User talk:Hasteur/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, Hasteur, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Request for Page Protection On Hell's_Kitchen_(U.S._season_7)
I've sat on my hands for 12 hours while I've watched a IP Edit war going back and forth over multiple addresses over the content of Hell's_Kitchen_(U.S._season_7). Some of the editors have recieved "Disruptive Edit" warnings in the past and while I'm still a newbie I'd like to try to assert some order over the page and the revisions that are being made.Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can request protection at Requests for Page Protection. ~ Gosox ( 55 )( 55 ) 13:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankee Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Desire to Link blacklist a site
After getting caught in an insidious Rickroll page ( http://www.bringvictory.com (Warning: Malicious Script)) I'd like to get this site added to the blacklist of remote sites. The video is loud and has javascript popups that prevent you from closing the page unless you are at the end of the alert cycle. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where exactly did you encounter the link? It has been blacklisted on en.wp for now.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here. The user who inserted the link has already been warned about it, but eliminating the link as a linkable is what I had in mind Hasteur (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you, but you responded to my incident the other day with ronz. He won't stop (he keeps editing my talk page) and the incident is gone from the admin section, so I don't know what to do. Please help me. I've asked him to stop, but I don't believe he will. He isn't very articulate and that scares me very deeply. I'm not one to overact generally, but this is how women get stalked and it's very scary to me. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide specific diffs of harrasment. I see several places where he is both violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:OWN.  In addition I notice that you restored a discussion that you did not participate in to the talk page.  At this time I don't see any particular harassing or hounding by them directed at you.  I advise you to leave notice that you intend to revisit these issues at a later time, WP:DISENGAGE, and take a vacation from the article for a few weeks. Hasteur (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs to back your accusations, or withdraw them. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was only making an observation about your edit summaries. Not a accusation and not anywhere near the WP:DR proceses. I was providing a suggestion that they walk away from the article as both you and them seem to be hot under the collar about the subject. Hasteur (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was muddy in my earlier statement. I am speaking of his conduct on my talk page (as in continuing to edit it and be uncivil to me, name-calling, baiting, belittling, etc.), not this talk page. I don't know how to provide diffs but I will go and figure that out I guess. I am participating in that discussion which is why it bothered me that ronz chose to undo another user's comment to the section as it seemed to address the issue. You're saying I should disengage and go away ... that's lovely advice. I'm happy to leave it alone for some weeks, but I don't see how my conduct is at issue regarding the contents of that talk page. Ronz has removed that other user's comment, once again, so I think probably he just doesn't like what that user had to say. But this is neither here nor there, I'm asking for help regarding my talk page and nothing else. If you could please offer help in regard to that, I would appreciate it. If you can direct me where to go/what to do, that would be great.
 * Since I started responding to you, ronz seems to have already jumped into this page and left a comment. Wow. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hasteur! I'm embarrassed by this edit summary. Calling a spade a spade isn't going to help in this situation. Instead, I'm steering the dispute to where other experienced editors are involved. --Ronz (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Spade? As a woman of African-American descent, I find this choice of words disturbing. Is it racism that's driving this behaviour? Here's a diff example of what I mean from my talk page. This was posted there after he posted here. Specifically, the "I'm sorry that you find perfectly appropriate comments offensive" section. It's a demonstration that he does not intend to leave me alone.ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask both of you to take your WP:BATTLE back to the talk page for the article where you clashed. ValkyrieOfOdin, if you feel you're beeing harassed, take it to Wikietique Allerts but all I see is Ronz being slightly agressive with their actions while you going off the deep end with your accusations of harassment, conspiracies, and general paranoia. Ronz, as this ValkyrieOfOdin claims to be in a segment of the population that is already a area of contention, treat them with kid gloves but stand on the policies of the wiki. Hasteur (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Hasteur! --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the direction to Wikietique Allerts, this was all I was asking from you.ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tag of Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ
Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. We're both of the same opinion about the page.  In it's current version it can't stand, but probably needs to be there in general. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
I know you're the one who wanted to delete List of Lindsay Lohan songs. But I don't know how to make a private message, so I quickly made a talkpage for it, so check out the reason why it shouldn't be deleted. --RuuBjAh (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have gone to the article's talk page and responded to your reasons to keep. Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re ANI
As the discussion has already started at ANI, maybe a post a VPP pointing editors to the discussion would be a better idea. The discussion will remain live on ANI as long as it doesn't go 24h without a post. It can always be unarchived if necessary. Mjroots (talk)
 * Putting a date on this thread so it'll eventually get deleted Hasteur (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Padham's Green
Hello Hasteur. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Padham's Green, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Nancy talk  17:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Lindsay Lohan songs
In light of comments made above and on Talk:List of Lindsay Lohan songs by, deletion of List of Lindsay Lohan songs is not uncontroversial; as a result, I have removed the prod tag. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice to opening an AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: TSPE
Hi, and thanks for the message. I'm still fairly new to recent changes patrolling so I do make the odd error, however I was quite puzzled that you stated my changes could be considered vandalism. I'm still getting used to the templates so I sometimes use a general vandalism notice when it should be more specific or mark an article for general cleanup when it should have an advert tag, etc, and I thought the content of the article was reason enough for the tag. As for the blanking, that was a geniune mistake. I can't see how that could be mistaken for vandalism, especially considering I've been using Wikipedia on a semi - active basis for quite a bit and haven't once had a user warning. Deftera (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also a new follower of the NPP team, however from the policies I've read, blanking the page is considered bad form when putting an article up for deletion. Hasteur (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that now, however I thought it was generally accepted not to imply that the user may be a vandal unless there is good reason for it. Take the user warning system, for example. What I did may be considered bad form but I can't see how it could be mistaken for vandalism. Deftera (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * could be considered vandalasm I was only cautioning you on the action.  Working together we learn more. Hasteur (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

