions than deal with the stale submissions. Hasteur (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't know if you have noticed, but the G13 backlog seems to have been going down almost as fast as before anyway. Maybe the slower pace of automatic nomination is encouraging some manual nominations, or some "triggered" nominations. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are manual nominations--including some of mine. This is good, as it gets the worst of them out of here the faster, My own check (on a different basis than Anne's, so thee will be two people looking, and looking in different ways) is now in the middle of the Feb 2013 submissions. I expect to get to the 6 month point in about 6 or 7 weeks, and I think Anne's check a little after that; then when we have caught up we should think more exactly on the timing and the speed: do we warn at 5 and delete at 6, or warn at 6 and delete at 7? I have noticed that among those reaching CSD there are almost none that have even the slightest reason to be rescued, so I think the pre-checking is working.
The key problem we have not addressed at all is dealing with the material that should or could be merged. Few contributors go back and do it, and in some cases there is valuable material. I'm marking a few that I see for future work, as it takes time to do right. Possibly the solution for some of these is to accept them, and then tag for merging in the usual way. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Article creation

Hi, I would like to know why have you declined the creation of the article about National centre of research in social and cultural anthropology?! The article exists in french and arabic WP, you can also check the website of the centre. Regards--197.202.23.111 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Check on google Centre national de recherche en anthropologie sociale et culturel or in arabic المركز الوطني للبحث في الأنثروبولوجيا الاجتماعية والثقافية. The centre contribute in english only through The africa revue of books (please use on google the keywords The africa revue of books + crasc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.202.23.111 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Existance in French and Arabic is not justification for existance in the English wikipedia. Further, there are no independent reliable sources listed in the submission. It is not my responsibility to put those in. It's yours. It's your responsibility to make the submission as close to perfect as possible prior to submission so that we can easily promote it to main article space. In it's current state it would be speedily deleted on the grounds that there is no independent demonstration of notability or independent references. Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, if I have understood well, I have to improve the article with reliable sources to resubmit?--197.202.23.111 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
There are 2 criteria you must satisfy: 1. That the subject is independently notable (as defined by independent reliable sources) 2. Any items that are likely to be challanged must have a reference backing up the assertion. Hasteur (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanx a lot.--197.202.23.111 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I brought ​​references, do you think I can resubmit now?--197.202.23.111 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think now there are enough references.--197.202.23.111 (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You can submit if you want, but I would still decline it. All you've done is add more references by the Centre itself which doesn't convey independent notability. Where's the significant coverage by others of the centre? Hasteur (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

All the references I have added are not by the Centre itself, here you have the list of the various sources:

So I would like to know please what exactly needs the article?--197.202.23.111 (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The CRASC publishes scientific works, in particular through its review "Insaniyat"[9]. Its publications are mainly in French and Arabic, some are available on Google Books [10] Those are the 2 big no-nos. Insaniyat is not independent as it's the published work of the centre. Just because it's works are indexed in google books does not remove the non-independence taint from the books themselves. But go ahead and submit, just be prepared to have the submission slaped down again for not being sourced independently and with non-trivial coverage. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for you availability. I think I understood what you mean, it's about an international referencing of the revue by an independent body. Kind regards--197.202.23.111 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I improved the article and I brought the referncing you talked about (revues). What is neeed now?. Ps: happy new year! --41.102.176.17 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, please help me to create the article, what do Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National centre of research in social and cultural anthropology needs to be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.202.84.67 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I've said my bit and now I'm letting other editors review it. I've expressed my viewpoint that I don't think it's notable, but if you can convince annother editor to accept it... Hasteur (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hossein_Zakeri

Hi Hasteur,


Thanks for reviewing the Dr. Hossein Zakeri article. Can you clarify the modifications I need to do a bit more please.

- Can I claim that he has 33 published papers, or there are more than 80 published papers citing the topic, and then provide only a few links?

- And you've mentioned to cite only in "What has the subject written". I didn't quite get this part. Is the pattern that I'm currently using to cite wrong now?

- Also, I was wondering was my explanation about "independent and reliable sources" satisfactory? I mentioned that it is natural to have him as the author or co-author of many papers on this topic (including the papers which show its applications in other sub-fields). And this shouldn't devalue its scientific weight. Providing the comprehensive list would be difficult, and also kind of contradicting what you have asked me to (to shorten the list of references).

