User talk:Hasteur/Archive 7

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi Hasteur, please if you could kindly spare some time and drop in your thoughts on the new steps, moderated by admin Nick-D, that are being taken to resolve the dispute regarding blitzkrieg on the Battle of Kursk article. EyeTruth (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur, there is an ongoing poll to settle this issue once and for all. Nick-D has suggested that a poll on the suggested wordings would be the best way to avoid the whole drama and reach a conclusion. All you need to do this time around is to place your vote for whichever version you think is preferable. The LINK EyeTruth (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of F.O. Oertel

Hello! Your submission of F.O. Oertel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Add the text

*[[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 3]] - Removing AfC maintenance category no longer applicable

below the HasteurBot 1 task description. I do not want the page unprotected. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I looked at that Ian Freckleten submission about 40 times and couldn't figure out what to do. THANK YOU. JSFarman (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/House of Music (Aalborg)

Hi there Hasteur. I've done a little work on this article and hope you can clear it from AfC. As an FYI, I'm working with a team on improving Aalborg before we take it to GAN. This article, House of Music (which I'll rename once it's released from AfC to Musikkens Hus) is currently a redlink. I don't want to circumvent the AfC process as I think the article creator benefits from seeing how it all works, or I'd release it myself. If you have any questions, just let me know. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spectator Amateur Press Society (SAPS)

Your bot sent me a notice concerning my article, "Spectator Amateur Press Society (SAPS)," on 16 August 2013. I don't check this e-mail address often, and this is the first I've heard from Wikipedia for ages.

So far as I'm concerned, this article is done and ready to go live. The various requests for footnotes are ridiculous, as the sources I used are contained in the references. I've seen numerous Wikipedia articles that are nowhere near as complete as mine and yet they're posted. If they don't work for you and the previous editors whose "help" consisted of sending me off to pages that are so complex they would make anyone's eyesroll, then Wikipedia can go on its merry way without my article.

Your acknowledgment of and/or response to this message would be appreciated, but somehow I doubt you'll make one.

ActifanInOakland

I acknoledge your message (just to prove you wrong). Wikipedia does have a minimum level of reverencing and quality that all articles must pass in order to be accepted. Think of it this way, you wouldn't offer up a run of the mill high school senior for the NFL pro-league draft would you? You'd make sure they were well trained, conditioned, and groomed so as to make the best impression on the teams. Just like that, Wikipedia prospective Wikipedia articles have to follow a specific idisyncratic form. If you're serious about attempting to get the article accepted there is WP:TEAHOUSE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk that you might be able to recruit assistance at. It's on you to decide if you want to invest time in fixing the identified complaints. Finally, please do not change my user page. Discussions are supposed to take place on the user talk page.Hasteur (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

'Sheila Carter' Article

Hello! I'm having a dispute with a user named Beaconboof ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beaconboof ). I've sent them a message. I've also started a discussion on the 'Talk' page of the Sheila Carter article but they've ignored it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheila_Carter Before submitting a report for edit-warring, is there anything else I could/should do? Thx! Israell (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications concern

Hi Hasteur, I've recently recevied a message from HasteurBot on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Symmetry,_Integrability_and_Geometry:_Methods_and_Applications regarding an article that I created called "Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications". This trial article was about an academic journal. Your HasteurBot notified me that I have not edited this page in at least 180 days and my submission, if not edited soon, could be nominated for deletion. For various reasons, I would like this trial article, which I created, to be deleted. Can you tell me how to go about the deletion process?

HowiAuckland (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there HowiAuckland. You can request deletion of an article you created by editing the page and putting {{db-g7}} at the top to indicate that as the author and primary contributor, you want to have the article deleted. I'm sorry your efforts with respect to this page will not be retained, but with you the best in your endeavors. Hasteur (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Hasteur. I think I've managed to do request deletion for the page.HowiAuckland (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