meredith and springlyn
why doyou hate meredith and springlyn yu must be a zionst you kike jew diminate wikipedia i love meredith and springlyn mor than i love iny kieke that evr existedt on the erth deth to israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hg shah (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You've already been warned about this page. It is non notable, non encyclopedic, and violates the Biography of Living Persons policies for the encyclopedia.  For the record I am a christian and an American. I intend to report you to WP:ANI as you are here to promote hate speech and not constructiveley improve the project Hasteur (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Hg shah
Thank you for your message. I'll comment at WP:WQA. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

J.G. Quintel
I still don't think he's individually notable yet. I looked all over and found absolutely no BLP info on him. Shame, since Regular Show is the best thing I've seen on Cartoon Network in ages. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Understandable. I was giving the article the benefit of the doubt and was trying to attract more attention so it could be properly sourced and BLPed. Hasteur (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:uw-test1&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;&#123;uw-test1&#125;&#125;. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. This includes the welcome templates as well.  :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  05:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Crossball
FYI, I put this article up for AfD at Articles for deletion/Crossball. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of J. G. Quintel for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article J. G. Quintel, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/J. G. Quintel until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
 * I think the article looks much better now. It asserts notability clearly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

K'nex Sonic Blizzard Coaster
You proposed K'nex Sonic Blizzard Coaster for deletion. The author of the article has contested the PROD, and the article has now been taken to a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/K'nex Sonic Blizzard Coaster. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jenny Esber deletion
Please attempt the deletion. I didn't create it; I tagged and retagged it. I will put the reminder on the proper page and remove it from mine. Cheers! Stormbay (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The notice was primarily for your info since you were somewhat involved in the page. Hasteur (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It did look like I had initiated the article. I deleted the entry with an appropriate edit summary. Stormbay (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mazdaaaa
Thanks - will go and look!  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 13:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:
Yeah, I figured something was up. Either way, User:PirateCrackK is an obvious impersonation/reincarnation, and needs to be blocked; however, I think User:GoogleUnderscore has probably pulled a WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DB-G4
I have reverted your speedy nomination on Software Engineering Project Requirements Analysis Business Model since the original material has not actually been deleted yet (as of this writing). The author has created two separate articles, Software Engineering Project Requirement Analysis Business Model and Software Engineering Project Requirements Analysis Business Model (note that the first article has no 's' on Requirement). The first article has been tagged for WP:CSD (blatant spam), which I think is just wrong. There is nothing promotional about the article -- it is simply a mistaken posting of someone's homework assignment on Wikipedia. The second article appears to be the user's attempt to possibly correct the spelling of the title. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Marking tagged articles as patrolled
Hello there again. In case you did not know, when you use Twinkle/Friendly to tag pages for issues, the page is automatically marked as patrolled, which is probably not a good thing at the very front of the backlog (i.e. here, which turned out to be a copyvio). You can turn the automatic patrolling off if you want by adding if( typeof( FriendlyConfig) == 'undefined' ) FriendlyConfig= {}; // DO NOT REMOVE THIS LINE - ALL FRIENDLY SETTINGS AFTER THIS FriendlyConfig.markTaggedPagesAsPatrolled = false; Under importScript('User:Ioeth/friendly.js'); I have done this in my monobook. If you have questions about this, please ask. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

