User talk:Hasteur/Archive 2

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. I've (copy)added it to my  Hall of Pride where I've previously put verbal abuse and other accolades. Hasteur (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to run into you
Always good to run into another Metroplexian here in Wikiland. Maybe there can be another DFW meetup one of these days and I can buy you a beer. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it.
I was just about to revert that IP's edit on the Hell's Kitchen US page. Zmario111 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've become subject expert on HK US. Hasteur (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal notice
Do you have an email address I can send a legal notice to you at? if not you can catch me on awj [AT] oshuru.com and I will reply straight away, thanks Has! 217.127.32.189 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not give out my email address freely. Because you have presented enough information to figure out the context I have determined that you are attempting to use a Legal Notice to influence the content of "Guru Josh" articles. Please read the policy WP:NLT. I will be reporting this thread to one or more people associated with the administration and foundation for advice. Hasteur (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What you fail to realise Hal is that parties read this as an admitance by Guru Josh that he has given his blessing on the comments by others that the Guru Josh Project is still continuing, it is not. Guru Josh does not give his blessing and by you repeatedly re-posting as such is damaging an on going court case to which you may be held liable. Do not repost until you have all the facts which I am more than willing to supply to you if you would only listen.Zhardoum (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Retract your legal threat immediateley. It is cited fact that the artist was part of the group.  It is cited fact that the group broke up.  It is cited fact that the contract allowed them individually to perform as "Name of the Guru Josh Project".  Talking about the project in a historical manner is not giving current endorsement to the naming currently.  Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect Hasteur, despite many repeated attempts on my part to give you the facts (copies of contracts signed by all parties) you consistantly ignore the truth. please show me "It is cited fact that the contract allowed them individually to perform as "Name of the Guru Josh Project". Do you have documentation of this? I have documentation otherwise. Furthermore inclusion of this "the Guru Josh Project still gigs worldwide as individuals i.e Darren Bailie of Guru Josh Project & Anders Nyman Of Guru Josh Project." has now been used as legal defence as proof that Guru Josh condones the actions of the other members in passing off as the Guru Josh Project, this is now a legal despute which you are repeatedly interfering with. I have documentation to prove my facts which is entirely what Wikipedia is about, so if you insist upon repeatedly posting false and inaccurate information which is directly harmful to Mr Walden then I shall have no other recourse other than to list you as an accessory to fact. The Guru Josh project has disbanded, to state that they still gig worldwide is a falsehood bordering on liable. Zhardoum (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Free" vs. "open source"
About the cats at Hercules (emulator): Let me first state that I'm totally naive about the topic and had never even heard about any contention regarding those terms, but are you aware that Category:Open Source software in fact doesn't exist (it's a redlink cat), while Category:Open source software is a soft redirect to, you guessed it, Category:Free software? Now, I can sort of understand why one might prefer the more neutral-sounding term over the emphatic "free" term, but currently, for better or worse, all our related articles seem to be categorized under the latter. Does it really make sense to divide the categories up? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. I'm somewhat of a Ramsay fan (Watch the TV shows, read the books) so I was already familiar with the event and had previously warned the IP address about not adding that information to the page. Hasteur (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Godhra train burning DRN thread
Hi Hasteur, and thanks for closing the Godhra train burning thread on DRN. I just wanted to say that SpacemanSpiff was right about removing copyvio not being revert warring: have a look at WP:3RRNO for the full list. I think just saying "reverting" would have been fine, but "revert warring" was probably a little bit much, and I can understand SpacemanSpiff being annoyed about it. No problems with the rest of your close though. Regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Conversely wp:edit war lays out inappropriate behavior regarding revert warring. If Spiff had not reverted a second time and instead opened a talk page discussion or asked a second editor to evaluate the situation there would have been no revert warring and a consensus would have been established regarding the content. I called the action as I saw it as explanations in edit summary are out of process. Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from here, but the point is that there doesn't need to be a consensus to revert blatant copyvio - it is simply not allowed on Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. I haven't looked too deeply into the case, so I can't be sure of the particulars of the edits involved, but reverting copyvio twice doesn't seem very controversial to me. Please accept my apologies if my message was slightly terse - I wasn't intending it as a lecture or anything like that. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: ANI comments removal
Hello. I have restored your comments that you originally made to ANI. The diff showing the deletion can be found here. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Holey moley - I didn;t even realize I had done that, Hasteur! I am so sorry. Iirc, I ran into an edit conflict in one of the edits. This must have been it. I am very sorry about that; it wa certainly not intended. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