G13

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#G13_six_months_or_180_days.3F--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And sorry in advance that my preferred solutions puts the burden of the work on you, but I'm mentally trying to imagine how to respond to an editor who finds a submission removed less than six months after the last edit and wonders why we says six months but don't mean six months. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yikes, I'm trying to help, but feel that I am botching it. I had two thoughts in my head, unfortunately, not at the same time. One, I knew you had a relevant bot, so thought it polite to point you to the discussion. Two, I remembered that your bot had a 180 in it, and I remembered that you also had another 30 days so I knew the six months wasn't going to be a problem, but while politely informing you of the issue, I forgot the second point and got concerned I was creating work for you. I now think not, except for the work of explaining yourself, which shouldn't have been necessary. The issue arose because of manual additions to the CSD pile, while I declined, and had reverted. I don't like being reverted, especially when I think I am right, so rather than meekly accept this wasn't worth discussing, I decided to ask for clarification.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Gotcha. I'm pretty much the G13 yogi and probably shouldn't have snapped at supplicants coming to ask for wisdom. The patrolling admin has the full authority to decline the G13 if they think that the page can be saved (as DGG has done on a few occasions). I got your talk message while I was having my noon-meal and I cut the meal short to get back to my keyboard to answer your concern as quickly as possible because we're a little under 10 hours before HasteurBot task 1 goes real live and didn't want to have any showstoppers that would have required a block (which is a very indelible black mark) Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
One thing that would help (besides setting it for 180 +30) is to always give another deletion reason if it applies, especially if the reason is G11 or G12. For one thing, it discourage automatic restoration on request. it would probably also help to put something in the deletion summary like (and, btw, will never be suitable for a WP article) or (and, btw, no hope of notability ) even though that by itself is not a reason for deletion of an AfC. I've done that a few times at expired prods to discourage hopeless requests for REFUND)
Incidentally, can the bot search for existence of an article in mainspace--perhaps we could do a separate search for them, to either redirect the AfC to the talk p. or delete it as G6. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting thought, but it can cut both ways. I do a fair amount of copyvio work. In some cases, I see an item in CSD marked as copyvio, I assess it, confirm it is, and go to click the delete button, then notice that there are several reasons mentioned. I feel that copyvio is a trump card, so I don't need to consider the other reasons, but it sometimes gives me pause. I think it could be problematic here, because I can assess in seconds that it qualifies as G13, but if there is another reason listed, in theory, I should asses that as well, in case someone asks for it back. That would slow the process down, not a little, but a lot.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@DGG and Sphilbrick:So I understand correctly (and am pseudo-coding it in my head) if there's a mainspace article by the same title slap a CSD:G6 on it? What about common titled things (like Queen)? I think outright G6ing based on the title would generate some false positives. I could see a bot task that crawls Category:AfC submissions declined as already existing such that if the last decline was "existing" and there are at least 150 days since the last edit and convert the entire page into a redirect to the page listed in the decline which would mimic a CSD:A10 type rationale, but not actually delete. I could also see an enhancement to the bot task such that if the most recent decline reason was Advertisment or copyright, to add the appropriate sub-tag to the nomination and replace the user block with the db-notice-multiple. Would this ameliorate your concerns DGG? Hasteur (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry to but in here but the discussion has just been pointed out to me. Something that's been on my mind for a while is can a script such as Coren (Function Summary: Patrols new pages for copyright violations and duplicates of existing pages) be embedded into the G13 bot? I'm actually also thinking more to the future where it would be run automatically on all new AfC submissions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Coren is written in perl. I'm contacting Coren to see if I can do a Python implementation to make it more configurable. Hasteur (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
There's also another COPYVIO bot but i can't remember its name. The clash in choice of programme/software solutions is a well known issue in software and wed development where many coders have their preferred languages. This is also what impedes getting a lot of things done on Wikipedia. Thing to bear in mind however is that if it's been done before, it can be done again. If you have time, there's also another software (or script) solution requirement concerning AfC coming up soon that I would very much like your opinion on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It's good form to request permission before you re-implement someone else's code. I'll take Coren's code and translate it as well as my poor perl knowlege allows. Hasteur (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I've also contacted Madman who appears to be the sucessor to the Coren code. to seek permission there. Hasteur (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

On a related note I'm somewhat relieved that I am not the only one who was found to be disrespectful while posting neutral and politely worded messages. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Would a pause be in order?

I thought your bot checked to see how full CSD was before adding. Maybe I'm misremembering. However, I note that CSD has now reached 299, and that is net of 435 deletions I've done today. To complicate things, there's some new developments at Arbcom I want to follow, so I don't know how much I can help out today.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bot checks the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions category and doesn't overflow 50 there. I know the {{db-g13}} category also transcludes the parent CSD category as well. I can do the following.
  1. Turn the rate down from "Up to 50 every 30 minutes" to "Up to 50 every hour".
  2. Completely suspend nominations.
Whatever works best for you. Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Sphilbrick I've completely suspended nominations from the Bot for the time being. No sense in making Admin lives more hectic. Hasteur (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, for the record, your contributions weren't the problem. But in view of other things, one documented below, it is too much, and I assumed it would be easier to get you to pull the plug, than to figure out what other avenues to pursue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
A'ha... The reason why the CSD main category overflowth is because a certain user is going on a CSD:G8 binge (Special:Contributions/Stefan2?limit=500) Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick We're now down to 94 nominations in the main CSD category with zero in the AfC subcategory. You good with me turning the dial up to half speed ("Up to 50 every hour")? Hasteur (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Still busy, but some of the fires are, if not out, smoldering.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Template:History of Quebec

Hi. I believe when I deleted Template:History of Quebec in February 2008, it was not being used at all. (My interpretation of CSD T3—at least in February 2008—was that completely unused templates could be speedily deleted, I believe.) Now that the template has been re-created, it seems to be in active use. This is great to see! Hope that helps. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot 2 request