VPIP
I have removed the prod tag from VPIP, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! VER Tott  11:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Beheading the beast
Hi. WP:CSD only applies where an article has been previously deleted at AfD, not where the previous deletion was a speedy - in which case, if the speedy reason still applies, it can just be speedied again for the same reason, as I have done for this article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Adam-irigoyen.jpg
Ok, yes but if I reference where the image came from, can't it stay posted? JoThousand (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the site asserts a "All Rights Reserved" licence which is incompatible with Wikipedia. I doubt a Fair Use Rationale can validly be asserted. Hasteur (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this image okay to use? http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=436308888111&set=a.454248288111.246956.177127163111 Since it comes straight from his Facebook page? JoThousand (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cannot access Facebook currently, but I'm thinking no. As I recall, Facebook holds a exclusive license when posting things to Facebook.  You could always ask at the Village Pump or at Reference Desk for the way to move forward. Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok Hasteur. Thanks for your help. I will contact the Reference Desk sometime later today. I'm thinking I won't get an image posted, but oh well. I'm sure Adam doesn't mind. JoThousand (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Top Pot Doughnuts
I did a bit of work on the Top Pot Doughnuts article. I've certainly dealt with any issue of shortage of references, but I hesitate to take off the notability tag you added without your consent. Could you have a look? I think the combination of the Starbucks connection, the Qwest Field connection and the Obama visit probably amount to notability. And this was a pretty cursory effort on my part: I know they've also been singled out for the interior design of some of their shops, but didn't quickly find references for that, so I leave it to someone else. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 20:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the assertions of notability and have removed the tag. Thank you for improving this article as I only discovered it through New Page Patrol. Hasteur (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Teacher?
Hey Hasteur, I'm new on Wikipedia. Do you want to be my teacher? I want to finalize the Soccer Kiekko page, but I don't know how. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangaren (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the "Welcome to Wikipedia" links. Try creating your article in the "New Article Creator" and having people who are knowledgable about the subject (WikiProjects Sports, Video Games, and Probably Web), Click and see who is editing in articles in the categories you've tagged.  I'm primarily looking at the article for
 * Does it have reputable 3rd party sources for the assertions made
 * Is there any discussion from reputable 3rd parties about the subject?
 * What inbound (linking to the article) links are there?
 * What outbound (linking to other articles) links are there?
 * Resolve these issues and I'll be happy to review. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What are 3rd party references? What's your big problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangaren (talk • contribs) 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now you have references pointing at the site itself to assert notability. It is ok to reference the site for some components, but as it's primary claim to notability,
 * we really need to have a writer or site who is unaffiliated with the subject of the article
 * who is established as an authority in the subject realm (in this case Internet Games)
 * that devotes significant coverage to the subject in question (i.e. a comprehensive review of the game)
 * Take a look at Minecraft to get an idea of how a article in a similar category as Soccer Kiekko presents itself and try to emulate the way it is set up. Hasteur (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Seminar Report on Transistor LASER
That page was copied from. Sorry to delete your copyediting work. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I try to get articles into a readable state so Admins/Other editors/Readers can figure out what the article is about before making a decision. No hard feelings. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jumping donkey flu
You're politer than I am. I'm calling it a hoax. ;) Not as good as the one earlier today about the Native American demon, though. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion a few months back about NPP being a giant club and not a encouragement mechanisim. As such I modified my behavior/philosophy to tag for issues and try to get the author to improve it before the CSD/PROD hammer comes down.  I've saved a few articles (like Sunshine Suites)) from deletion by activeley engaging the author of the article. Hasteur (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I even ended up adding a reference on the Norwegian Wikipedia through rescuing a csd candidate here. (Don't ask - some obscure mediaeval character thought to be a hoax.) I don't think there's a donkey's chance in hell for this effort. When the author says it's little known, it's almost always a hoax and he's trying to get out of referencing. My attitude is, if it's so little known that GPs won't know it, how come HE does? I don't think this one'll respond beyond a hangon with no reason given. As always, could be wrong... Peridon (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunshine Suites
I added more categories, references and sources to Sunshine Suites. Any feedback would be helpful. Would like to get rid of the flag on top. - tobywillow &#124; Talk 4:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article and feel that it's now fully defined and established. Best of luck on the future of the article. Hasteur (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips and clear direction to correct it. tobywillow &#124; Talk 11:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.194.121 (talk)