zero sum edit
I made the change because the previous link was a red (no article link) so I may have had a typo in it or something. I made the edit just to make sure it was linked through correctly. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hardy Diagnostics
Hey! Thanks for helping out on the Hardy Diagnostics article; it's appreciated! AlexHOUSE (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I takled it from a New Page Patroller's prespective and tried showing you how you could improve it. Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm fresh off of a year-long editing break and a little rusty so I can sure use the feedback. Thanks again. AlexHOUSE (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you mind taking a second look at the article? I've added an infobox and logo, as well as a few references, and I think the article could use some review. AlexHOUSE (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind converting the bare URLs to templates so that it's easier to determine information? Hasteur (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Declined PROD
Hi, re - it wasn't PRODded in September - it was WP:BLPPRODded (see ). There are significant differences: in particular, a which is removed improperly (i.e. when the article is still not referenced to at least one reliable source) may be legitimately replaced; and if a BLPPROD does not result in deletion, the article may still be eligible for a normal PROD, see WP:PROD. However, your removal of the means that the PROD is now contested, so the only available course is now WP:AFD. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Notice
I've worked with computers for some 20 years, & I've never heard of the term "minify" before. I guess I learned something new today. :) -- llywrch (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing PROD
I removed your PROD tag on Rabih Najjar because the Lebanese Premier League is a notable league. Bar Code Symmetry  (Talk) 04:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I improve my article
Hi Hasteur! I really appreciate your feedback and guidance about my article on El Expreso del Rock.I have realized you are an experienced wikipedia editor, so I hope to learn a lot from you. Actually, I want to improve my article in order to fulfil Wikipedia standars, but since I am new on Wikipedia, there are some things I have not understand very well yet. In the meantime, I am reading the suggested links you and other editors have recommended me. (talk)08:32 pm, 13 November 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

Help
Dear Hasteur, could you please check the latest modification I've made about the article Rabih Najjar and let me know if u will decline the deletion of this article, I tried my best to improve it and to take your advice since i'm new on Wikipedia, and i guess with your guidance, the article now suits more to Wikipedia standards, and i wish if i can post all the sources we have on our players but we have a lack in web sources, especially on Lebanese football in general before The year 2000 (talk), 18 November 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

New Page Patrol survey
Applying a Sig so this will be archived eventually Hasteur (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hummus
Mmmm... I love hummus. With fried onions and little pieces of crispy lamb. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issues on sexology.

 * This section was previously removed under WP:TPG but has been restored to demonstrate the issue for the WP:ANI posting.

This is Ivan Lopakin (HTML version of Human Sexuality). See, who is the rights holder to this textbook: William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson, Robert C. Kolodny (Copyright Office). Only sexologists. What do you think on this issue? - 2.94.102.22 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Copyright issues on sexology.
This is Ivan Lopakin (HTML version of Human Sexuality). See, who is the rights holder to this textbook: William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson, Robert C. Kolodny (Copyright Office). Only sexologists. What do you think on this issue? - 2.94.102.22 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.29.155.35 (talk)


 * Please, listen to me. All for knowlege. Some days ago my people become prepare documents to register copyright at the U.S. Copyright office. All seriously and will legally only. I will create the account here also. 95.29.155.35 (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rangeblock for Russian Copyright Violaing IP addresses. Thank you. —Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. Not exist violations from my side. Now I became opened and I differ of other people, who have same range of IP addresses. You have right to block anyone, who is anonymous (without the account here). I am not one of them currently. And I responsible for my any actions, thus. Now I suggest continue the discussion of the main topic constructively. I will get copyright to the work very soon (nearest days). And I ask delete different signs that I am bad (insults). This is not truth, because. Ivan Lopakin (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

