User talk:Hasteur/Archive 6

Your comments at AN
I would have commented there, but it was closed. Leaving comments like facpalming me are not needed or wanted. They are just trolling an already irritating situation. If you don't like me or my onctributions I don't really care. Keep the stupid comments to yourself. The fact remains, I spent hours of my time making changes to the code only so my request to admins gets ignored after several days showing a complete disrespect for my time. I shouldn't have to ask for permission to implement the change and then have it done by someone who doesn't even understand the changes being made because they are "trusted". Its one of the fundamental problems with this site. Kumioko (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being an even bigger gasbag than you demonstrated at AN. There are 2 issues here: First the community's distinct lack of confidence in your editing, communication style, and temperament.  Second, minor changes that you propose for your pet project that you've claimed multiple times that you've walked away from (yet can't ever seem to let go).  I was offering you advice on how to turn the perception of your contributions around, but further lashing out at other editors in good standing only further alienates you from the day to day wiki-gnomes who are doing the good work and not demanding attention or holding out the "I have seniority, deal with it" card over and over.  You, Kumioko, are formally dis-invited from my talk page as this is now the 4th time you've come with righteous indignation to my talk page only to be pointed out that you were in the wrong.  Fool me once, twice, thrice shame on me.  No longer. Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked a question at your ANI report. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

By the way, please see Special:Contributions/114.145.9.69, where this same editor undid some notability tags I applied to related topics. I plan on re-examining those topics later and if I still can't find notability even after using search engines, I will re-apply the tags and open discussions. If you are interested in musical topics and have the time, I would welcome another person's thorough examination of the notability of Main Attrakionz and Chance the Rapper. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been my understanding that GNG only applies in the case that a SNG does not cover an area. SNGs are how you can use more definite rules specifically tailored for a specific case. Hasteur (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If this is the case, the language near the top of WP:N needs to be revised.  It currently ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&oldid=558102260 June 3]) states ""A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. / A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.""


 * I haven't picked apart all of the notability guidelines to see if I can find text that contradicts the section above. If there is no such contradictory text, then I'll stand by my claim that notability is "GNG or SNG, either one works."  If there is contradictory text which supports your reading of the guidelines, then the issue will need to be discussed at WT:Notability or perhaps elsewhere to see what the community consensus is.  Ditto if AFDs and other proceedings that invoke the notability guidelines indicate a community consensus similar to your reading of the guidelines.
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ride and Tie - New Page Patrol
Hi Hasteur. Is that an ancient god? You seem to have un-patrolled a page I patrolled as reviewed at Ride and Tie for some reason, the reason being I'm the page creator. I can assure you I never created that article. I never even knew such a thing existed until I saw the article. I think I did correct something on the page. It could have been that you seen. scope_creep (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize... Somehow the tool thought you were the person who makred it as patrolled and were the author of the article. I still think there's problems with the article and am taking a swing at correcting them. Hasteur (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Review Josef Kote?
Hi Hasteur

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

Questioning why I bother with WP

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

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


 * Hasteur, I hope that this is just a moment of doubt and that you'll stick around. You do good work and are a valued contributor. Let me give a general answer to all five of your questions. Because at the end of the day Wikipedia works. You and I get all tangled up in the minutiae and it becomes frustrating, but when Joe from Plano wants to know something about Widgits he turns to WP and gets good information. As frustrating as it may be, good editors like you are the thin Wiki line standing between that quality and the predations of Randy from Boise. And hanging in there is important. Most bad editors have no sticktoitiveness and if there's one thing that I've learned in life, and that's as true here at WP as in RL, it's that time wounds all heels. We need good editors to stick around and hold that line, even if it's just one electron at at time. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't leave! Just find something different to work on and explore a new area of the project. I'd suggest doing something local or regional of importance; a local library has a great amount of information that could be used to make some good or featured articles on different subjects. Don't let a momentary bump deter you; try to keep the greater focus of building an encyclopedia in mind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't abuse wikipedia templates
You were already both quoted and linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Archive_top, which gives clear instructions for use. If you continue to keep abusing this, I'm sure wiki has the appropriate mechanisms for dealing with persistent bad behavior. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pot, Meet Kettle I have used the policies and guidelines correctly. You on the other hand have taken a bare snippet and using it incorrectly. Hasteur (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem to be trying to delete evidence of the violation, here's a clear record:


 * 1) current page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC#Straw_poll:_the_current_format_is_less_useful_as_an_encyclopedia_than_the_previous_individualized_format.
 * 2) linked and quote I wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_UFC&oldid=561922044
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_UFC&oldid=561977204, which you'll probably try to delete again.
 * 4) The one and only rule from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Archive_top: When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

I'll research this matter further of who to take this case to since you'll like re-violate again as done twice already but it's pretty clear this is in blatant disregard of the template's most basic rule. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I invite you to ceace immediately. Your familiarity with a very narrow interpertaion and subsection of Standard Operating Procedure (Rules, Guidelines, MoS, etc) with such a new history suggests that you are not a new editor and therefore are appropriately warned with GSMMA in addition to not reading and understanding the rules.  You are already at 2 reverts, and when you do the 3rd I WILL report you  WP:ANEW for edit warring, failing to observe WP:BRD, and failing to observe the primary purpose of Wikipedia which could earn you a topic ban from all MMA articles as an option authorized by GSMMA. Hasteur (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