Not sure how to merge articles. Saw this, "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Sunshine Suites" for Sunshine Bronx Business Incubator. tobywillow (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did see it and I challanged the author about posting the merge but not starting the discussion. IMO the Sunshine Bronx Business Incubator doesn't have any content that is not in the main one to qualify the mergee for keeping or splicing content over. Hasteur (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Running on the cracks
Fair enough; I've switched to an AFD for the piece; it's probably the direction I should have moved toward in the first place. Thanks! --mhking (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 9)


The article Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 9) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:Crystal nothing can be verified

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your over-eager efforts in patrolling this page. Please note that there have been 8 previous seasons, that there is a veryifable fact that on the page.  As such I objected to the PROD. Hasteur (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 9) for deletion
The article Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 9) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 9) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Smartse RFA
I don't understand what the purpose of your question at Requests for adminship/Smartse was. "Time-sensitive requests"? If there are urgent requests, they are made to the appropriate noticeboard; individual administrators are under no obligation to action (promptly or otherwise) any request or complaint. RFA used to be plagued with pointless questions, but I thought that problem had died off a while back. Have I misunderstood your question? AGK [&bull; ] 11:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My question was partially in regards to the Block/Wikibreak the candidate requested, but also when editors appeal to a specific admin (i.e. asking a admin why they blocked someone). The idea is to understand why they have taken steps to do to ensure that personal issues don't cause our processes to slow down or become derailed. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Personal issues don't cause our processes to slow down or become derailed" - respectfully, I think you have a lot to learn about how the administrator tools work. AGK  [&bull; ] 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknoledge I'm not ready for mop duties, however I do not think it is unjust to consider the viewpoint of those on the recieving side of administrative action. Based on the introductory paragraph it was a concern for me. Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA
Hi, I noticed your recent  posting  at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. You might  wish  to  consider starting reading the discussion from  a while back. The questions people pose is one of the most hotly  discussed topics, and recently  hinged around the research  I  did here: User:Kudpung/RfA criteria where you  may  find that some of your concerns have been addressed. Nevertheless, it's good to steer the discussion  back  to  the aspect  of the questions as much and as often as possible, because it's one of the main  reasons why mature, experienced editors are not coming forward to  be considered for adminship,  and how  some very  worthy  candidates are tricked into  failing. --Kudpung (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your compiling of those examples. I asked the question because I wanted to get clarification on a item mentioned in the candidate's statement and was wanting to understand how the candidate would respond/mitigate the impact on the project in the future to events of a similar nature occured. Hasteur (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology
I have responded to your comment on the RFA talk page. Just wanted to take a moment here to say that, while I haven't changed my mind about the comment, making oblique criticisms of your question without addressing you directly was not my finest moment, and I sincerely apologise. It wasn't a reflection on you as an editor, or on what I have no doubt was a very genuine attempt to ask a serious and helpful question that would assist the RfA.-- K orr u ski Talk 14:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I (tried to) answer your question. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