BigzMMA et al
Thanks for the note. I've commented at the DRN, concurring with the request to retract the attacks. I don't want to block if there's progress being made, but I'm not sure that we're seeing that. I'll watchlist the discussion, and we'll see what happens. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts at mediation, although I figured it was unlikely to succeed. I think I'll be leaving WP (or at least cutting way back) because it's not worth the effort to deal with people like Bigzmma. If you'd like another example see what happened at Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination) when I put up an article that was recreated after being removed at AfD. Recreating martial arts articles that are removed at AfD has been a growing trend recently and one I think should be discouraged. Papaursa (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well in fairness, you knew what I wanted before I brought it up with ANI, I was willing to sort it out on the MMANOT page, instead you spent more time arguing with me rather than try to at least compromise, then I brought it up on ANI because the refusal to co-operate with me to work together, and instead of trying to be civil, accusations were being made against me, which further struggled to sort out the issue. Now your announcing you want to removed yourself from the WP page anyway because of me, well if you want to remove yourself almost completely from MMANOT, just because your 'tired of hearing me going over it' then well you get my vote on that one. You keep saying I'm difficult, yet I've done everything I could to make the right things happen, but if you rather do it like this, all I got to say Papaursa is good luck with your future projects, and I do mean it as well, good luck. BigzMMA (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Charles Lee (musician)
The article has allegations that he passes WP:BAND, so I remocved your PROD. Take this issue to WP:AfD if you want. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Regarding autopatrolled, I hope you can understand that requesting a user right for an entirely different reason than what it's intended for is going to be pretty difficult, at best. However, you make the argument that yours is an exceptional situation. I'm not sure if that's the case. I would think quite a decent amount of new page patrollers would be affected by this. Rather than granting autopatrolled, wouldn't it be more effective just to go to VPT and try and get the "unpatrolled" symbol turned off for everyone when it comes to new user talk pages?  Swarm   X 00:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

your closure and other comments at DRN
Look, I totally appreciate that you are trying to help resolve disputes. I used to spend a lot of time at WQA back in the day, so I understand what you are up against and how often the disputes turn out to be stupid, unfounded, etc. It's not easy and you have to accept that it fails at least as often as it succeeds. That being said, you said that you had observed that nobody had followed the suggestion to take it to MFD well after it had in fact been taken to MFD. You said that nobody agreed with the suggestion to userfy when that was, in fact, my suggestion and continues to be my desired outcome. You didn't do the homework, and as a result you put your foot in your mouth a few times. That has 'nothing whatsoever to do with good faith. I have not said or implied that you were not acting in good faith, I'm quite certain that you were in fact trying honestly to help. Unfortunately, you apparently did not watchlist the relevant page and did not thoroughly read comments from the involved parties, and so you said a few things that were just plain wrong. We all make mistakes, but your accusation that I did not AGF is as unfounded as the other flawed statements you made and should probalbly be struck out or removed since it is completely unfounded. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were offended by the closure perhaps you shouldn't have used the "Forgive my bluntness" before you did a rather uncivil thing. Using that kind of phrase to excuse the next statement really didn't put me in a good mood. If you had responded "This has been listed at MfD and this thread is ready to close" we wouldn't be in this situation now. Hasteur (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What situation? You said some things that I have explained to you were incorrect. Sorry that being confronted with your own errors put you in a bad mood. If that impairs your judgement to the point where you don't care that you made several factual errors while trying to help resolve a dispute then dispute resolution is probably not for you. You're going to have to deal with a lot worse than that, such as people making accusations and so forth that are actually not true and made in bad faith to deliberately anger you, as opposed to my remarks which simply attempt to impart your own errors to you. Have a nice day. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay RFC
Just letting you know that this can probably be listed as certified now-- Cailil  talk 19:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that, I added my own viewpoint to the RfC about the failure of the 48 hour window and moved it back into the certified list on the RfC/U noticebox. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Grand - it's a reasonable point if a technicality. I hope at this stage outsiders unfamiliar with the issue will come in and give outside views. Mind you that's a point - there's a lot of semi-involved users listing themselves as "outside" this is probably an innocent mistake that comes down to inexperience at RFC and the use of "outside" in the template. Should the users be reminded about this or is it too minor - what do you think?-- Cailil  talk 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that in a few cases it's been argued that because the certification happened outside the 48 hour window, there were calls to have the entire process should be thrown out for failing to extend the same protections to the target of the RfC as the filers. And I'm not an admin, just a Process wonk, a cross between a WikiGnome/WikiPolice, and one who trolls the WikiDrama boards (and eating WikiPopcorn) probably a little too much for my own good. I'll probably read through the evidence tonight and try to help guide a solution. Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen that but I don't think it applies (2 users had filled in the evidence and had either missed or forgot to officialy certify) I would suggest ignoring that in light of the fact that it was missed in good faith-- Cailil  talk 21:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may 'cut in' briefly. I've been concerned about my detractors self-identifying as 'outsiders', since the Rfc/U was open. But, I didn't dare mention it. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you have the right to question on the talk page if some of the "outside" viewpoints are truly outside. If they don't change their title, they you are well within your rights to question "on the record" their impartiality. It's been a while since I read the codex regarding RfC/U (never actually had to use it) but I did try to make sure my process-wonk viewpoint was sufficently meta. Hasteur (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall bring it up at the Rfc/U. I believe it was merely an oversight by my detrctors. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The process certainly needs to be clarified, to assist those editors (the majority in this case, I expect), who have never gone down this road before. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
TransporterMan ( TALK ) 22:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited John McCaa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United States presidential primaries, 2000 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I already asked you
Which reply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.31.49.113 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your inquiry, however I recognize the style and signature of your inquiry. Desist from attempting to include the site in Wikipedia.  Further attempts to look for a loophole will result in a block being requested. Hasteur (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You wrong. Corbina has millions of users with such range. I want get reply. You promise support for new users. Give me support: reply (I asked because). You all are afraid SOPA. Be careful. I care about all people in this sad world. 95.31.49.113 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