- And a final question, in live chat they asked me about citations to "background" section. I can only provide so many citations. For some of the claims (him being the head of some institute, or even winning some medal) there are no citations to provide. How can I be sure that the next reviewer would accept these parts? In general I don't know if I can be sure that the next reviewer wouldn't complain again about the parts that you approve.


Regards, Babak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babak1981 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What I asked you to do was to select the top 2~3 citations in the "Published Papers" section and only use those, not to list the 33 all together like that. The advice you got in the live chat is also accurate, there are no citations in the Background section at this point. Hasteur (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bayrampaşaspor‎

I have no idea how my article is non-notable. It is the only team in the league not to have an article about them, I wrote it as I read an article about their fans in a magazine about supporter culture, and I was surprised that there was no article about the club, I had to use google translate from the Turkish Wikipedia. I cannot see how Bayrampasaspor is any less notable than Eyupspor or any other lower league team in Istambul, many of which have much worse articles about them than this one. I clearly stated the source, which happens to be the official club's website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcmaxx (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And just to practice what I preach about being a talkpage busybody... Abcmaxx is correct, all the other Turkish soccer teams in the league have articles in mainspace including Eyupspor... and almost all the ones I checked only cited their homepage and/or TFF, so it's not too surprising Abcmaxx made Bayrampaşaspor‎ thataway. Not speaking the language limits my search-fu, but I did find these, which appear WP:RS at first glance: Türkiye_(newspaper),[5] and Habertürk,[6] which are national newspapers, as well as Beyaz,[7][8] (plus about a dozen more sports-score-hits... same as "Akdeniz Beyaz" local newspaper?).
  Anyhoo, as Abcmaxx points out, Bayrampaşaspor‎ is the only league-two-Turkish-red-group team without an enWiki stub. Glancing through some of the others, I counted a total of one (1) newspaper ref, to a dailymail article about a player-transfer.  :-)   Sounds like the whole topic-area could use some help. Abcmaxx, if you are interested in the subject, here is a good place to start looking for reliable sources about the teams, List_of_newspapers_in_Turkey, there are seven online ones, at least two major sports-specific dailies, and about a dozen good-sized national newspapers. Not sure if the league-three stuff will ever be non-redlinked (only about 25% of those have bluelinks... mostly former-league-two teams presumably), but the league-two seems to qualify. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:OSE refutes the "Other stuff exisists, so this should too" Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:NICE is a pillar, it trumps WP:OSE. See also, WP:SFoD.  ;-)   Besides, my arguments isn't OSE other stuff exists, I'm saying RSE: reliable sources exist. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point, but what is wrong with the Turus.net (a reputable German magazine, specialising in supporter culture) link I cited you or the club's home page? I am a football fan first and foremost, but have no connection to Turkey or Turkish football, I was just trying to fill a gap in not having this team on here. If some Turkish fan comes across this page with more knowledge I'm sure he/she can expand this page further, but sadly I am probably not the right person to do that, mainly because of the language barrier. I tried my best for this page not to be a "stub", but in my opinion even a stub is a lot better than no page at all, refusing an article on the grounds that no newspapers have been quoted is my opinion a little bit ridiculous. I don't really see what is the point of referencing for the sake of just referencing if the information is a) all correct and b) enough to create an article on. I didn't reference any Turkish newspapers purely for the fact a) I don't speak the language and b) newspapers aren't really always a reliable source anyway, especially as most the links expire after a few months anyway. I mean if you're that desperate for just any old links I might as well get them off the Turkish Wikipedia counterpart, or least say which bit of the article is incorrect then I will look for a source to back it up. I hope you see what I am trying to say? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, the magazine you found is prolly fine, but see WP:42, you need multiple sources. But add the ones I found, to the one you found, and you've got multiple sources now.
four sources, click over here...................