When I looked up the template you used, it's so clear that you used it illegally that there's no room for "interpretation". I guess we'll see how the wiki admins see this, because I reported you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hasteur_is_blatantly_violating_archive_template_rules_to_shut_down_discussion.2C_etc.. Thanks for the link to that board, btw. 75.172.12.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zack Norman

 * Why bother even trying to conform to your guidelines or incorporate your suggestions when the next time I submit the article a different Wikipedia editor will just overrule everything you say and make me start all over again? These are the rejection notes you just sent me today:


 * Submission declined on 1 July 2013 by Hasteur (talk).

NYTimes Movies links suffer the same problem that IMDB suffers, "They may say the name, but there's little to no context as to the relevance of the credit". Please consider using a singular reference to the NY Times Movies for just the subject rather than giving the appearance of dazzling us with a great list of referencs (or better yet, use a named reference where you want to indicate a movie credit) to show the true distribution of references. Declined by Hasteur 7 seconds ago. Last edited by Hasteur 6 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author. Resubmit Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again.


 * Now, I don't mean to be disrespectful or defensive, but these notes are a direct contradiction to notes I received (and addressed) by your fellow editors as well as the Wikipedia Teahouse, who assured me that the NY Times references were completely acceptable. I just feel like I keep going round and round, and I just don't understand how I can ever hope to have an article accepted when the Wikipedia editors don't respect or even acknowledge each others' opinions. What am I supposed to do, honestly?Matzohboy (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't mean to be disrespectful, but you obviously missed reading it, so I'll try again...
 * The NYTimes Movie links are of a similar content as IMDB, they are an indiscriminate listing of effectively promotional material released by the studios. From the 5 links I went in, I saw a bulk listing of the cast of characters. Much the same way that IMDB has a bulk list of characters.  This, in my mind is indicative that while they may be a background or character actor, they haven't garnered the level of notability necessary to have a listing on wikipedia.
 * Consider using something like this or one of the linked pages to show that the actor has been in several notable films/TV series. Using a named reference to just that biography or filmography will allow us to see the derth of roles he's played while at the same time minimizing the count of unique references at the end of the article (and therefore not causing a WP:CITEKILL problem). The ball is back in your court, but I'm just trying to give you a realistic assessment of what can happen as soon as your submission gets promoted to article space. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Saint Francis Veterinary Center
Hi Hasteur, THANKS!! for your recommendations, we're working on your requested edits. One thing to note on the HealthyPet references, HealthyPet is the public communications arm of the American Animal Hospital Association, which accredits elite animal hospitals - AAHA is in fact the ONLY accrediting body for animal hospitals. We therefore must cite to AAHA to factually back up the information we are communicating. AAHA accredits individual departments as "Referral" a designation that is extremely rare in veterinary medicine. Therefore, in order to factually cite to each department that's accredited, we have to individually cite to HealthyPet (AAHA) in those distinct departments. I hope this makes sense, but HealthyPet/AAHA is a very strong and important reference to back up our factual statements. NOTE: fewer than 1% of the approximately 27,000 animal hospitals in North America have achieved our level of accreditation, which makes it a rare distinction worth communicating.

Thanks, MM2

ADDITIONAL: (hope this is the appropriate place for this, new to wikipedia). Definitely trying to make this a purely factual article based on objective sources for public consumption without conflicts of interest. And reaching for strong sources to that end. Is the article as written close? As a user of wikipedia, I'm glad this standard exists. Looking here to develop an ironclad, factual article that meets those standards for sure. I'll give it another pass, but any guidance would be absoultely welcome. I absolutely share your thoughts and trust that I can get the article over and above those standards in the end... THANKS!!!!
 * No problem, you just had the distinct mis-fortune of drawing me as a reviewer. I tend to be a lot more strict than others when treviewing for the exact same reason. Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe
Hasteur, are you still mentoring this editor? I'm struck by the tone and the content of their questions at Requests for adminship/Kelapstick 2; it seems to have very little to do with Kelapstick and more with their past experience with admins. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Titi Ex
Hello Hasteur,

Thank you for reviewing the wikipedia page I made for Titia Ex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Titia_Ex_%282nd_copy%29

You declined the submission, while providing as reason that I used youtube links. I replaced all four youtube links, while also inserted sources at the "citation needed" locations where I was able to find the specific information via the internet.

Since the wiki page was declined three times (while I expected an approval this time around), should I submit it again (and get a fourth reviewer to look at it...) or will you review the page and accept it for wiki placement or explain on this talk page why it still isn't right?

Fredrick

Food Photographer of the Year
Hello Hasteur, I'll try not to tip you into retirement with my semi-Noob questions!