GIC DEORIA
I have deleted this redirect to GIC Deoria; it serves no purpose because the Wikipedia search function is not case-sensitive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tom Fabiano
Thanks for your help with AFDs. However, can you please stick to closing clear keeps (per WP:NAC), as due to automation scripts it is easier for admins to close an untouched AFD as delete than to finish a closure someone else has started. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Noor Aftab
Just for information, there is an unusual and amusing situation here - the article you AfD'd was completely rewrittten during the AfD to be about a different person. IMO the new article is good enough to be restored - See my note at User talk:Ron Ritzman. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. I have absoluteley no hostility to the article. and found it quite humorous to see it change from one subject to annother.Hasteur (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I feel like a moron for missing this. What I should have done was to split the history with the new entries going to Noor Aftab (investment banker) and then close the AFD as usual. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RE:RFARB
I see no reason to redact anything. The case should have a proper filing statement by the person intending to present the primary evidence in the case. The evidence is not coming from you. The evidence to be presented by arbcom, specifically their chosen representative EotR. Arbcom requests statements often include meta comments regarding scope or process. My statement is no different.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If that edit summary was directed at me, allow me to clarify one thing. I'm not assuming bad faith here.  I assume you filed the case for what you believe are the right reasons.  However good faith does not always equal good process.  Thus the reason for my suggestion to EotR.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing a request for arbitration
Please remove any comments you've placed in anyone else's section. "Reply to another person's comment in your section.". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 04:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A slip of the pen
You wrote on the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu evidence page '' 'While caustic and not the expected level of a "trustee"...... '. Did you mean a "trusty". Moriori (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No I meant exactly what I said trustee Hasteur (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Who/what is he a trustee for? Something I missed? Moriori (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He was entrusted with the keys to the janitor's closet. Hasteur (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes him a "trusty", not a "trustee", which is a legal term related to legal trusts. Moriori (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I already explained why
I already explained why. The user keeps wikihounding me which is not a simple content dispute and his 3O requests are used for abusive purposes as it was at White Carphatians in the past. --Nmate (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs showing said abusive uses of 3O. It should be noted that I reccomended 3O on this case from the ANI page. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no point in continuing discussion with someone, who dedicated in wikihounding and to pick a quarrel with my edits. Once I had reported this user for a violation of 3RR  and soon after his interest in editing the article White Carpathians that I had edit just before I filled my 3RR report concerning Iaaasi, "resuscitated". (Nauneim is a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi which was created on the ground that the user was unable to wait until his 3RR block comes to an end). But after the 3RR block had expired, the user also continued editing the article with an abusive 3O request there without having had an interest in editing the article beforehand.Just by checking the edit history of the article Košice out, it plainly looks that the user hadn't had any interest in editing the article before I started to edit it, but shortly afterwards his interest in editing the same artice, enhancely increased and picked a quarrel with my edits there and went to ask for an abusive 3O request forgery, too.  So that it is not too surprising that if I am unwilling to accept his 3O request forgeries neither here ,nor anywhere else on Wikipedia.--Nmate (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These things happened more than a year ago, when I was still a beginner on WP (Iaaasi (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

User:Iaaasi
You may be unaware but user:Iaaasi is a longtime disruptive user who received a large number of blocks at least 13 of them indefinite, just on accounts that were CheckUser confirmed. His harassment of other users via sockpuppets and other means stretches over a time period of over a year. It is highly unlikely that low level DRP processes are of any help at this point. Hobartimus (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That may have been the case. Since the unblock they have (from my viewing of their page) obeyed the rules and procedures. It is my understanding that when a user is released from a unblock that the evidence previously used to block them is not to be used as evidence of past behavior unless it is to demonstrate a substantial long term violation.  As such, this issue is over the naming order on a page.  Not harrasment, not socking.  Please feel free to dis-associate yourself with the previous behavior of the user as it is not germane to the discussion.Hasteur (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the case. The user is one of the most disruptive I have ever seen on Wikipedia and constantly harasses other users over a period of over a year now. The harassment is extremely troubling and cannot be solved with low level DRP as I have said. It's unhelpful to pretend that the issue is "naming order" when this thing is ongoing since January 2010 with 13 indefinite blocks countless hours of wasted administrator, CheckUser and editor time trying to clean it up... Hobartimus (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Hasteur has already realised who is of good faith here (Iaaasi (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Iaaasi you have showed plenty of good faith when you harassed others with sockpuppets that you had no right to create or use, reverting attacking reporting warning(!) others Hobartimus (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my post unblock activity (Iaaasi (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * This flare is over the naming order. I see other sections regarding other things, but for the time being, the issue is the order of alternative language names of the city, as brought by Iaaasi. Yes it would have helped to not inclide the extra baggage, but at the time being that's all I'm seeing. Please feel free to demonstrate with Diffs and explicit connections to show that Iaaasi is continuing a pattern of harrasment since they have been unblocked. Once that's demonstrated, I'm perfectly happy to consider a wider context. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think you put talkback on Nmate's talk page instead of Hobartimus' talk page (Iaaasi (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Yes, one reply for Nmate (above section) and one for Horbartimus (this one). Put 2 replies down first then 2 talkbacks. Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However, thanks for involving into the discussion. I hope you will not leave it until reaching a conclusion (Iaaasi (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Power Rangers Samurai articles
I do not know why you have decided to go on a crusade against the creation of these pages. They have been created such that the content on character biographies can be expanded upon without unnecessarily cluttering up the page concerning the television program as a whole. There is nothing in any Wikipedia policy anywhere that suggests that these pages are not allowed as they are. I have removed the prod on Samurai Power Rangers and I have responded to your AFD of Villains in Power Rangers Samurai.