Help
I appreciate your comments on the noticeboards. I am only asking for a fair and calm discussion. However, if you look at my talk page, Barsoomian is attacking me on a regular basis. How can I stop this? I have offered to correct any mistakes I may have made, but everything I write just leads to more and more harassment. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Poke
This is a poke to find further input on the following DR/N:

Please feel free to weigh in.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
meowkitten

 Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  04:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 

Help
Thank you for your input on the dispute resolution noticeboards (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=472400681#Legio_IX_Hispana.) I really don't understand how all this works, but it seems like all the neutral editors agreed with what I was saying, yet the discussion was closed without it being resolved. How do we prevent cliques on a mission from twisting and ignoring the rules? One of the people involved on the "other side" is an administrator with a history of using his authority involving edits on this topic. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hasteur: Are you okay with this? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI
I'm sorry who are you. He has done exactly what you are accusing me of. He is an extremely trying editor who chooses deliberately to ignore all advice given and will not accept that by him running a report on me and Night looking through block logs warnings and archived talk pages and editing history which is what he accused night of he has clearly hounded night and latterly me. Now as I'm not being disruptive and he is doing the same then I politely decline your request until he does the same. Edinburgh  Wanderer  13:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oh and as you didn't say the same to him that's highly hypocritical. Also him and night ate the ones in the wrong not me. The fact that I dont get along with night shows how bad Eppe is for me to believe that night is clearly no worse than him. This matter should of been closed when night advised he would leave him alone and was the bigger person. Is only going on because Eppe wants night blocked now as done the same he should be blocked if night is.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  13:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Quite frankly, I'm a editor in good standing. While not 100% appropriate please review WP:NOTTHEM to understand why claiming that their actions are just as bad is inappropriate for acting without civility and discourteously.  Please reconsider your actions and your assertion that you will not desist from badgering Epeeflecheete could be construed as grounds for harrassment.  Hasteur (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * quite frankly your an editor who hasn't bothered to get there facts straight. Im in just as good standing as you. You clearly should read some of the things you cite because he has harrased night as much as night did him. Now replying in an ANI is not harassment I haven't looked through his edits warnings or ran reports anything like he has done to me now I'm telling you now do not accuse anyone of harassment for replying in an ANI. Have you looked at his talkpage for disputes with multiple editors, warnings blocks and even once for socking. Also read many othe discussions including ones at should page rfcs and even in some of his Afds. I am appalled that you think replying in an ANI is harassment. Harassment is what night did to him and what he has done back to night. Edinburgh   Wanderer  13:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * and I suggest you look again today I replied to another editor who brought up foreign sources I.e not to Eppe and once asking eppe what he actually wants from the ANI hardly harassment. Your accusation itself is uncivil and the fact night done it far more than me both at ANI and at other places linked an you didn't say the same to him shows that you acted Wrongly and choose not to look at the whole situation. Edinburgh   Wanderer  13:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC on me
Hi. Thanks for your note. You stated, "There is a request that you respond to one point", but I'm afraid I'm not clear where and what that request is. Could identify it for me, please? DocKino (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "but I would like to see DocKino get in first with some comment about whether he is willing to be accountable for what he writes in future." From the RfC/U Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal note, DRN
Re:. May I politely request that you not just interpose replies 'wherever' in the discussion? You ought to know all new posts go at the bottom. It is easy enough to quote the post you want to address, but please post new stuff at the bottom. No one can easily read interpolated later posts and it does not reflect well on the discussion.— Djathink imacowboy  15:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Conversely, you ought to know that rapid fire multi-post responses are equally disruptive. The purpose is to have the reply be at one level of indention more than the parent and threaded down.  I posted my replies at the bottom of any sub thread that may have gone off.  Please consider the splinter in your own eye before requesting to remove the grain of sand from my eye in terms of wiki-etiquette. Hasteur (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies
With regard to this I ask your pardon and offer full apologies. I am apologising to all editors who were offended.— Djathink imacowboy  19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ring
For your final response to the "Ring" discussion on DRN. "Burn down the article for all I care"? I realize you were a (understandably) a bit frustrated, but we still have to AGF. I know he was being a little confrontational, but the purpose of DRN is to defuse those situations, not escalate them. If you look at his talk page, it seems to me like his confrontationalism isn't an intentional thing but more a mark of an inexperienced editor. I know you meant well (and I understand why you were frustrated; I was, too, in all honesty), but I don't think this guy was intentionally trying to be disruptive. He just hasn't completely learned the process yet. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He SHOULD have known better the policies of DRN and how to work to resolving the situation having been to the board 3 previous times (Archives 14 History of the Rosary,17 Fedora, and 21 (Columbo, List of Columbo episodes)). This pattern has been repeating, ergo I was throwing my hands up because it appears that the MO is "Get Angry about some nit-pickey piece, post combative Talk page messages (including ones that abuse other editors), threaten sanctions, get talked down from the WP:BEANS ledge by some other editor" repeating over and over. If you can find some way to correct the pattern I'm all for it, otherwise I see the same outlook as Elen of the Roads. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he can be a bit of an angry mastodon at times - far be it for me to deny that. But you know the old saying: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  The only way to break the "repeating pattern" is to break it yourself by staying cool - even if you're ready to throw your hands up, it's better to walk away than to post something that sounds like a surrender.  If we could control others' actions, there would be no need for DRN; the best way to go (and I know you know this, or I wouldn't have trouted you) is to evaluate what you are saying and how it will (or, in this case, will not) de-escalate the situation.  No need to be upset - I'm only saying it because I've worked with you before and I really feel bad for you when your frustration gets the better of you.  But hey - it happens to the best of us, right? Sleddog116 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If I may, my apology was clearly not enough. Certainly I deserve all the name-calling that you can dig up for me. My approach is often a bad one. It was not my intention to disrupt, but I see I am usually disruptive anyway. For all of that, I am deeply sorry. But I am a man of my word: I try to improve and I keep my word. Can someone (or Hasteur, who seems to know a lot about it) tell me why the issues I have brought up in the past should not have been brought up? - I thought it was for that those boards were intended.— Djathink imacowboy  14:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Djathinkimacowboy, I'm going to let bygones be bygones. Obviously the removal and re-addition of the ring is contentious as evidenced by the edits to the article.  You did the right thing by starting a talk page discussion, however your assertive tone probably put some editors off when thinking about how to respond.  Not all consensus is going to be vocal.  Sometimes (as evidenced by my crusading for standards in the Hell's Kitchen US contestant progress sections).  The weight to explain why something belongs is on the Adders of content, not the removers of content.  If you see how I set up the discussion about how to determine which image should represent the category of class rings on the ring page is an example of what I consider a "Invitation to form a consensus" discussion instead of "We should do it my way, because it's the best". Take stock of the advice that other editors have given you about your editing style. Hasteur (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Djathinkimacowboy, let me respectfully echo what Hasteur said: Take stock of the advice that other editors have given you about your style. As I told you myself, you're going to make mistakes when working on Wikipedia - making mistakes can be useful, but only if you learn from your mistakes.  The first step in learning from your mistakes is in recognizing that you are making mistakes (which you have done, as indicated by your comments above).  There are a lot of editors here on Wikipedia (and I unequivocally include myself in this) who are perfectly willing and even eager to take less experienced editors "under their wings".  I hope you have already gotten this impression, but if you ever have a question about anything on Wikipedia, you can ask me on my talk page; if you have a technical question, ask.  