References

  1. * http://Turus.net/insert/exact/deeplink/here/please, German magazine
  2. * {{cite web |url=http://www.turkiyegazetesi.com.tr/spor/67071.aspx |deadurl=no |archivedate=2014-01-12 |archiveurl=http://archive.is/haCGX |accessdate=2014-01-12 |title=Bayrampaşaspor, Cenk Kaplan'nın sözleşmesini uzattı |publisher=[[Türkiye_(newspaper)]] national newspaper}}
  3. * {{cite web |url=http://spor.haberturk.com/iddaa/takimdetay/8211/bayrampasaspor |deadurl=no |archivedate=2014-01-12 |accessdate=2014-01-12 |archiveurl=http://archive.is/0ggiW |title=TAKIM DETAY Bayrampaşaspor |publisher=[[Habertürk]] national newspaper}}
  4. * {{cite web |url=http://spor.beyazgazete.com/haber/2013/5/25/spor-toto-2-lig-play-off-1813919.html |deadurl=no |archiveurl=http://archive.is/2CxVA |archivedate=2014-01-12 |accessdate=2014-01-12 |title=Spor Toto 2. Lig Play-off: Yeni Malatyaspor’da Spor Toto 2. Lig Play-off’da tur atlamanın sevinci yaşanıyor |publisher=[[Beyaz]] Gazette, local(?) paper}} Same source has half-a-dozen other pieces online.
Copy the stuff above into the references-subsection of Bayrampaşaspor, which will then look something like this:

References

  • http://Turus.net/insert/exact/deeplink/here/please, German magazine
  • "Bayrampaşaspor, Cenk Kaplan'nın sözleşmesini uzattı". Türkiye_(newspaper) national newspaper. Archived from the original on 2014-01-12. Retrieved 2014-01-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • "TAKIM DETAY Bayrampaşaspor". Habertürk national newspaper. Archived from the original on 2014-01-12. Retrieved 2014-01-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • "Spor Toto 2. Lig Play-off: Yeni Malatyaspor'da Spor Toto 2. Lig Play-off'da tur atlamanın sevinci yaşanıyor". Beyaz Gazette, local(?) paper. Archived from the original on 2014-01-12. Retrieved 2014-01-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Same source has half-a-dozen other pieces online.
And yes, you can also grab the refs from the turkish version, too, that will help. As for your assertions-slash-questions:
  1. "Refusing an article on the grounds that no newspapers have been quoted is my opinion a little bit ridiculous." Correct! But it's how AfC works right now; it helps improve WP:RS hygiene. You can always create stub-articles direct in mainspace, if necessary, but AfC is usually a good first-pass-review. And hey, the media-coverage exists, see above.
  2. "Newspapers aren't really always a reliable source anyway." Correct again!  :-)   But all that matters by the *rules* of AfC is uppercase wikiReliable (and *all* newspapers automatically qualify), not lowercase reliable (the colloquial meaning... aka "accurate"... which is very distinct from wikiReliable... aka "fact-checked"). We *try* to also stick to what is both accurate and true, but that's not absolutely required for WP:V and WP:N... otherwise, how could we every write an article about a politician, eh?
  3. "links expire after a few months." Three times is a charm, you are on a roll. Correct again; the fix is to use pre-emptive archiving. That's what most of the gobbledy-gobbledy stuff above is, with all the deadurl=no and archiveurl= and such. If the link disappears someday, just change the ref to say deadurl=yes, and everything will be fixed.
Anyhoo, you have enough sources now methinks, go add the sources (listed above in ready-to-cut-n-paste format) into the article, they prove wikiNotability, then click re-submit. You can use www.bing.com/translator or translate.google.com to get the gist of the sources, if you like, or you can seek a wikipedian with the necessary skills here — WP:TRANSLATE or maybe WP:PNT aka PagesNeedingTranslation. Make sure to point them to the URL of the article you are writing, WT:Articles_for_creation/Bayrampaşaspor, and mention that none of the other teams in the league have any refs to speak of (now excepting this one!) in case the translator wants to go whole-hog. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
No secrecy. It's just so much easier. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)


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)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Likelihoodist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whisperback

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

Wasn't It Good (Tina Arena song)

Hi there,

Thank you for reviewing "Wasn't It Good" (song by Tina Arena). I understand why you declined it. I have added award nominations the song received. Can you please review it again :) I think it is news worthy now. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjamesaus (talk • contribs) 11:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Jim Prigoff