Hey Hasteur, how is HasteurBot 2 going to be tagging CSD:G13s? Please set it up to tag them as {{db-g13|ts= timestamp }}} where as the ts= is the timestamp of the edit before the g13 tagging. Thanks... I'll be modifying the template to use this new parameter today, and put up a testcases page so that you can see what it will look like. :)

Deletion of project tyler proposed page

Your bot notified me of the deletion of my proposed Project Tyler page, I think it should be deleted. Im a bit inexperienced in wikipedia so I dunno should I just delete it or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken care of this for you. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

thank you very much for your help. If I could I ask another small favor of you please ; what do I do to become a better contributor to wikipedia? Is there a place for new users like me who want to start editing and starting new articles or should I just jump in and do it myself?

Sorry just ignore that youve already sent me the link it just didnt see it at first, thanks again!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenneth F. Goldstein

Hi - When you have a moment, could you point to a few specific examples of inappropriate tone and/or peacock terms in this article? Obviously my instincts about this are somewhat off the mark, and my attempts to get clarification from editors in live chat between the last rejection and this one fell short.

Also, I'm a little confused about the notability issue. The earlier feedback I got from editors APerson and Arthur goes shopping led me to believe the subject met (or at least was "very likely to meet") the notability requirement, but now it seems as though that's in question. Looking at the comment you left, is it your opinion that this isn't a notable subject?

Thanks for your time--I see you guys are backlogged with a ton of articles so I much appreciate your continued feedback.

Jh122 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Jh122

I'm sorry, but your confused. the page has been marked as overly promotional (or attempting to sell the biography) to us. I specifically took task with the fact that he was the executive for a division that launched good products. It seemed that you were trying to inherit the notability of the product for the biography, which is counter to Notability is not inherited. For this reason and the others, I declined the submission. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you help me to understand which words, phrases, and/or facts in the article got it tagged as being overly promotional? I am happy to revise, but at this point I am not sure where to start. Also, can you clarify what you mean by "attempting to sell the biography"? Jh122 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Carol Wincenc Page by Meftab

I have re-written the entire page, with expanded and more original source references whenever possible and making sure only factual names of concerts, etc... are borrowed from sources not their prose. Could you look over the page before I re-submit? Thank you in advance. I am new to this; hope I am putting this request in the right way. Meftab (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Acutlly, it's still much too close to the biography page for copyright violations Hasteur (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to give you a hard time, and appreciate your time, but I'm confused-which biography page are you saying its too close to? I had a lot of sources. A factual list of her concerts, schools she's taught at, competitions she's judged is of course going to look similar no matter who writes it unless I leave out all details and just write "many". I figured it was supposed to be sort of an encyclopedic list of facts, not a chatty prose piece, so it would have similar lists to what others write. Should I leave out the detailed lists? I noticed pages about other prominent flutists like "jeanne baxtresser" and "robert langevin" reference only their own bio pages and have almost no other references;I was trying to be more detailed and perfectionistic with mostly original sources whenever available and didn't even reference her own bio website, since the guidelines I thought said to stay away from things people posted themselves.Are there specific lines I should delete, or is it the general organization? Meftab (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:OTHERSTUFF you shouldn't use the existance of other similar articles to argue for the creation of this article. The potential copyright violation report is [1]. The fact that you're being combative about this suggests that you personally might have a relationship with the subject that should disqualify you from writing this article under WP:COI. Feel free to post your submission up to try and get annother reviewer to review it, but I'm going to opine about the copyvio problems. Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hoolai Games

Hey Hasteur,

You said the following: "Either you are going to use crunchbase as a reference or an external link. You really shouldn't do both..." Would you mind explaining this further so that I may make the edit? I was intending to use crunchbase as a reference and I assume that I made a mistake by adding an external link?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis Bea (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know how much clearer I can make it... You use a link to the company's crunchbase page as a reference. You also have the company's crunchbase link as a entry in the External links section. Hasteur (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow. Haha I completely missed that part. You're right you couldn't have been any clearer.. I guess for some reason I wasn't able to scroll down to the bottom of the page on my computer until now. I've edited the article and removed crunchbase from the external link. Thanks!
Btw, could you revisit the article? If that was the only issue then I'd love to see it get published :) It's my second full wiki page creation. Exciting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis Bea (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A minor heads up.