First, thanks for giving up your time to review my entry. I've re-submitted it, but I'm contacting you here just so you know that I haven't overlooked one of the two directions you gave me. Those directions were:

1) That the entry just list the recent overall winner and not the "lesser" winners in the sub-categories. That's been done, thanks for the tip. 2) That the award be disambiguated from other Food Photographer of the Year Awards, since you felt there were others. I've had a good, honest look but I really couldn't find any. It would have been in my interest to find one as then I could just disambig it from mine - but I found nothing. I'm kinda stuck unless you can find the other award you mention - else I'm being tasked with disproving a negative. I thought maybe we could disambig it by calling it by the sponsors names, but that would look tacky - plus the sponsors change all the time. Can I ask you to reconsider on this point and let the title stand?

Best, Arnie

Lanci bio
I will certainly find more citations, but to suggest that Ken Lanci "appears to be a non-notable person" is inaccurate.

Lanci is running for mayor of Cleveland vs. the incumbent. He is the only candidate to have qualified for the race. As well, Lanci has previously ran for office. All of this is cited in the article I created.

Additionally, Lanci is a well-known Cleveland-area businessman and philanthropist.

I will add citations in the next 24 hours.

In the meantime, please reconsider "non-notable person" status. This may be of interest to you: https://www.google.com/search?q=ken+lanci&oq=ken+lanci&aqs=chrome.0.57j59l2j60l2j62.1231j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Mineski Bio
Greetings sir,

I just want to ask about the comment you've left on my contribution : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mineski

About the imgur problem, how can i make a hard copy of a magazine a reference for my article?

?????
Hello, I am very surprised. Why is too difficult to add an articles' translation in Wikipedia English ? Why the wikipedia's admins have no respect about works from volunteers ? I am disgusted to have provided much work for nothing. I do not understand what is happening! This is a personality that has many awards in his profession. Why such contempt? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farid_Dms_Debah (French Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Farid_Dms_Debah (My translation)

You are there to help volunteers or just to denigrate their work?

DRN needs your help!
Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Libertære Socialister
Hi Hasteur. First, thanks for reviewing the article on Libertære Socialister: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertære Socialister

But I need some help now. My article has been declined submission 4 times now. The 3 first times the reviewers requested to add citations to secondary reliable sources - and I have done that 3 times now. I have practically added all mainstream media sources to be found and an academic report from Roskilde University, and now I'm in a situation where I really don't think that there are more to be found on this subject. You write that this article is on one hand "Still very heavily cited to the group's own writings" and on another hand "Over cited in using clusters of 3 references where one alone might work". There are 34 references - 7 of them are from the organizations own website and 6 of them are related to Anarkismo (the international network which Ls is a part of). Only one of these are related to a citation - the one where they describe themselves - the rest of them are simply references, so that the reader can check the informations given (link to their political platform, link to their rules, link to their publication and statements about their participation in the Anarkismo network. The rest of the references are not related to the organization.

It's a relatively small political organization, so as mentioned, I don't think that I will be able to find many more references in mainstream media (that would also make it more over cited). The only thing I could do is to remove references to the organizations own website (link to platform, rules, publication etc.), but I really don't see how this will make the article better. I could also remove links to secondary sources - but that would only make the next reviewer decline the submission because it will be too "heavily cited to the group's own writings". So I don't know what to do to have this article approved.

I'm an historian (specialized in the international labour movement) and I really think this article is properly covered with references - especially when you take the subject into account. So instead of adding more or removing references, I will ask you to help me. Where in this article (exactly what information) do you think need a better reference? I would like to know, so that it can finally be submitted.

I had an idéa about writing small articles on all the anarchist platformist groups around the world, but after this one I really don't think that I have the energy for it. And I must say that I find it hard to understand 4 declines of my article when I look at references in the articles about similar organizations: Alternative libertaire, Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland), Common Struggle, Federação Anarquista Gaúcha, Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front, Federation of Anarchist Communists

Please help me Hasteur :-)

Makhno partisan (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "It's a relatively small political organization" Right there is the indicator that it might not be notable enough to be accepted. When I read the article I saw a lot of "We're allied with this Anarchist group" inclusions so it's not best for attempting to claim notability Hasteur (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I wrote "a relatively small" but in danish standards it is a significant left wing organization and one of the only organizations with a printed publication. If you read the academic repport from Roskilde University, you will see that "Libertære Socialister - LS (Libertarian Socialists) is the most important and most visible representative of the anarchist trend in Denmark". This should indicate that it is notable. I don't understand this part: When I read the article I saw a lot of "We're allied with this Anarchist group" inclusions so it's not best for attempting to claim notability - you have to be a little more specific, because I don't see it. I'm an historian specialized in labour history and therefore interested in anarchist and syndicalist organizations - and want to write articles about the platformist tendency within the labour movement. If this article is declined because the organization in question is too small, then you should delete thousands of articles - because there are many articles about "relatively small" but still notable organizations on Wikipedia (you could begin with all the platformist organisations i linked to above).