Thanks for reviewing the page for Jim Prigoff. I have moved the page to "James Prigoff" and have changed all the relative names to James instead of Jim. I will setup a redirect for people searching for "Jim Prigoff". Hope this meets with your approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelipeSago (talk • contribs) 04:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sampsa (street artist) - photos

Dear Hasteur, Thanks for reviewing the Sampsa (street artist) submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sampsa_(street_artist) ). To hopefully answer your question, the photos used are from this site: http://49999.org/pictures-and-graphical-elements/ ... where they are all published with CC BY SA licenses. Have i missed something, or were you confused by the previous review that cited the images, before they were published with the CC BY SA licenses? Do i need to request removal of the 'rejection for unlicensed images' message, since the images are now licensed properly? Thanks, Clade Cote (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Images are supposed to be used to help illustrate critical sections of the article. The images don't convey that usage to me. Second, I seem to recall a precedent where photographs of statues could not be used because the new art does not transform the original piece. As such, I'm not sure we can use that copyright grant. If there were some sort of official assertion, it might remedy the issue. Finally, I get that the subject is important in their right as a protest organizer, but I'm not getting a significant feeling for Artistry importance. Hasteur (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Cow Protection In India Article

Hi Hasteur,

Thank you for reminding me about the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cow_Protection_in_India) Actually there is some information being processed by the goverment officials. As and when the information is made available to me I will make changes to this article. Uptil then, how should I ensure that this article is not filed for deletion ?

Please help in this regard.

Ntu129 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ntu129 I've deferred the G13 eligibility for this page, however please be aware that AfC is not an indefinite storage location of pages that are not suitable for mainspace. The page will be eligible for deletion under CSD:G13 6 months from the last edit, so as long as you're continuing to improve the page it will remain out of reach for the G13 rule. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2012 3

Dear Hasteur: The above page is in the G13 eligible category. I'm presuming that's an accident and that you will know how to fix it up before it's deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong Someone left a enabled AFC submission template on in the archive [9] (Section "Better guidance for submissions declined on inadequate sourcing grounds") which added the magical G13 category when it transited the eligibility date. I have truncated the templates that were still running on the page here. I'll check, but I don't think this page was entered into the bot's records, but if it was I'll remove it. Hasteur (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Good. I figured that you could sort it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

About deleted article

Dear Hasteur, please leave the comment on.

I would like to know have I an ability to reestablish the article about EXNESS company, which was deleted before? If it's not possible, please, would you be so kind, extract the text and the links from the database of the Wikipedia, because, unfortunatelly I didn't catch to save the reserve version of my article.

Thank you for your attention!

04:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Julia.tretyakova (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to beg ColonelHenry's permission to respond first before I can respond as this appears to be a spill over from annother editor's talk page where it's been accused that I was grave dancing. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries, Newyorkbrad was already working on Julia's page, I left some commentary over on the NYB talkpage (that exness should neither be restored nor undeleted... Julia, you can drop me a note on my talkpage if you'd like a deeper explanation of how I arrived at this stance).
  Hasteur, I'm also of the strong opinion that you weren't dancing (though prolly considering the circumstances you weren't being WP:NICE enough), but that until and unless *Kafziel* tells you to stay off his talkpage, you are just as free as any of us to help improve-the-encyclopedia™ on that page, or any other. And, speaking of such things, I've posted my piece at the workshop page, with seconds to spare.
pointer to the key sentence in WP:OWN which is wherefrom I criticize
  I'm not sure if commenting after the fact is allowed, but you said something in reply to the colonel which stuck out at me: that you didn't see any WP:OWN difficulties, since no single specific article was involved. Metaphorically, though, surely the point is clear: no part of wikipedia-the-online-encyclopedia is owned by any of us contributors, individually, nor grouped into wikiprojects. Yes, the server-hardware is owned by the foundation, and we each have some traditional 'homestead' rights on userpages and user-talkpages. But even *those* things are REALLY only for building and improving the polishing and otherwise contributing to the encyclopedia. The WMF is the legal owner, holding the hardware in trust, but we're all the moral owners, methinks.  :-)
  Anyhoo, the part of WP:OWN that is directly relevant, is in the 'statements' section, buried in the middle. "Please clear this with WikiProject X first." See also, what the hungry creature said at 12:06 Oct 2nd, after you said this: "Each Project is given general controll over articles in it's perview. I was exercising the rights granted to AfC... I may be somewhat out of touch... certain wiki projects being given carte blanche with respect to pages in their purview (WP:USROADS and WP:NRHP). ...and wouldn't have editors outside of the project interfering with the operations of the project."[10] The koala is on the mark about the core idea being against-the-goals, albeit not very WP:NICE about their phrasing.
  Now, that said, the argument can be made, that wikiProjects ought to have control, and that only project-members, following approved project-practices, ought to be able to edit articles they claim. The modernized citizendium, in other words. But that approach is basically an *exact* description of nationalism as applied to territory; once Spain has planted their flag in Florida, no French nor English settlers may claim it, and the Pope says Portugal has purview over all of Brazil, right? End result: cannons, muskets, intrigue, MERCANTILISM (shudder!). In that model of the wikiverse, Kafziel would be like the Dread Pirate Roberts, sneaking around swiping stuff which wasn't his WP:OWN... but that's not supposed to be the model on which the wikiverse functions, neither on paper, nor on the (virtual) ground. The model is supposed to be, follow the five pillars, in spirit if not in letter, and everything will work out fine.
So TLDR, I wanted to drop by, and explain why I also labelized you into the WP:OWN category... per example-statement #4.2.F in the guideline... plus say that I completely disagree with people saying you are bad, or you need to go. You are an asset to both AfC in particular, and to wikipedia in general. You're wrong about the nitty-gritty detailed meaning of WP:OWN, and you disagree with me about the meaning of "improve" in that fifth pillar I keep yammering about.  :-)   But you ain't a bad man. Just frustrated methinks.
  Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia... specifically, the AfC-queue backlog is on track to get down out of quadruple-digits for the first time since I've been paying attention... and the G13-backlog is on track to get down *into* the quadruple-digits for the same... so there *is* steady progress, and you get a big chunk of the credit for that progress, and don't let anybody tell you different. Keep calm and carry on, as the old saying goes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The notabililty rule doesn't apply to all wiki pages?

Hasteur, thanks for reviewing my recent submission on PromptCloud. Unfortunately, I don't seem to understand how one company having a single reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentio), that too a paid one (from PR agency - PRweb.com) is more "notable" than another having several independent references and being the core subject of such mentions? Kindly help me understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohit28sharma (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Just because we have one article doesn't mean that similar articles can be created". But thank you for identifying a deficient article as we should not have allowed that article to be created and so it will be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohit28sharma (talk • contribs) 15:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Medical Objects Submission decline - Query

Lynden Crawford (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Hello Hasteur, I was wondering about your comment on the submission decline as I wasn't able to quite make sense out it. I was hoping you be able to clarify the comment 'Uncomfortable with the Medical Objects direct links and Wiki usage.' Specifically regarding the wiki usage, as I am unsure what you meant by that and the people on unofficial live chat were unable to make meaning of it either. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards Lingmac Lynden Crawford (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Have you read this and ignored it, or have you just missed this question? (t) Josve05a (c) 01:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Whenever someone edits your talk page you get a notification via the "You have a new talkpage message", the Notice button ticks up, and depending on if you have have email enabled, you get an email letting you know the page changed. I've seen the message, and it seems quite clear what the problem is. That there are multiple direct references to the company's site is what caused enough concern for me to decline. If you had checked Lingmac's talk page you would have seen that DGG responded on the user's talk page also giving advice. I don't consider it necessary to respond to each declined advocate's plea, in fact my edit notice makes it clear that in the majority of cases I do not intend to hear appeals on my talk page. Please in the future Assume Good Faith, read the edit notices that come up and consider that established editors do know what they're doing. Hasteur (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy nominations

I notice that you have nominated several user/sandbox articles for speedy deletion under G13 category. Now if I have missed something within our policy please tell me, but I am not clear as to why a sandbox article which does not otherwise qualify for deletion should be removed simply because it has not been edited for six months?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Bradbury I invite you to read the CSD criteria very carefully... Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months. This criterion applies to all drafts in WikiProject Articles for creation project and talk namespaces, as well as all userspace drafts that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. (from WP:G13) If you observe, each one of those pages has the AfC submission template which caused the stale draft to be listed in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions prior to my edit to nominate the page. The G13bot does not nominate user space stale because those require a little more eyeball on it. Hasteur (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@Anthony Bradbury: Also your mix between Anthony Bradburry and Anthony.bradburry caused me to send the wrong notification ping. You might want to rectify your user talk link in your signature to prevent confusion. Hasteur (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. My talk link defaults to the correct page; it goes via Anthony.bradbury as a result of a username modification.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Carlson