While there are a few hundred or so admins who can delete G13s, I have done a fair number recently. The timing was good, as I had a 10 day stacation, so I was able to knock off a few. That ends now, so I will be less active over the next few weeks, especially the next couple days, as I am out of town with limited internet time. I know that a couple other admins do a lot, and they may simply pick up the slack, but just mentioning in case someone notices that the queue is closer to full more often. I'm not even proposing that you change anything, just want you to be aware.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick That's fine with me, I'll go back to what the original authorization was (up to 50 nominations 1x/hour). If admins decide they want more, they can always request a higher firing rate. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That sounds good.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: your desire to delete the article at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/János Nyíri

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/János Nyíri

Thank you for your comments. Please help me to bring the article into the requisite guidelines. I don't understand why it would be deleted. There are some citation style issues, with which other Wikipedia editors have been helpful. Can you help us to fix those issues? I am also puzzled why the article has not yet been accepted, in terms of importance, etc. There were copyright issues, which have all been resolved. Obviously, this is not my full-time job, so, as an outsider, I want to make sure all your recommendtions are followed and adopted properly. Please do not delete the articel. It exists is French and possibly Hungarian, although the texts are not exact translation, they all refer to the same biographical data which has been verified with sources as diverse as the Times of London, Wall Street Journal, multiple publications and web-sites. Thank you. Oulipo Oui (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

NRHP bot

If it's possible, could you generate a list of users who created the articles on User:HasteurBot/NRISref with counts of articles created? e.g. Dudemanfellabra created 250 articles, Hasteur 124, etc.? This is more of a personal request for me because I want to see who is/has been creating these, but there has been some interest expressed at the project talk page for this kind of list. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but based on some of the commentary in the section I'm less than comfortable with publishing the counts of who created how many articles as it puts the loaded gun on top of the table instead of needing to work through the safe combinations. Please seek the agreement of the editor I believe you're seeking to target with this information and I'll be happy to post numbers, but not before. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. For the record, I actually don't believe Doncram created most of them (which is who I assume that you assume I'm targeting). In fact, the majority are probably from another user whose name I can't remember but who created probably hundreds of church articles (mentioned at the bot request page) with only NRIS. That said, I can see why you're iffy about posting that kind of information, so I respect your decision not to do so.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

AE discussion

Your name is mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Doncram. You probably don't want to comment, but I felt obliged to inform you.

And I'm sorry to see that you decided to drop the plan for the NRHP bot, but I can understand your reasons. --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot/NRISref

Hi.

Local admins are unable to delete the page User:HasteurBot/NRISref because it has over 5,000 revisions. Local deletion has the potential to crash the database for a bit. You have to file a steward request. Sorry! Keegan (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

AE comment

I happened to browse WP:AE and saw your comment. I know nothing about the case. FYI your first sentence is a bit hard for an outsider to parse. The words "disruptive environment presented against X" might mean that other editors have been ganging up on X, and that it is a shame that X is not permitted to continue with their good work. From the rest of your comment, I'm wondering if "disruptive environment presented by X" is more in tune with your thinking. At any rate, you might fix the link to bot requests (missing a bracket). Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Eastmain's talk page.
Message added 14:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your submission at AfC A Theory of Justice: The Musical! (September 18)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Shii (tock) 01:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Progressive Barnstar

The Progressive Barnstar
I couldn't find a barnstar that would adequately thank those involved in making the template editor user right RFC a reality, so I created this new one. The Progressive Barnstar recognizes those courageous enough to work towards a vision for change at Wikipedia. Thanks for participating in the drafting process. I consider the proposal a success at this point, no matter what the eventual outcome. equazcion (talk) 06:28, 18 Sep 2013 (UTC)
@Equazcion: Duplicated to User:Hasteur/HallOfPride. If you object, please let me know. I note that this isn't the first time you've given me a barnstar ;) Hasteur (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julianna Forlano

Hello, Hasteur. I think something may have gone wrong with your review of this article. There's a message about it at the Afc help desk. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please insert ''Approved'' between the link for HasteurBot task 3 and the description of the task. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

deletion of Pomegranate Communications page

Please go ahead and delete the proposed article for Pomegranate.

Bot limits

Could you please check if the bot is listing only the specified number of G13s. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