Makhno partisan (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla
Dear HasteurBot,

thank you for your message. I have been trying to get more references on my article in the internat'l wikipedia, on Prof. Holm-Hadulla ( Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla), e.g. on his role in IPA, but I couldn't, so herewith I give up on that article and request it be deleted. Thank you in advance and best wishes Cvfriede (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)cvfriede Aug 9 2013

PS: Is there some kind of reply function to messages people get from you? I could not find any.


 * The message that you recieved has done what it indended to, to either jostle you into doing something about the page or to request deletion on it. I'll take care of the deletion.  The message is also intended to start a 30 day countdown where if the article is still not edited, the (ro)bot will go through and procedurally nominate the article.  The purpose is to give editors, like yourself, an opportunity to remedy the problem. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. or Mrs. HasterBot
See WP:HD, section "HasteurBot" — someone's talking to your bot like a person :-) I think that others have answered the question fully, so I'm here basically just to tell you to check it out if you want to have a smile.  Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I took the liberty of adding an additional response to hopefully get the message across as clearly as possible. I find it disheartening that rather than try to open a discussion at the bot's talk page or to click into the bot's user page they went straight to the help desk and complained. Hasteur (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexis Ríos Rovira
Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexis Ríos Rovira. I follow WP:WPAFC but didn't know all of the details of the bot-management of the G13 cleanout.

There is one huge difference between a WP:G13-cleanout and a discussion-based deletion: G13's are eligible for a WP:REFUND, discussion-based deletions generally require a WP:Deletion review. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Professional Poker Player
Hello, I will try to improve my submission on Professional Poker Player for your approval. Thanks. Vincent Michael Consolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmoEmc2 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sydney Urshan


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sydney Urshan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article was deleted by speedy while I was preping the nomination

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems with your Pro Forma submissions
Hey! It appears that when you have been submitting articles as "Pro forma submissions", you have been adding the template in such a way as to break the AFCH script. The way to fix it is to add two extra pipes (three total) in front of the "ts = " parameter. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk at DRN
Hey, Hasteur, if you're done there could you close it (or drop me a note and I'll do it)? It's way beyond its normal life span had it been listed prior to the subpage experiment and would have been autoarchived already. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wash my hands of that thread. When I read the back information and what appeared to be the loose interpertation, I got completely shot down by both sides who were much more interested in fighting than resolving it. Hasteur (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I've closed it. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk
I'm on IRC now, and should be for the next few hours.  Theopolisme ( talk )  00:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/7-way intersection
Dear Hasteur: I replaced the missing template on the above article, which the user had deleted. The template clearly had the original submitter's name in it. However, when you submitted it the submit template ended up with my name in it and the decline notice came to me instead of the actual article creator. Did you add my name manually, or did the submit button do it somehow? I have been adding a number of these, so it is important to know what went wrong. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the AFCH Beta I used the "Last non-bot editor/time" option. The purpose for that is to be able to quickly run a article listed in the Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template through quickly to get a Accept/Decline on the books that also establishes the submission category for traversing old AfCs.  When you did this you should also have removed the "missing AfC template" category so that the submission was no longer in the category. It's my understanding that old submissions need a straight up/down vote so that we can demonstrate we've considered every possibility and not let articles remain as drafts in perpituity. The "Last non-bot editor/time" submit removes the category so as to reduce the memberhsip in a reasonable timeframe. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Hasteur: When I did this I didn't know of the existence of the bot, but once it was mentioned on the talk page I have started removing the category.  However, I don't think "last non-bot edit" is going to be very accurate. I know that when I decline articles I often make improvements to them first, such as fixing up invisible references and messed up lists so that I can properly review.  I can't be the only one.  Why not use the first edit instead? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The last editor would have been the AFCBot to add the "defect tracking" category, so that's not an option. Tagging the page's creator isn't a good idea in my mind (what if someone started as an IP, but registered). I agree that it might not be a good choice for the "Last non-bot submitter" and just filed a dev ticket to add the same remove the category logic to other methods of dealing with this backlog.  Hopes this closes out the complaint.  I was just trying to come up with a very easy way to deal with the backlog. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved the decline box to the correct user. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers comment : Null
Hi there,

For my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Harneet_Singh you have given the review as null and rejected it. Kindly let me know about the improvements that it needed. siddharth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharthyit (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Whack!
Way 2 veers 14:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was only trying to draw your attention in a non-combative way to the sillyness that you exhibited in welcoming a bot to wikipedia. Please explain your need to trout me for trying to draw your attention to your failing? Hasteur (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Copied to the Hall of Pride Hasteur (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