Hi Hassteur,

I hope I did the right thing by starting a new section. I didn't see any instructions on this so I can only hope for the best. I have been working on a topic for an artist named Cynthia Carlson. I submitted it and it you declined the submission. I did go over the submission and added external & Wiki links to many of the items. There were just a couple of questions I have:

  1. I don't know what an "inline external link" is.
  2. I do know that many of the items are not substantiated. For some of those, there are no online references on the Internet. Should they be deleted even though they are true? Mursimon (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mursimon: Really it's best to create a new section and link to the article you're asking for advice about. I have done this for you.
An inline external link is where you link to a non-wikipedia site in the middle of the prose about a subject. In this case 2000 Art Resources Transfer, Inc., NYC and 1989 Cynthia Carlson: Installations, 1979-1989 (a decade, more or less): March 14-April 23, 1989, Freedman Gallery, Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania are examples of external links in the middle of the text. Perhaps reduce it to just the gallery names being linked.
As to the second point, because this is a Biography of a Living Person any contentious statement must be backed up by a reference. The gold standard is WP:MINREF in this case, but in general we like to see at least one reference per section of content.
Also as I look at the submission I see a great dumping of "presentations of work" that makes it feel like you're trying to grab for getting the submission accepted under any terms. It might be better to reduce it to the top 2 or 3 items per section (starting at awards) to condense the work so that reviewers like myself don't get bored with reading the article and decline it for the lack of references and verify ability in the submission. Hasteur (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Afrosty

I got the message regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patricia A. Frost. Not a problem if it is deleted. I have a backup copy of the text/wikipage. I will be resubmitting in a few months after she has been promoted to Brigidier General and is in her new position as commander of the U.S. Army Cyber Command. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrosty (talk • contribs) 08:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallpike article

Dear Hasteur I've just seen your message saying that my article on CR Hallpike was declined because it contained copyright material. I would be happy to amend/remove this if you could please tell me exactly what wording you object to and where you have seen it/them before.

many thanks Julia 09:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsdavidson (talk • contribs)

Dear Hasteur I would appreciate some feedback on your issue with my article please. Plagarism is an extremely serious accusation and I would very much hope that you could substantiate it with some evidence; the online source you mentioned is purely an article that I have already referenced, and have not taken sections from verbatim. I am really very confused as to what is causing the problem. Thanks again Jcsdavidson (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Jcsdavidson The way the article reads suggests that you've minimally changed wording to the point of near copyright violation. Please look at the author description in the page I linked to see how very similar to the description you have that makes me question the copyright status. Once you've fixed the entire article you can re-submit it. Hasteur (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sampsa (street artist) - appropriateness of images

Hi Hasteur, As posted under your review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sampsa (street artist):

All the images depicted are CC BY-SA, so i believe there is no problem with their licensing. Since the subject matter is a street artist and his work, i think it is informative to show a few images of the politically charged and illegal art itself. E.g. Banksy. Do you agree?

Clade Cote (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


As posted under your review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sampsa (street artist):

Hasteur, i see what you're getting at: that volume of photos was not appropriate. I've removed all but one photo from the body text. Thanks for the guidance. Clade Cote (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Devyani Khobragade

This is with reference to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Devyani Khobragade. The contribution has been declined due to "Reads like bullet point list instead of flowing prose." I would like to respectfully point out that the article is about a notable subject currently in the news, has two dozen citations from leading news sources, and is well laid out. I believe that once the article is approved for inclusion in the Wikipedia, its prose can be improved by contributors. I would like to respectfully request that the article be approved. Rome was not built in a day. R0x5r (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Erie Business Center