id1Hasteur is
evaluating CSD:G13
eligible AfC drafts		id2
DGG After the request above (at "A minor heads up.") I reduced the temporarily increased rate of nominating back to the agreed to limits at the BOTREQ (No more than: 50 - Current category occupancy of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions/1x per hour). I do see that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jason Ruch Music Producer and a few others have nomianted by Rankersbo at this time. The bot will queue up the limit, and then go through each page to evaluate and nominate if appropriate. If a real person is also nominating at the same time (an an admin is not responding to the nominations faster than they're being nominated) it's possible that the category could trip over into backlog mode. I'd prefer not to have to re-check the number of pages in the category after every single nomination because that query is very expensive to run. Please let me know if you have questions. Hasteur (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I analyze it the same as you: the bot by itself does right, but if people add too many manually, the total number a day gets overwhelming. As it's rather hard to persuade individuals to modify their behavior, adjusting the bot to take some account of this might be appropriate. In terms of deleting articles in CAT:CSD, which I've been doing since forever, there's a great psychological advantage in letting the category get actually cleared down to zero once or twice a day. (I'm feeling very desperate now, because i simply can't keep up and my fears about g13 are getting realized--but I know that as someone who wanted to save the 5% of savable articles, I was in the minority. If it were just the bot, I could easily screen ahead of it.) DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
DGG Birds gotta fly, Articles gotta be worked on, Bot needs to nominate. Our reputation is already drowning under the grey goo of substandard submissions that are being scraped fully out to illegitimate mirrors that are out there that we've let build up for years. If you want a modification to the bot's operating parameters please establish a consensus that this modification is needed including the BAG and AFC project members. I'm going to strongly oppose the consensus building discussion, but I would like to note that since the bot was rate limited per the above conversation we've had less than 250 nominations each day from the bot which by itself is just barely keeping up with the inflow of new AfC submissions. If we were to stop nudging the creators of G13 eligible AfC submissions right now we'd still have almost 219 days worth of nominations before the bot would ceace making nominations. I would, however, be open to changing the bot to waiting unil the 31st day after the bot gave notice to the page creator and then doing a bulk nomination of all the pages that just became available (thereby tripping the backlog notice 1x a day) instead of feeding a few nominations in over the course of the day, but that would also require an affirmative consensus to implement the change. Hasteur (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hasteur, I understand that checking is expensive; however, I personally think that a compromise could be made where it checks, gets the counter to what it thinks should be half way, check again, calculate how many edits were made by something other than it per second or minute, figure out how long it should take it to finish at the rate it is going, calculate a new number to finish, then finish. It adds only one extra check and a few quick calculations and should prevent the counter from going over 50 at its hand (the users may still run it up, I have no limit). DGG I'm hoping this compromise is fair to you, and for the record (I've been discussing some stuff with some of the deleting admins and other users that are nominating and trying to save), the general consensus of those working on this is to try to save as much as possible on the first run and if it comes around again, be much less lenient. I need to make another userbox, or something... There are more categories to monitor now... Hrmm.. Anyways... Technical 13 (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
We ignored the backlog for years, without even any plans to ever do anything about it. We could have reduced the volume by half by simply using using the general criteria--primarily G2, test page, G11 promotional, and G6 for duplicates. That we suddenly panic into saying we must get rid of it in a month or two is the exaggerated response typical of people who have discovered an embarrassing error. When a group of people does it, they reinforce each other, and WP consensus decision making tends to encourage that sort of result. You say at the slower rate I suggest it would take 219 days--I see that as an absolutely reasonable target for a long-standing swamp of problems. They've been here most of them much longer.
I am not only concerned with the ones that need rescuing. I am concerned with two ommisions made when doing totally justified deletions. First, that many promotional AfCs of companies and authors and other subjects subject to promotion have , after correct declines, been moved unchanged into mainspace, usually by copypaste, yielding articles that should have been deleted immediately--this is a good place to find them--I search ever y susceptible article or variant titles, and I find quite an umber; I see that almost nobody else even tries to get them. Second, I've been increasingly realizing that using REFUND for G13 creates problems for hopeless articles--if the ones that are also G11 get tagged such in addition to G13, it avoids many future problems. I see one or two other people have started doing that. It would also help to add ,something like (& no chance of an acceptable article ever) to the G13 reason.
I think tripping the backlog notice perhaps only once day would be an improvement (and in fact I thought that was the intention). I'd suggest as I suggested originally, though doing it twice, because doing it once gives a single aberrant admin the opportunity to do everything their own way (& the argument is just as valid if you think me the aberrant), Technical13, your compromise with the counter is in my view a trivial improvement, but it is an improvement; I don;t accept it as sufficient; I do accept it as a good addition. But having stricter stands the second round is no help if nobody works on them. The original editors can rarely be expected to, as they've almost all of them left when the article was declined. My own concept is that there is no deadline for improvement if something is improvable. That there will be many fewer the second time around after another 6 months is a reason to look more carefully, not less carefully. Technical3, you're judging by your own good standard--you yourself look fairly carefully, but most admins deleting these do not. I continue to oppose the entire idea of the bot, and the more I see of it the worse I think it. Having two admins sequentially is safer than having a bot plus an admin. One careless admin can then do less damage. Our admin procedures have to be designed in realization that some will be less than fully responsible. i'm going to copy this to the AfC talk p. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Message recieved. Hasteur (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
@JohnCD, RHaworth, and Sphilbrick: Ping Your advice as other admins that have previously been involved with the G13 nominations that the bot has generated would be appreciated. Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
@Anne Delong, Jamesmcmahon0, Joe Decker, Vegaswikian, and Thryduulf: @Vanisaac, Graeme Bartlett, Hellknowz, and Addshore: As editors who commented on the merits of the task, your advice would also be appreciated. Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI
    and for what it is worth DGG, I would like to note that as far as your concern about moral because the category never hits 0, I've seen the sun shining in the userbox above every visit to this page today which means the count is at 0. Technical 13 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well yesterday I was working on speedy delete, and it it around 0 entries for an hour with about 3 admins deleting stuff. So I don't see a problem with deletion overload. It could trickle more through. I still find about 1 in 20 articles queued for G13 delete that were worth accepting as they were. My complaint about the AFC tools is that you cannot accept a declined article. So then I have to do it by hand, more work, and not all the bits get done then (like notification). The point is that AFC is stricter than the requirements for articles in article space so there will be a lot of material that would survive as an article. The bot is in no position to see if it could be an acceptable article, but it is a lot of effort to rereview everything. On the refund front the G13 requests are about half the work - but do the requesters go and work on them again? I don't notice it, so in another 6 months the bot will have another wave of material to tag. Then I think don't bother refunding if the requester made no effort at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I have pretty well stopped working on this, because I have no way to tell which articles have already been looked at by others. I haven't nominated any all week, and very few before that. I would gladly help rescue if there was a way to co-ordinate it; for example, a talk page where one could leave a note saying "I've checked up as far as Article name". I have instead been looking for copyvios, spam and cut & paste remnants among newer articles and nominating these under other categories, and moving misplaced articles to Wikipedia talk: space so that the bot will get them eventually. I have also been looking at the submissions without templates. Occasionally, I find one that has no template because the submitter just removed it after the article was declined, making no other improvements since last year. Would it be okay if I nominated these for G13 if they are really poor? There would only be one or two a day. They are not picked up by the bot because of the lack of template. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
In reply to Graeme Bartlett, I think the concern is that there almost-ready articles for which no one asks for a refund, because the editors have given up and left Wikipedia after their first article was rejected. I think you have a good point about articles that are retrieved and then not improved - are they tagged with a category so that they can be identified? Maybe in six months we'll need a G14, for articles that have had their chance and can't be revived again. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