If you just want someone to take a look at your edits and make suggestions for improvement, just ask.  You're invariably going to make missteps (everyone does), but the Wikipedia community (despite how it may seem at first) is very accepting and willing to help. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your efforts, to the pair of you, are extremely appreciated. It is good advice. Sometimes what I think is badly expressed on my part is when I think editors are ignoring an issue and just editing away; talk pages are supposed to serve that need. Still, I think I get 'overheated' about issues that make little difference! But it is always more important for me to improve. So again, thanks to you both.— Djathink imacowboy  20:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Hasteur/BigzMMA Draft
Thanks for the note, it is rather damming when you see it all put down in one list, are you thinking about a topic ban on all MMA articles as given his edits such a total ban on all MMA related articles would be a defacto site ban. Have you considered a if a narrower topic ban, say on creating new mma pages and participating in deletion discussions ; this would leave him free to contribute to existing articles; and address the areas where he seems to get into difficulty ? Mt king  (edits)  00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He has contributed a few times in some other coversations, but a topic ban would shut down most of hist work. Hasteur (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a few other links to the draft in its own section at the bottom in case you wish to use it. I had also thought about a ban on creating new articles.  Looking through his contributions I don't see a high frequency of new articles (of course, deleted articles wouldn't show up).  If a narrower ban is desired, it could be any UK related MMA article.  He almost exclusively edits UK MMA topics.  Perhaps his efforts could be pushed to articles that  don't involve nationalistic pride?  --TreyGeek (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 in Super Fight League
I saw at WP:AN that BigzMMA created 2012 in Super Fight League and you cut out the prose intending to make it list-class article. There have been conversations at the MMA WikiProject and most recently at WT:MMANOT of creating "omnibus" or "year in" event articles. The purpose is to combine events from promotions into a single article in hopes of reducing notability issues. In addition, these articles would include actual prose about the significance of the events and their fights as opposed to simply reporting the results. Along those lines over the last few weeks I've created 2012 in UFC events to serve as what I thought of as a guide for these types of articles. Would you have any problems with me changing 2012 in Super Fight League away from a list-style article and one with prose as I have done with the UFC article? In doing so, the raw results and infoboxes would be cut (although there could be argument for keeping the infoboxes, I'm not sure). In place of them, I'd do a brief, general write-up about the event itself (SFL 1 is first MMA event in India and featured American muscial acts etc etc etc). Then there's be a paragraph for any significant bouts at the event (SFL 1 would probably be just Sapp/Thompson). I wanted to get your reaction before I made large swaths of changes to it. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the article prose expanding if there is appropriate independent reliable sources that can verify the prose. It is my understanding that the SFL events really didn't have any RS content to begin with so that's why I parred it down to the level presented.  I left the infoboxes as they provide a more concise representation of the important facts of the event.  I'm not really an insider to MMA, just trying to help out. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a quick glance and it looks like sources will mostly come from MMA media which generally isn't a problem thought mainstream media is better. I'll see if I can't turn the article from a list of raw results into more of a prose-like article tonight or tomorrow.  My biggest argument against many of the event articles is they only contain stats and no prose.  The smaller promotions, even with prose, still have non-notable events (combined in a "year in" article or not).  It may still prove to be non-notable and should be deleted, but I'll give the article a shot at improving it.    --TreyGeek (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've rewritten the article to include prose about significant happenings with the events. I don't know if it makes the subject matter any more notable or not, but it at least complies with my interpretation of WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT.  If someone decides to put it up for AfD due to notability issues, that will be something to look into I suppose.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!
Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice warning
I've already gotten those silly "last warnings". Because you can post a little picture and bold some text that is supposed to look official or something?