Thank you for your review, Hasteur. I was a bit confused as to the reason "Too many 1st degrees." Within the article there are only 3 links to the school's actual webpage, only to show the number of programs offered, and scholarship information, which would be difficult to identify at any other location on the web. 4 were from government/regulatory bodies, 3 from magazines/press, and the rest from external community organizations. I have been looking for help in the pages of comparable institutions in town (Fortis College, Triangle Tech) but they both only have 1 source - their homepage. Any help would be appreciated!

articles for creation Bharath gyan

Hi hasteur

Many thanks for the feedback. I would work on the corrections/changes AFAP. I would like to know if there is any upper cap on the timelimit to finish these corrective actions. I have a primary job (for my living!!) and would need some time (a month's time) before I can respond completely. Hope that is fine

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amudha ram (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Amudha ram: Per CSD:G13, the Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage for content that is not appropriate for inclusion into the mainspace. If you do not edit the submission for 6 months, the submission could be nominated for speedy deletion. Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Interlanguage link in talk page

In [11] HasteurBot moved [[es:User talk:Lucien leGrey|es]] from a signature to the bottom, but the link is rendered inline on talk pages as this shows: es. Help:Interlanguage links#Method says: "Interlanguage links in Talk pages and on Meta will appear inline in the text, like regular links, so you can cite other pages in discussion." PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Halfdan M. Hanson, Architect

Just wanted to let you know that I responded at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Halfdan M. Hanson, Architect. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend Based on the reccomendation I promoted it up to mainspace and moved your comments over to the talk page Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lieb-Robinson bounds

I would like to know what is happening to my article "Lieb Robinson bounds" that was resubmitted some time ago, after a considerable overhaul to meet the referees objections. Lucie911 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucie911 It's in the pipeline to be reviewed. It will be reviewed again at some point. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

HasteurBot

Where does it log the pages that it has tagged? 88.104.27.18 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster/ColonelHenry/Hasteur

I've just been reading the talkpage of the ArbCom Kafziel case and noted that you three sometimes make unnecessary personal remarks. Editors are encouraged to comment on the case, and to make factual statements, however, comments which are worded as insults such as "Yawn. No wonder Kafziel gave up dealing with you.", "screaming howler monkeys throwing excrement", "their vengeful, spiteful and downright vindictive behaviour", are not helpful, and can make matters worse. Whatever disagreements we have about process, we can raise our concerns without resorting to insults. We are all volunteers on this project, and we all share a common aim. Let us attempt to resolve disagreements in a civil and respectful manner. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

SilkTork I give up. WCM and CH have gotten what they wanted, me being ejected from the AFC wikiproject. All tasks that are even remotely related to AFC (including inquiries to me about AFC) are being trashed as it's even possible that I'm up for being topic banned. No more G13 nominations by my bot, no more helpful tasks. If 2 editors can opine and disrupt ArbCom proceedings so forcefully that they can get any sort of sanction to stick is a prime case for future ArbCom proceedings past the evidence phase to be conducted 100% off wiki and closed only to participants. Nowhere did the arbitrators indicate that I did not need to respond to each false and potentially libelous accusation by those two agents of malfeasance. Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

Not a helpful edit summary

Hasteur, this is not a helpful edit summary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The appropriateness of answering questions on Kafziel's talk page

You, of all people, really should not be answering questions on Kafziel's talk page[12]--irregardless whether your answer is appropriate or not. It's in poor taste, and quite presumptuous of you. I, personally, consider it akin to gravedancing--especially after your vile behaviour towards Kafziel. FYI, I don't need you to reply to me--I'd prefer it if you didn't. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request HasteurBot 6

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 6 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 01:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

MfD nomination of User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany

User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision

A proposed decision has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision in the arbitration case that you are a party to. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 09:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

G13 deletions/restorations

Do you have any statistics about the rate of G13 deletions? I am planing a survey of a week or so's undeletion requests at WP:REFUND, and it would be interesting to know the percentage being restored. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