wrong reason
at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Perm Tsar Cannon you gave a comment: ''All the sources in Russian make this difficult to verify. ... Please remedy with English Language sources or consider making this article on the Russian Wikipedia''. That comment is contrary to established policy. According to WP:RS, as you surely know, sources in any language are sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With all respect, I firmly disagree... WP:NOENG is very clear. At the time of the decline there was only a Russian forum and a scan from the first page of a russian document. The ballance of sources need to be English to verify the facts.  Please be so kind as to have all the facts before attempting to brandish a wet oily fish at others. Hasteur (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * from WP:RS at the place you linked to: Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred: I agree they're preferred when available & equally informative. There are hundreds of thousands of articles on non-English culture area topics with only non-English sources; counting all the geo-stubs, there might be a million. I shall continue to use & quote the correct policy, until consensus decides to change it, which I think singularly unlikely. (It's not my style to throw fish around each time I see & correct incorrect policy statements by other editors, but I think it fair to send you one single reminder, because I assume you intend to follow policy.)   DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN:
Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Worlds first 80+ hockey tournament
Hi, I am too stupid to figure out how to undelete the page you deleted yesterday. hockeystu2 Hockeystu2 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I did not delete the page in question. That would be.
 * 2) The instructions left at your page are quite clear on how you can attempt to recover the page.
 * Thanks Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about 'context'
Hello Hasteur: I have a question about my recent rejection from a few minutes ago. I have made the article completely encyclopedic in tone. All of the "peacock" words are now removed, leaving it as dry as possible. You said that it needs more "context" though. I went through the FAQ page ("Why was my AfC declined?" page) and it seems that what I submitted now fits those rules perfectly. It also does not talk about context at all. Could you explain what you mean by "context?" Could you also point out a part in my submission that needs more context, or give me a general example of what it is you are looking for so I can get this fixed for you today? Thanks!

This is the article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jose_Luis_Marquez_%282%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryhorwitz (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed one word, and then re-submitted the article. That didn't correct the underlying problem.  Please take a look at Kidd Kraddick as a radio personality to get an idea of how an article such as the one you're advocating for should be structured/written. Hasteur (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Lanci rejection
Hasteur,

Lanci is running as a Dem, not an Independent. He previously was an independent but is a registered Democrat and has been for quite some time.

Second, it is not TOO SOON. Simply google "Ken Lanci."

Thank you.

I will re-submit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mefordwashington (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

James Chelikowsky article
Hi Hasteur,

Thanks for your comments. I addressed what I could. Although some of Dr. Chelikowsky's alcaldes may not stand out to you, they are in line with accomplishments listed on other Wikipedia pages of his colleagues at the Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. Can you look over the article again and see if it's up to par before I attempt resubmitting? Thanks.Mkortsha (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

He's gone
You left this message for User:Offender9000. He probably won't see it because he is blocked indefinitely. Moriori (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but the forms approved for the bot must be obeyed. If you as an interested user, wanted to step in to save the AfC submission page mentioned in that message you can or you can elect to speedy it along under CSD:G13. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

bot in RC
Hasteur bot shows up in recent changes when hide bots is set to true... not sure if bug or intentional. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's not been 100% approved yet (because the BAG member working on it with me has gone idle with respect to the issue) and collected it's special bot flag from bueracrats. Please feel free to poke at Bot Approval Group if it's sufficently annoying.  I'd love to have it be correct, but at the glacial speed of BAG, we should expect the bot to get it's flag just before heat death of the universe. Hasteur (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JB Young Ltd
Hi there

HasteurBot noticed that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JB Young Ltd had not been edited for a long time. However for this one I had already accepted it, but ChzzBot out of sync, restored the article again! This is probably a bit of an edge case for the bot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My most sincere apologies. I'm wondering what I should do in peculiar edge cases like this.  I'm almost thinking that an edge case this far out is ok to accept a "false positive" notification on. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Hasteur (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, but the bot was working according to the plan. It probably does not matter, but perhaps if the bot detects that the first creation of the page is a redirect it can add some special maintenance category, or perhaps alert you that something funny is going on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add this to my developmen plan for this weekend. Hasteur (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * {U|Graeme Bartlett}} Tracked and finished as [//github.com/hasteur/g13bot_tools/issues/1] Hasteur (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A question about HasteurBot
I found a message on my talk page informing me about a dormant page in AfC space, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Battle of Mount Tabor. Any idea why this is coming up now? I sent the submission in some years back and haven't thought about it since. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're being notified as part of the bot's activities due to CSD:G13 now being a legitimate way to remove dormant/stale submissions from the AfC space. We currently have ~80 thousand submissions that are over 6 months old that are eligible for the CSD.  At this point you have a few options.  First, you can do nothing and no sooner than 30 days from when you recieved the notice about the stale AfC the bot might come around and nominate it for speedy deletion under G13.  Second, you can edit the page to make improvements on the page and potentially get it to the point where it could go to mainspace. Third, a editor could come in and nominate the page under CSD:G13. Fourth, you could take the proactive measure of nominating for speedy deletion under "Houskeeping" (G6) or "Author request" G7.  I hope this answered all your questions.  Please note that currently the bot is in super-extended trial mode and is not yet fully authorized for performing the G13 nomination on it's own. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely understood, and thanks for the thorough response! I'm not worried about the article; it's a disambiguation page I submitted back in 2010.  I'll complete the G13.  Thanks again, —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Leslie Cheek Theater article
Dear Hasteur,

I got your message advising that the Leslie Cheek Theater article I was drafting under Articles for Creation might be deleted if I took no further action. Thank you for the message; I had forgotten that the draft article was still extent. I'd already copied its contents to a section of the article on the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.