Again, your proposed deletions have no merit in notability policy as far as I am aware. Every series has these pages, and there is nothing against having such character lists as much as you believe. It's only a content fork now because the information has been on Power Rangers Samurai since before its premiere, but these pages are going to evolve into unique articles.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 18:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not on a crusade against these articles, I am applying the rules that Wikipedia requires. I will be putting the Samurai Power Rangers up for deletion as it does not improve on the already specified article. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only a stub that has been recently created. There's no deadline so why do you think these pages need to be deleted now?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 18:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubs are still required to be reliably sourced and have a reasonable likelihood to be useful. Again, please look at "View 1" of WP:DEADLINE.  Right now there is noting in those articles that is not already covered in the main Power Rangers Samurai article.  We don't fragment before the articles need it.  If, in the future, there's so much content on the series page that it makes sense to split the character and villian descriptions that's ok.  But for right now all it does is duplicate the content that is already here. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lists of characters have in a past been given a certain leeway. And if this information is kept on the series page then it is never going to be expanded upon because the egular editor is not going to want to build up on such information where it is not featured on other articles.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You probably could have also just overwritten Rtkat3's edits on the AFD page instead of making it a second nom. I'm gonna see if anyone wouldn't mind merging the pages.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the thread on WP:AN has anything to do with you directly. Just because I mention you does not mean I have to notify you that I am requesting some janitorial assistance. The use of the word "misleading" refers to the fact that the page was titled as the "2nd nomination". Don't have a cow, man.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nahla Matta
Thanks for the heads up. The text has been changed, so it's not a copyright violation, and other editors have tweaked the article. Although there are still notability issues, I don't think it's now an automatic speedy  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Update about Rodhullandemu Case
I wish to inform you about this development in the arbitration case with Rodhullandemu, which had been suspended two weeks ago until April 7th, up until this update. I am informing all users who have presented evidence in this case about this, with this same duplicated message, in the case that some users involved in the case do not have the case page watchlisted. I am aware that this action is likely to result in repercussions against myself, but I feel that it is proper for all participants in this case to be duly informed about this change. I am not advocating any action, but merely informing. Silver seren C 02:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Cort and Fatboy Show
Hi Hasteur. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/The Cort and Fatboy Show, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy. Cunard (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My Apologies
Sorry, it appears that AWB accidently changed your infobox and I did not spot this before I pressed save. I will be more careful in future. I also found that an IP address made unconstuctive edits to your article and I will place a warning message on this IP address. Sorry once again, Jamietw (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fraternities and Sororities
I noticed that you indicated that you thought that alpha Kappa Delta Phi should be deleted due to lack of references and in the state it was in at the time of the AFD, I agree, however, I'm in the process of Rescuing that page. Are there any others out of the swath of AFDs that you feel need to be similarly rescued?Naraht (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Alpha Psi Omega‎
 * Articles for deletion/Alpha Sigma Pi‎
 * Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa Delta Phi‎
 * Articles for deletion/Alpha Lambda Omega‎
 * Articles for deletion/Alpha Rho Chi‎
 * Articles for deletion/Alpha Pi Sigma‎
 * Articles for deletion/Alpha Psi Lambda
 * All of these I looked at had requests for references more than a month old and as such qualified IMO for deletion Hasteur (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving me the list. I'll see what I can do. BTW, when I edited this, there was a red square at the end of the first 6 entries in the list (everything except ΑΨΛ ), any idea what that indicates? (The only other time I saw it, I *think* it had to do with switching the default direction of editing LtoR vs. RtoL, but I'm not sure).Naraht (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything except the Alpha Psi Lambda I copied from my watchlist page so it may have picked up odd meta characters. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've worked on aKDPhi, and while it isn't anywhere close to a FA, I removed the ref request after adding some references and doing re-arranging. Could you let me know whether you still think it is Delete worthy? Also, are there any that you feel are non-notable?
 * You're aware that if we take away the "Official website" references (which shouldn't be used to support the notability claims), all we have is 3 small blurbs in campus newspapers about the Breast Cancer awareness events. For the most part, and because I was not a Greek system member in college, I don't have a good feeling for notability of one group over another.  I can name the top 3 Frats at my college, but beyond that I just don't know.  I look at these through the WP:ORG lens and the need to have multiple substantial references to demonstrate the notability. Hasteur (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, looking a news google search, what we appear to have is about a dozen campus newspaper articles and one set of articles around a sister who was murdered, I think. OTOH, given the number of schools that it is present at, a chapter list could be referenced with the student organization lists from two dozen schools. I think for Greek Letter Organizations, number of chapters and age tend to be used as a guide.Naraht (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Incubation.
Thank you for your mention of Incubation. You will know where I mean.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Question please
Good day! Please if you could explain me why have you put Ad tag on my page Auslogics Registry Cleaner while I carefully wrote this article following each and every rule of Wikipedia and carefully using every - every word in my article, because I know the rules and how important the contribution should be. Please if you could reconsider putting the ad tag on my page. God bless you and Thank You for understanding! Best regards to you and your family. Ashleyjonesme (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It reads like a advertisment for the product. Removing the surpufulus wording about the product and sourcing more of the prose will make it less advertismentlike. Hasteur (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Hasteur, I have rewritten the article removing any advertisement reading sense and surpufulus wording you mentioned. Please if you could be kind enough to recheck it and reconsider putting those tags on the page. Thank you very much for your valuable notes and your time! Ashleyjonesme (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all good
. When anyone I know wants general information about something, they google wikipedia. All that featured article stuff in the discouraged essay is just pretentious noise. Gerardw (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