JohnCD Unfortunately I clean out the records of nominations that have either succeed or fallen out of eligibility every day. I can stop the cleaning process for a week if you want that kind of information, but I do have other bits of information. The bot has notified on 88786 stale drafts (Letting the creator know that their submission is in danger of being deleted). The internal database shows we're on ID 70543 in the sequence of evaluating the drafts that nave been notified on. The bot is currently working through drafts that were notified on on 2013-09-22 (at around 2 AM UTC). Each day the bot scans all the "Submissions by Date" categories that are known to still have pages that could be eligible for G13. Based on the fact that the Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions has ~15k submissions in it, this indicates to me that there are submissions that were identified by the bot (and notified on) that are no longer eligible for G13 (They have been edited in some maner, have already been G13ed, or were promoted to article space). When the page does come up for review by the bot, the bot will remove the record from it's database because the page is no longer eligible. Sorry if this is a great information overload, just trying to answer your question. Hasteur (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
JohnCD Ok, the bot nominated approximately 321 articles on the 16th, has nominated 408 on the 17th (There was a Tool Labs network outage that prevented the bot from nominating for ~4 hours). Let me know if this is the kind of information you're looking for. Hasteur (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is, thanks - a few more days would be useful. I am just looking to get a rough idea of what percentage of G13 deletions are being restored at REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

JohnCD I hope these are more useful.

321 | 2014-01-16 |
408 | 2014-01-17 |
397 | 2014-01-18 |
309 | 2014-01-19 |

Essay

I took the liberty of fixing the spelling error in the title of your essay. Note the move-reason summary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

DRNBot

Hi! if you look at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Please put cases on separate subpages you will se that re-engineering all of our DRN automation tools from top to bottom as we discussed at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 56#Dispute resolution noticeboard is still very much needed. Are you still interested, or should I post a new request? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon Did a consensus ever materialize about what the plan is? I got an impression that the last time we thought about it there was great thoughts, but nobody wanted to commit to the changes. Hasteur (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Nobody has ever attempted to make a plan that involves improved automation, because the other DRN volunteers aren't programmers and I specialize in tiny microcontrollers with 128 Bytes of RAM. No point specifying a program if you have no programmer to write the code... That being said, I am confident that everyone involved will be glad to support pretty much anything that doesn't actually suck. DRN is a pretty non-contentious bunch.
The basic idea is to pretty much have what we have now with the user filling out a form to initiate the case, and that the form will not allow submission if there are any of the errors that plague us now (nobody listed as a disputant, nonexistent page, cases filed that are the editor's very first edit to Wikipedia (thus clearly not meeting our "there must be talk page discussion first" criteria), etc.)
We have a form. It is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. Go ahead and try it, answering "Not Yet" to the first question. Useless. Everyone ends up selecting "Yes it has" and every case ends up with "Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already." at the top. If selecting "no" causes you to start over, of course everyone selects "yes" the second time around. The next page on the form does impose a 500-character limit, but it doesn't do basic error checking like "does the page exist" or "does the user exist"?
Likewise, we have a bot. It is at User:EarwigBot. The bot operator is very helpful and responsive, but we are basically adapting a tool that was meant to do something else, with decidedly mixed results. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

You've helped me a few times now - just wanted to thank you - it's appreciated. Julie JSFarman (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New Proposed Decision

Findings of fact and remedies involving you have been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed_decision. You may wish to comment on them before they are voted on. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 20:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

June Julian

Thank you for reviewing my edits for June Julian. I am trying to establish notability for the subject as a pioneer in the field of art education, not as an artist specifically. However, a simple google search does bring up many published images. That said, I'm not really sure how to proceed. Can you please advise?Lincolnspencer (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lincolnspencer I'd love to assist you, but I have been encouraged to walk away from the AFC process. I suggest you ask the question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk as they can assist you there. Per the Edit notice, I will be archiving this thread in 5 days. Hasteur (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you reword and apologise

I've just looked at the ArbCom talkpage and noted this: "jump up and down like screaming howler monkeys throwing excrement against those they don't like". It's difficult to see that comment as something positive or helpful. I understand that feelings can run high when editing Wikipedia, and that at times we may say inappropriate things. However, the community asks that users restrain themselves as much as possible, and if they do slip up, they apologise and withdraw offensive comments. Something that I do when anoyed is to type out the angry response, and then gradually edit it until it is acceptable before posting it. That gets the anger out of my system without needlessly upsetting others. Others suggest taking a walk round the block. Whatever works - it's each to their own, as they say. Anyway, in the meantime, it would be a good idea to cross out the offensive statement and apologise to the two users you were insulting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Hasteur. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Mdann52talk to me! 11:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And again. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hasteur/Archive_8&oldid=1139000583"