I have now deleted the contents of the draft article, but I do not know (or I have forgotten) how to remove the article. Can you tell me how to do that, please?

Thank you!

KFFOWLER (talk)

Joan Susannah Wilkinson
Thank you for your prompting. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia editing, but would like to continue editing Joan Susannah Wilkinson's bio for possible inclusion. She is well known in the Bay area but it is hard to document her "notability." Your advice on editing would be appreciated. Tswilk3 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to 's prompt, however you should have addressed the issue here. First of all, you will need to make improvements to the submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joan Susannah Sadler (nee Wilkinson).  Start by looking at the reasons why your submission was previously declined. I gave the page a nudge so you now have 6 months before the page could be eligible for G13 again. Work on improving the article or we will be back here again and annother editor may not have the kindness to give the article annother stay from G13 eligibility. Hasteur (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
APerson (talk!) 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please delete the Earl Peyroux page. I cannot find better references and near as I can tell his show has not been rebroadcast in years. I do not know a way to better justify creation of the article beyond what I've already done.Cobaltcanarycherry (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional edits in Chelikowsky article
Hi Hasteur,

Thanks for your speedy reply and commentary. I incorporated some additional edits, including more internal links, a book list and a third party external link. As you suggested, I also requested the page be renamed to a more formal name. Please let me know if there's any further edits you think I should make before I submit the article for another review. Thanks. Mkortsha (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I took a few more cracks at it. I think if you submitted this now there's a high probability of it being accepted.  I'm going to pass the page around a few other reviewers to see what they think (and to make improvements upon it) at WT:AFC. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

music lanka about Dinesh Subasinghe discogrpahy
hi haster this is musiclanka regarding about Dinesh subasinghe discography,please help me to improve that article,its about sri lankan wellknown composer's works,explain me or help me to edit it,regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclanka (talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 August 2013‎
 * Hi there. I moved this over from HasteurBot's user page because it's just an unattended/automated process runner. I see that the page you were notified about was Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dinesh Subasinghe discography.  I also see that in your recent history you did work on Dinesh Subasinghe discography and in fact did some splices over from the AfC page.  I have redirected the AfC page to the mainspace location as it seems only logical.  You don't have to do anything more and you should not be notified about this going forward.  Let me know if you have any concerns. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C.L. Jos
Hasteur, can we chat please, I would need your help. many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis.chakkalakal (talk • contribs) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to use this talk page to explain what you need. I know there are some Talk Page Stalkers that could answer the question if I am unable to.  You received the notice on your talk page because the AfC page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days and may be subject to CSD:G13.  The bot does not take a look at the worthyness of the submission, just the last modified date.  If you want to try and save it, you will need to make an edit to the page and improve the article with the goal of getting it accepted to articlespace. Hasteur (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Asteras Zografou
I can do the corrections and spelling improvements in the yet-to-be-created article. I will do it. Some corrections will be made, it can also be made by other users, there are users and more users who can correct its spelling and translations from Greek who is experienced in football/soccer or from the eastern part of Athens, some elsewhere. I figure that there should be a few more users who can translate it from Greek into English. A small part of the translations that have not been improved fully, one of the reasons (lower part) is that Greece is in an economic crisis. It is absolutely intolerable and unbearable that Greece is continuing the economic crisis. There is no support especially the greatest scare that Greece experienced, the closure of ERT networks (temporary) and ERT World. The planned article is likely not to be removed and improvements along with verifications by me and other users will be done. I am very angry that ERT World has not been restored in my area and it's shameful. There is no room to put it in a sandbox, One place is transfer "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Asteras Zografou" to the "Wikipedia:Sandbox/Football (soccer) clubs from Athens#Asteras Zografou" to have the yet-to-be-created article temporary located, a sandbox article section. Proposed articles that can be corrected and verified, the number that can check and verify nine to fifteen planned articles in one page than one. It is likely to be moved to a larger Sandbox article or "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Football (soccer) clubs from Attica", there they can verify nine in one page instead of one in one page. If one is partly corrected, it is suggest to be moved to a larger one where it can be corrected with ten proposed articles that can be verified. Da Desirer 2 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel anger with respect to the articles you created that have been deleted. Please read WP:REFUND and WP:REFUND/G13 to understand the rules for requesting drafts back.  Second, you can crate an unlimited number of sandboxes (i.e. User:Da Desirer 2/Asteras Zografou, User:Da Desirer 2/Athens FCA 1947-48, etc.), but once the page is in the AfC project space the 180 day clock starts ticking. Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The article was rarely updated for a year. If an article has rarely been updated. I suggest that the article (if checked by multiple users) is to be merged to a bigger temporary page where more experienced users can check their spelling at once. I suggest that Asteras Zografou is to be merged into "Wikipedia/Articles for creation/Sports clubs in Athens or .../Athens sports club section" which will be easier for experienced users to check spelling in several proposed articles in one page. Some users cannot find the title but they can find it with a single one. My anger is not on the articles that I created and have been deleted. My anger is on the economic crisis that is going on in Greece. When one is fully reviewed, the article can split and can be created. (New temporary article location: Wikipedia/Articles for creation/Athens sports clubs section or Wikipedia/Articles for creation/Sports-related section/Athens). Da Desirer 2 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's your responsibility as a page creator to take active action via the methods I pointed out. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neohumanism concern
Thanks for the notification. I did not realize that page still exists, as the article in question has already been created and overhauled. It may be viewed at Neohumanism. I have now blanked the page, which I understand amounts to a deletion request. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