unimproved article with no template for 6 months would be eligible for g13 tagging too. A couple a day would not hurt. Especially if you have checked them for rescuability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm back. I was out of town for two days, and don't do much admin work when traveling. I'm back, and half considered asking you to up the throttle, but I do have other things on my plate (as Technical 13 knows :) so I resisted. I've scanned the above discussion, think I caught the gist. A couple comments. DGGreferred to the 5% of savable articles. I assume that this is of the entire AfC inventory, not the subset of articles that haven't been edited in over six months. (Plus, of course, I assume it is a rough guess, not the result of a rigorous survey). I am fairly certain that the Type II error in the G13s is under 1%. Despite the volume I've processed, I take at least a glance at many of them. It takes less than a second to see than many are literally a single sentence. While Wikipedia might even have a legitimate article with only a sentence, if one gets accidentally deleted, it can be recreated in less time than it takes to review or recover. I did find one that looked like it had potential, but Anne Delong took a closer look and confirmed there was less there than met the eye. After deleting several thousand, I don't believe I have found a single one which was mistagged. I think there are a few cases of subjects with potential, but when the reviewer asks for supporting references, and the single editor goes away, I think it is legitimate to say that if the subject deserves coverage, some day, someone else will try again.
I confess I was largely ignorant of the AfC process, which is slightly ironic, as I was very active in the Feedback initiative, roughly speaking, the predecessor of AfC. However, I burnt out, and did not get engaged when the AfC project started. I'm impressed and overwhelmed at the amount of effort that has gone into the process. A lot of volunteer time has been poured into drafts which are now being dumped, sad, but I trust I am missing the successful side of things. Frankly, given the extremely low number of type II errors, I wouldn't be opposed to an admin bit cleaning out the remainder, although I'll understand and accept that one more review doesn't hurt.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The current arrangement seems to be working very well. Certainly there is no hurry. If it takes a year to clear the backlog, that will be fine. I would add an extra rule that the bot should stop when the total number of entries in CAT:CSD has reached 100. At the end of the day the speed of clearing the backlog is determined by humans - if all the admins who regularly do these deletions decide one day that they will take a break, then a clutch of these G13s would sit in CAT:CSD for longer than usual - no harm in that. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • RHaworth The only concern I have with adding a rule like that is for when certain users go on a procedural streak and nominate a heap of pages (like when someone went on a G8 binge a little above) this is going to block the bot. Also, not all of the rationale categories are included in the main CSD cat. Should I traverse them for counts too? Hasteur (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If someone goes on a procedural streak and nominates a heap of pages then your block should take a break and wait until the backlog of other nominations is cleared. What is wrong with that? Checking the main CSD cat would be enough for me - I never look at the other cats. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My what should take a break? How does the bot differ from a human sitting on each of the pages and nominate them? The bot is already very constrained, and with the proposed addition you're making the bot will be prohibited from making nominations during it's window that the G13 nominations will fall behind the rate that new AfCs are being created making it effectively worthless to have the bot in the first place. I'll see if I can make some time this weekend to work on this, but at this time I'm disinclined to add this extra gateway as it's yet annother human controlled throttle on this process that I have observed that in the past 48 attempts (if your proposal would have been accepted) there may have been 6 successful nomination pulses. Hasteur (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the bot should take a break. As I recall, the discussion was that the bot should not be creating large backlogs of articles to be deleted. If no one is clearing the backlog or it is slowly being cleared, then the bot should relax. You could also request that users stop tagging, but there is no real way to do that. I guess you could add a notice in the speedy template, but would anyone really notice that and since it only would apply to a single editor having it in the template would not be a great idea. I see the bot as the tool that adds work to the queue in a logic order when humans are not adding a reasonable amount of articles that need to be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The bot doesn't nominate if the nominations would push the G13 category over 50. The bot will wake up every time and see if there's space available. If admins don't resolve the current G13 nominations, the bot does not nominate any more. There are 2 exceptions to this (that in my mind are minor). The bot determines how many nominations to make when it's woken up. In an example case if there are 10 nominations when the bot starts nominating (meaning the pot prepares 40 for nomination) and a user happens to complete 5 while the bot is working and no admin cleans any out during the time, we'll be at 55 (10 original + 40 bot nominated + 5 user nominated). The other exception relates to unicode characters. The bot's coding does not handle page titles that have unicode special characters, the bot does not perform the nomination on the AfC submission and leaves it in the queue. This means that the effective pool of nominations is reduced by the number of unicode special character page titles. This means every few days I go into the back end and clear out the notifications that were seeded into the "Who was notified for what page on what date" database and as myself perform the G13 if the page is still valid and remove the record from the notification database. There are multiple throttles already, if admins want to take their time in evaluating the records they can. The bot will just keep pouring little amounts into the category as long as the admins are making space and there's AfC drafts that have already gone past the 6 month marker for notifying the page creator and the (6 month + 30 days) marker for giving the creator an opportunity to do something about the page. The bot is already into the AfC submissions in September 2011 category and therefore we're not talking about submissions that were declined in the antiquity of the AfC process, but ones for which the standards of what an article should be are relatively similar to what they are currently. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
As someone who has asked Hasteur to temporarily suspend the bot, I am sympathetic to the request by RHaworth. However, I do not request that it be part of the coding. I think it is a rare enough circumstance (I saw it happen once in the last month), that it doesn't need to be coded, it could be a manual request. Regarding bot versus human, I don't see that as the right distinction. If an editor, in the normal course of editing, find an article needing a CSD, they should do so, even if the backlog is 300. However, if a human editor is thinking of clearing out some Augean Stable which will result in dozens of CSDs, it is polite to glance at the cat and consider something else if the backlog is large. (If I were RHaworth, I might respond "isn't that what I just requested?" The difference is that a human can do it without recoding, while Hasteurbot can only do the "glancing" with recoding, and that is more work than I think it is worth.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • That we're in 2011 is a reason to go more carefully, not less carefully, because there's a greater likelihood that the article is still relevant and fixable. . The standard of AfC reviewing was not adequate in 2011 or for that matter 2012, nor will it be until we remove the utterly unqualified AfC reviewers, as will soon happen. The number of articles on clearly notable topics declined as being unreferenced when references can easily be found, or of articles being declined for not having references enough when they clearly do, or for other sometimes even more incorrect reasons is about 1:10. I'm not trying to rescue that many, because I do not have time, but I can identify at least 1:20, which is hundreds of usable articles. And at this point I don;t have time to check more than maybe 1/4 of the total. That i can even do this many is only at the cost of doing very little work on important things, like removing promotional editors. And I no longer have the time to check for particularly bad organization AfCs whether they are in mainspace anyway and need to be removed. Everything wrong that I thought would happen is happening, and worse--I expected about 1/5 the current speed, assuming the bot would nominate only a fixed number a day, not fill the category as fast as people emptied it. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your wonderful feedback. Based on the feedback I see at best a "no-consensus" to change the bot's operations. I note that the currently established consensus is already greatly whittled down from the original bot request and has already been compromised several times. If the admins want to slow down and take their time they can. If admins decide they want to take a break and action zero G13s a day they can. The only thing that shows up as a black mark is that the G13 category which the community has already created and endorsed will sit and trigger a notice on the Admin backlog that there's a CSD category that should be looked at. The Admins are controlling the bot's throughput, the bot just pours more nominations in once the category has dipped under the configured threshold. If the admins want to have the bot's operations changed, I'm going to request that they open a request at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot to call the question if the consensus for the bot's authorization has changed sufficiently to warrant an amendment of the bot's operations. At this point I don't think that the limited discussion here is going to come to some sort of workable agreement. Hasteur (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oneness Temple]] concern