PROD on List of countries by net exports
I have removed the prod tag from List of countries by net exports, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Pristino (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Cort Webber and Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts
This is a courtesy notice given your prior involvement with Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy or its deletion review (Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10) that these related articles are currently listed at AfD at Articles for deletion/Cort Webber. As attribution issues are involved, closure of this current AfD may result in the restoration of the earlier article, as a list of contributors would be necessary if the articles are retained. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Hasteur
Hi there!

You're certainly welcome, they've been left adequate warnings now so if this continues, then a block is in order I believe. :)

Hope this helps,

The Helpful  One  20:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT
I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Lisa Popeil
Thanks for your work on Lisa Popeil. I found a few sources, enough that I removed the PROD tag. I've put in some citation requests for unsourced paragraphs, which can eventually be removed if sources aren't found.  Will Beback   talk    23:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Phonica
I will remove the remixer title from the page for Phonica. Phonica is a registered artist and credentials are provided on the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa5059 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the term remixer becasue the entire production history has been as a remixer. As per the article is a remixer, record producer and record label Manager. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Phonica recently left Trident Music and signed with UK based label Rewind Records and is therefore no longer a label manager and is just a producer and remixer. The article has been approved and reedited by other administrators and complied by the Wiki requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa5059 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the notice. I agree with most of your comment diff, regarding your characterization of this page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, there are numerous statements that are patently false and bad faith. These include: the lede, the claims made in the "origin" section (false), failure to note that the Wikipedia article was the #2 spot in search results on top 3 search engines for literally years, etc. This appears to be forumshopping (eg prior pattern of similar forumshopping behavior ) after a failed RFAR. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Johann Otto Uhde article
Hi Hasteur, All of the web addresses I added to Johann Otto Uhde take the following form:


 * discovery.lib.harvard.edu/?itemid=|library/m/aleph|000602075

--because of the pipes in the address, they don't appear to work in citation templates. I'll try to work around them so they can be linked to. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi yourself. I'm taking a look at this, and I'm having a difficult time (even with the few links I pulled out of the malformed cite templates) of figuring out what notability the subject has.  I assume that the rest of the links are the same as the first one (the one that talked about the missing philosophy book) as "Contemporaries of the Subject" type dialog. If we could get a recent example of the impact the composer had, I'd be set at ease for the GNG or the more specific WP:ARTIST notability marks. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed them so now they still look bad, but work; and they are all different, although the malformed ones are all from Harvard. Only the first book could remotely be considered as having a recent impact, as it is an almost new publication (2009). In that one, Ude is mentioned in a footnote. The creator of the article might help, if he/she was helpful. Hamamelis (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Las Conchas Fire
I've already let it go, the admins fixed it up and added more info(albeit coincidentally after I nominated it..hmm), but at the time it was literally one sentence that didn't have sources, or anything. I didn't know one liners were allowed lmaooo. either way, what do I do to remove it? Last time I checked, the people decided to keep it. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Kavaserry Bhagavathi Temple
I noticed you added some cleanup tags to Kavaserry Bhagavathi Temple earlier today. Thanks for that. Just so you know, when you come across an article that has none or very few of its words linked, that is a dead giveaway that the text of the article was copied and pasted from a website, and should be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. In this case, a quick google search of a random string of text from the article revealed that it had been copied from this site. Just a friendly reminder to look for such things while patrolling. This checklist might also help. &mdash;SW&mdash; squeal 23:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Sorry, that was a big misunderstanding facilitated by lazy writing and a lack of checking on my part. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard again for what I really meant. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen hater #70.137.130.173
The block you got him ended yesterday, and it took him 3½ hours to do it again to season 1. He went to ground after the one edit, so he hadn't done it again it the 22 hrs. it took me to check up on him, but AIV got him again within a minute of my report...for 6 months. Rest easy, and happy editing. KnownAlias X   02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DRN Close
Thanks for stepping up and closing that DRN before it got extended beyond its natural life -- I had neglected to watchlist the article so I missed that the change had already been implemented. Sometimes its hard to find people willing to touch hot potatoes like that, and I was beginning to worry that it would be allowed to die on the vine. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I usually do a fair amount of clerking (and responding) on DRN. The 2k bytes of gripe that Greg put in I though pushed it over the Light/Heat > 1 ratio and the problem was already solved.  I assume you read the final commentary about Administrative gripe sessions as the goal for DRN is to not make it the intermural spitball contest that the main "wikidrama" boards are. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa
Okay, I was just messing around with the infoboxes and getting a feel for the markup language used in Wikipedia by creating sections on my userpage and making stuff up to put there. If someone had just let me know that I'm not allowed to do that then I would've had no problem at all with just deleting those and cutting it out. I really think that blocking me from editing my own page is an overreaction, especially since nobody actually told me anything directly before bringing that up... is there any way that I can just reset my account and start from scratch, but with the same username? --TheSpoonman (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you've learned. You've made your apology and you can now move on.  Take into consideration what kind of information you put on the page as it may provide enough information to identify you personally in the real world.  Best of luck. Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you run through exactly what I did to step out of line again, please? Was it the personal information (what high school I went to) or that some of the information was obviously fake (born 200 years earlier than I actually was)? I'm just trying to keep my nose clean because it was rather surprising to find that I was up for being blocked from editing just a day after creating my account
 * Edit: also I just looked at what Iniced deleted, and the only identifying personal information that was on there was my current city and the high school I went to, which I've since moved 4000 miles away from. --TheSpoonman (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I'm becoming more familiar with stuff here. Can I do what I was doing with my user pages, but with my user sandbox instead? As I understand it, I can, but I wanted to get a confirmation before I started. --TheSpoonman (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can create subpages (i.e. User:Hasteur/HallOfPride) and play with those. Just don't let them stale for too long without purpose. Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Thanks for the help! --TheSpoonman (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen (U.S. seasons 7 and 8) tables
I have done and re-modified the tables well. The notes are now removed. ApprenticeFan work 22:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)