Look, I didn't personally attack anybody. I attacked their idea, which is perfectly fine.

Nice try though, sweets. XOXO Gamezero05 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding
 * Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
 * Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution and request for help.
Hi Hasteur. I noticed that you commented on the discussion involving the dispute over the Frank Zappa template and discography. The user in question, the same user who is accusing me of edit warring, vandalism, ownership, etc, has been reverting the pages in question at the same times the issue is being discussed, despite warnings against it. Here are two edit summaries the user had left-- "DO NOT REVERT THIS EDIT. Any revert would be vandalism" and "DO NOT CHANGE -- reverting this edit constitutes as vandalism". I've reverted those edits, like I (and other users) have been doing this entire time, but I don't want to edit war with this person. Is there any way you could help with the issue? I'm just at a loss when it comes to handling a situation like this. Any help or advice would be appreciated, and thanks for weighing in on the discussion. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the conversation at DRN. I'm a clerk at DRN and am trying to steer the dispute back to the tracks.  If they don't respond in a reasonable time the consensus can be read as against them and their edits can be marked as disruption/vandalism with all the wonderful policies that encompass those.  For the time being, let's keep the conversation at DRN.  Ok? Hasteur (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sock
Nice catch. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

SFL 3
So your telling me that you really are going to remove anything I put on here, even if it is newsworthy, factual, historically relevant or just anything that meets similar well sourcing on the same page just because it is me adding them to the page? You are fully aware that the text will eventually be put back on the page, if not by me then by someone who has an account on here, who is too scared to cross you? The event is less than a month away, the event's main card has just been announced and it will be all over the MMA community within 24 hours, as it is rapidly spreading now, so expect the text to be returned on the page by tomorrow. Also despite it being me, if you continue to do it again I will report you to ANI for disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.85.88 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Should you report me to ANI it will be yet another shortly lived WP:BOOMERANG as your previous sock found out. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. End of story. If the news is that quickly spreading then there should be prose available and appropriate for Wikipedia in 24 hours from now. WP:DEADLINE say "We have no deadline". Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I've observed threads staying around for IMO much too long and consuming large sections of the page, that's why I stepped in and proposed the solution that I did since it seemed that pairwise discussions wasn't going to resolve the conflict. Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

MMA
Yes, you are correct about the MMA omnibus articles getting too big if we continue down this road, but Mtking and TreyGeek brought up some ideas a while back that sound exactly like what you and I are both thinking, subs. In order to do this successfully, it has to be done in a particular way as to not rock the boat. To be clear, you couldn't fill thimble with what I know about MMA. I'm there solely to support the policy side and help the fans create something that will fix the drama and be within guidelines. As such, I would prefer someone else(s) work on the structure of the system, as you have a better understanding of the sport and what the details of the structure should be. Feeling volunteered? Good, that is normal ;)

My opinion is that two levels should be enough (and I could be completely wrong in this). I will use dummy names here, confident you can follow along. 2012 in all MMA stuff would be very sparse, little or no prose, be a genuine "list of" article with each event and maybe the headliners. As to HOW to organize, I am not sure. Maybe grouped by subs, so all the FX are in one table, etc. Maybe chronological. No flags, just a simple list. Each event should have at least one source, but there is no need for massive sources because there are not massive facts. As long as a new event has one source, even if weak, this will likely protect it from reversion. I don't think we need to have any results or stats in this list, and actually, we need to NOT have them. Just the facts, clean and simple. Almost like the whole article is a table of contents for the entire year in MMA, which makes it quite useful as a research tool.

The subs 2012 in UFC on FX and similar, would be more like what we have now, mini articles. They would need proper sources for any contentious facts, scores, etc. They would have whatever stats you would expect. I still don't think the flags belong except in events that are clearly about nationality (uk vs. us, etc.) but that is another discussion. New events can be added here as long as there is at least one source, and then the redirect is created. These are the most important articles, and where new articles are born. As I stated on the MMA page, once a section is ready to become a spin off article, it should be put to an informal vote or discussion on the talk page of that subomni page.