Good morning Hasteur You may proceed to delete this request on articles for creation section. This page has been since created by another user. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Paul Clayton (actor)

Thank you for taking the time to review my article. You say that IMDB isn't reliable with regards to a source for his date of birth, however it IS correct! I can also find reference to his DOB here http://coronationstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Paul_Clayton_(actor) - but I am not convinced that it is considered a more reliable source. Short of scanning in his birth certificate I don't know what else I can supply. I accept that his agent may not be considered neutral, but it is his professional representation and therefore has the most complete record of his work. Again all of this is accurate (his agent is one of the best in the business) - would I be better linking to his website (which contains the same information)? With specific reference to the West End play, Scissor Happy, I could link to this review if you felt it more helpful http://www.whatsonstage.com/west-end-theatre/reviews/01-1998/scissor-happy_29959.html. Thank you for your assistance with this. Morerichpickings (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:IMDB is the official source for why we can't use IMDB ever. You can have it in the external links, but you cannot have it support statements in the prose
We cannot use other wikis for the same reason, it's user contributed content that we can't be sure of the validity.
The agent cannot be used because they have a specific interest in promoting Clayton as an actior.
You cannot use the actor's own site because he has a specifc interest in himself to push his notability.
Having a review to one play will help but will probably not slingshot the actor into the necessary notability. Hasteur (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Arnold Anthony Schmidt