G13 tagging for redirects
This is confusing...the noted page is just a redirect to the mainspace article. One could make a case for deleting these redirects, or a case for keeping them, but the wording of the user-message is completely off-topic. One could make a case for deletion of the redirect, but the wording of G13 doesn't mention it. And following the given link to see just what actually is (possibly) to be nom'ed for deletion gets to the article, which is also not what the warning is about. DMacks (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that that the page wasn't a redirect in the fullest sense of the term. For example:  shows that underneath the redirect annother user tried to restore content (which included the AfC decline banner, which matched the driver vector for the Bot (In AFC pages by date hierarchy in AfC space)). You'll see that I did remove the abortive page so that the initial page move is left and nothing else. Hope this makes sense. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oi, yes, makes perfect sense now. Thanks for fixing and explaining! DMacks (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the 1973 article from AFC. I had forgotten to remove it. I just set that page up on my own after AFC rejected it twice. I got your message. Thank you.Emeraldgirl (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. K. K. Nair concern
I added more references for the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M. K. K. Nair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikian (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter lind concern
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter lind concern

Thanks for the notification. But I think its a robot notification of no importants ? Because there are now a new article Peter Lind that are up to standard ? Fa bene si (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RE : job attitude article
Please do not delete the article and spare me five days to research. Currently alot of things are going in life which I dont ha e control over. Please grant me few more days so I can properly do the research work. Thank you. Khyati Gupta (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your bot (CSD 13)
Hi Hasteur Nice bot. I noticed that there have been a lot of CSD entries from AfC. I saw many from someone else, so thought they were being some manually, or maybe semi-automated, but more recently, I see them arriving from your bot.

I've handled quite a few, but I also see that RHaworth and JohnCD have as well. I have a very simple question, but I'll explain why I'm asking first.

When I handle a CSD, I do a manual check of every one. I open the history, and confirm that there is a six month gap before deleting. That doesn't take long, but if there are 79,000 items in the cat, it adds up.

If I knew that the bot checks for the six month gap, I would still want to do a check, but I would be comfortable doing it every tenth one.

I read the Bot approval, and I think this is the case. However, I glanced at the link to the code, and didn't know where to go next, so I am hoping you can: I'm also going to post a link to RHaworth and JohnCD, and ask the following: Are you comfortable with spot-checking if the bot does do the date check, or do you still feel than 100% manual checking is warranted?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Confirm that there is a check
 * 2) Point me to, or provide a copy of the relevant code section so I can look at it myself.
 * Thank you for your question. In short the bot's approvals authorize the following
 * At the 180 day (an approximation of 6 months), drop a talk page notice on the talk page of the "creator" of the page that the submission is in danger of being nominated for deletion.
 * At least 30 days after the creator talk page notice the bot opens the page up to see if the page meets both >180 days stale and >180 days + 30 days stale.
 * Because 6 months can vary between different interpretations days per month I used the 180 days approximation, but the 180 + 30 easily puts us inside the window of G13 eligibility. The dates being returned from the pyWiki framework are fairly standardized and I feel infinitely confident in the python time/date libraries handling the edge of an edge case.  I don't think any extra comforting is needed by admins to verify that the 6 months is valid, but that is the preview and discretion of the admin.
 * I have advanced some of the oldest AfC pages (2009) notification dates because it's very unlikely that these authors are ever coming back and the pages themselves qualify for G13 many many times over.
 * I hope all these deeplinks to the code answer your questions. Hasteur (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted. (I don't wish to pretend I am conversant with the code, but I know enough that it looks plausible, and certainly appears that you are checking dates) While I still plan to spot-check, I now feel I do not have to manually check every single date (unless JohnCD or RHaworth disagree)-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  16:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This falls firmly within my shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy. I never check G13 nominations - I just delete. If anyone complains, I will restore readily enough but I am probably already into thousands of these deletions and I cannot recall a single complaint. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's some landing at WP:REFUND, but usually these are so poorly formed that the bot's notification to the user helps me repair their refund request. I have been engaging (as evidenced above) with all the users who beg me not to delete by providing them the tools with which they can short circuit the G13. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I started by checking all, but rapidly tailed off to doing spot-checks, maybe one in ten, when I found they were all OK - though I did recently decline one (not from your bot) that wasn't. I'm glad to learn of the 30-day delay, because I have not been sure what to say when the occasional user rushes to WP:REFUND in a panic before his page has actually been deleted: now I will say "it will not be deleted if you edit it now to meet the reasons for declining and resubmit". JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hush hush and all, but as long as someone makes a single edit to the page, it short circuits the bot's process (and the bot removes the record from it's database of "Who for what page have I notified"). The clock restarts and if the page becomes eligible again, the bot is happy to proceed with the dance again. Hasteur (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I have been working with the WP:AFCH team to help ensure that direct submitting from the tool does not get editors into trouble for submitting too early a page that isn't eligible. I haven't yet worked with the twinkle team to help them figure out if they should not present the G13 option if the page isn't eligible. That'll cut down the 99% of cases leaving only "by-hand" nominations that could get into trouble. Hasteur (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Jaime Lawson - Articles for Creation
Hello Hasteur,