The key here is to NOT gut the list of omni yet, but instead create the sub articles first. All of them. Then strip the main omni down. That way the info doesn't just disappear for a while. The main problem here has been one of communication, which I will try to address with the fans. I'm hoping you can work with Mt and TG on the content side. And of course, these ideas are just that, my ideas, and I'm not saying they have to be followed. I think a larger discussion needs to take place, but likely not on the MMA Notability page, as that is just going to be confusing. There is enough going on already. So...what do you think? Dennis Brown   2&cent;   &copy;  12:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, here was the suggested article structure that was previously proposed and that progress that has been made. A similar table also appears on the WT:MMANOT page.
 * {| class="wikitable"

|rowspan="8"| 2012 in mixed martial arts events

|rowspan="3"| 2012 in UFC events✅ | 2012 in UFC on FX events |- | 2012 in UFC on Fox events |- | 2012 in UFC on Fuel TV events |- | Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Six ✅ |- | 2012 in Strikeforce events |- | 2012 in Super Fight League✅ |- | 2012 in ProElite events |}
 * --TreyGeek (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Udar55 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &#124; pulmonological talk • contribs 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update
Hey :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Subst:ANI-notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - 176.15.138.84 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

2012 Thai FA Cup
I have removed the prod tag from 2012 Thai FA Cup, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. See edit summary for rationale behind its removal If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Articles for deletion. Thanks! . &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You made my night
This made me laugh. An undissolved admin? You know the old saying, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to make your night... My writing has been degrading for the past few weeks.  Stress, arguing the same points over and over, Midlife crisis?  Who knows.  Once the MMA space is safely put to bed, I'm probably going to take a wikiholiday. Hasteur (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which will be well deserved. If I had a dollar for every time I was nailed by autocorrect...well I wouldn't be working (well, not very hard any way). --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hummus
A plate of hummus for you. Thanks for the starblaster script. 21:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your email
Thanks for your email. I think you are totally right. Part of what you say I had already realised, but I had not noticed that the grand total of relevant article edits was so tiny. Thanks for pointing that out. I think we may be close to the point where this will have to be stopped for good. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U
You will probably note my comment on the talk page of Agent00f's RfC/u. If you have any specific diffs, to an outsider such as myself, that would be helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did note it and am preparing the list of every single diff that is uncivil/a personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh; it is good to keep the list on hand, but best not to drown the outsiders with too many though either. I'd suggest just presenting a few of the more serious examples in the RfC/U (next to the applicable policy, for example). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI:
For Your Information (no action required, but you may choose to participate):

Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Um... can you give me some context as to why I was selected? Hasteur (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's odd. I made a list of editors who had been in conflict with Wtshymanski and who had defended/supported him, and I had your name under "defended/supported". Yet repeating the search shows no interaction that I can find. I must have cut-and-pasted the wrong name.  My apologies -- sorry about that. (Note to self: next time smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann
Can you have a look at this, I am wondering what next for it redirect again or AfD ? Mt king  (edits)  04:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Either will be fine, as long as you establish consensus. And obviously, don't canvass. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines, I'm curious what is next in terms of MMA event articles in general. Discussions at WP:MMANOT seems to have stalled again (though I'm still of the opinion that broader guidelines such as WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE handle notability issues adequately) and the RFC/U on Agent00F is, not unexpectantly, running around in circles.  I was contemplating whether to work on MMA articles again today, but decided to help out with WP:CCI again because it is less controversial.  That and looking over the talk page of 2012 in UFC events for the first time in over a week simply irritated me with non-constructive complaints.  It almost feels like nothing has changed in two and a half months of discussions and nothing appears on the verge of changing.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can both of you lay off for 10 minutes. I'm about to deliver a thorough trouncing on that article Hasteur (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal. I'll abide by the outcome whatever the result. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree with you analysis on my action, WP:BRD is an essay woes procedure is far to often abused and I do not subscribe to it. There is no merge needed as the target has the content, and WP does not have a processes to propose a redirect so that only leave AfD. Mt  king  (edits)  05:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)