The below information was posted on my talk page. Mr. Lawson's first name is misspelled in the articles for creation page and doesn't need to be fixed. Please feel free to delete the page in the articles for creation section. Thanks (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jaime Lawson concern Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jaime Lawson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article wikipedia entry Amram. Aburbeh
Dear HasteurBot. HasteurBot The wikipedia entry Amram Aburbeh is an article that has been edited since January 2013. Improvements done include addition of links to references and reliable sources as well as photos that were inserted in the appropriate paragraphs. Please explain your note of concern, I want to understand what do you mean when you comment Articles for creation?

For example Does the article need to be in a different category? Carmel. 21 August 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmel avivi-green (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is after the article was promoted out of the AfC space, you went back and created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amram Aburbeh, which has not been edited in over 180 days. I have corrected this by redirecting the AFC location to the created article. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize I made a mistake earlier, I hope it will fine in the future. Carmel 21 August 2013Carmel avivi-green (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)←

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Divas of Doom
I'm on a college campus. Whoever you're trying to reach, it's not going to be easy.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any idea either, however per the requirements, HasteurBot has to deliver a notice to the creator of an AfC page that their submission has been noted as falling into eligibility for CSD:G13. Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Acting Witan of Mercia
Hi Hasteur I'm not sure whether you will receive my reply on my talk page regarding Wikipedia talk: "Articles for creation/Acting Witan of Mercia concern", so I'm giving you notice of it here. Best wishes SnoobysooSnoobysoo (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 22. 8. 2013
 * Replied at the user's talk page Hasteur (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Juju Bhai Tuladhar
Thank you for your interest. I have decided to let Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Juju Bhai Tuladhar be deleted. I will restart work on it when I have more material and references. I appreciate all the feedback I have received and agree with the concerns that have been raised. Karrattul (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you turn off your bot?
I thought it was running about every half hour, but I haven't seen an addition in 90 minutes plus.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, ignore this if it isn't trivial, but I'm in the odd position of feeling like crap, which means I cannot concentrate on work, but I can deleted CSDs. If your bot were to check every five minutes or so, and if the CSD count were below 75, and it added enough to bring it up to 100, the queue would never get too large, but when I am in a position to do a lot, we could knock off quite a few. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've actually been cheating a little on the rules of the bot by modifiying the notification date of some of the oldest records so that they can go now (instead of a few more weeks). Based on the proverbial tempest in the teapot (at WT:AFC), I'm thinking it's probably best not to advance any more to be 100% compliant (or until certain users are reassured).  The bot will only select out enough records on each pass to get the category up to 50 members (per the BRFA requirements).  I've cheated the requirements again by having the nom process run every 30 minutes instead of an hour.  But if you and the other admins are ok with having the category filled more often, I can adjust the settings when I get home to fire every 15 minutes and try to fill the category to 75 (which will trigger the backlog message).  It's all about what the Admins who monitor the CSD categories are willing to put up with. Hasteur (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be in the position of encouraging you to cheat. I have an alternative, which might be moot, because I now have chills and may be headed to bed. But a modification that would be in the spirit, is to figure out how many to add (sounds like it is 50) but if some are removed before the run is done, extend the count, so if I can keep up, it will keep adding until I cry uncle, then it will stop at 50 more. IOW, on each run, add 50, net of those removed during the run.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is, getting the number of pages in the category is a somewhat expensive API call (and invokes the throttle again). What I'm thinking of (at least for the time being) is to refactor the code somewhat so that before it enters nominating it counts out how many it needs to push to the top of the backlog number, nominates them and does the function again (up to 5 times) so that if the bot puts in 50, you remove 40, 10 remain in the category, so it tries to put 40 more in and notes that this is the second call in for this triggering of the bot.  The goal being potentially, if the admins are truly on the ball about cleaning these out, you could clear out 250 every 30 minutes.  Any more than that and I think we'll start to get in trouble with people who want to save the articles.  Also once the bot burns down the big backlog, we're going to be left with just the daily releases (which will be ~300 a day or so). Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds absolutely fine. I wondered how expensive it was to do the check, but didn't know.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  10:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

need help
Dear Hasteur, You have wrote a message via HasteurBot on the talk page of a user named Krantmlverma. He used to edit some pages but unfortunately he has been blocked on enwiki since 21 June 2012. He asked for help to many people but no-one wanted to help him. He replied your message also and waiting for your answer. If you can help him then it would be great for him. Thanks and regards, &#9734;&#9733;  Sanjeev Kumar  ( talk ) 18:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)