Hi, there. I've added some new info and a few new bibliographic sources -- does that help? If not, I'll keep trying. Any suggestions? Fussy Scholar 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fussy Scholar (talk • contribs)

Holbeck Rugby Club

I have your message I responded on my talk page a while ago and got another message from you yesterday help

Teahouse Invitation

Teahouse logo
Hello! Hasteur, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! 
Tariqmudallal (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRN

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this message was actually posted by me, not a bot (I just had a lot to send out). Hope you're well. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for F.O. Oertel

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Theory of Justice: The Musical!

"With respect to Shii this is not a sigle performance but a touring production" <-- This is an assertion you make but it's not backed up by the article's sources, FYI. Shii (tock) 17:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Shii [2]. If you actually read, you'll see that the performance they're reviewing took place in the Edinburg Fringe festival, which is seperated from from the Oxford location. Please read closely. Your flippiant attitude when you've been told that you've made a mistake and where is rather disheartening. Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC A Theory of Justice: The Musical! was accepted

A Theory of Justice: The Musical!, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative to "refbegin" columns for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Silver?

How do you suggest one turn long lists into multi-column ones for the purpose of cleaner layout? You declined a novice editor's draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Silver over said formatting, which I had put in for him since the lists were so narrow and long that columning seemed best.

Are you against columning in general, or want some coding other than "refbegin/refend" used? I know technically lists are refs, but the specific coding for columns works better than any other code I'm familiar with. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have prefered a single long column or a 2 column table with bullets to simulate a 2 column list. Hasteur (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Re your bot's message: Your article submission X1

Hello Martin Dixon. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled X1.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/X1}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find any {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. I have amended the article and re-submitted - have I done it right?

Thanks,

Martin - a very occasional contributor!

Martin Dixon (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Silver

I just saw your review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Silver. Formatting issues such as the use of a reflist instead of a regular bulleted list are not valid reasons to decline a submission; if topic and content are appropriate we should accept the draft and either tidy up the formatting ourselves or add a relevant maintenance tag. Huon (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • If the article has higher than a 50% chance of being deleted for stylistic faults such as the ones you complain about, it's encumbent on us to decline the AfC. I felt that the submission would have been nominated. With 1.8k articles in the pending backlog we don't have the time to fix the minor stylistic problems. Perhaps once we're down to under 7 days backlog, but not now. Now go scurry off and find some other busywork to load a editor with. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Somehow I wasn't aware that the deletion policy includes "isn't formatted properly" among the valid reasons for deletion. I have fixed the reflist issue; the draft itself has been accepted by MatthewVanitas. I fail to see how declining drafts for spurious reasons reduces anybody's workload. Huon (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
If the styling is going to be enough to tip the pan from irritation to annoyance and subsequently make someone not give the benefit of the doubt for multiple procedural mistakes then yes it is our responsibility to decline and let the hopeful page keep the comfort of the safer environment. Now I say this with all respect, but GO AWAY, I've already been pestered about this before, and kicking the problem down the road with an indication of what I wanted to see fixed is a proper way for AfC. Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Apollon Vasilyevich Troitski (Trinity)1872-1912

this is obviously a special case: my source is material found in 2011. the material is now in a physical exhibition in a museum in Vichy Volochek. I have a copy of the Russian article describing the find and the subsequent exhibition. A friend in Moscow has been to the museum and taken photos. Neither the article nor the exhibition are on line. Link to the museum: http://www.museum.ru/M1010

I have provided several links to articles describing his work.

How should I continue to get the article approved?

Elzunia olsson (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Elzunia Olsson

Please read the decline reason. I would suggest that you try WP:CITEREF as that will help establish the case. The uncertainty throughout the entire submission (ex: Apollon died, according to relatives, when he was 40 years old, about 1912. is so bad that the Biography would be nominated for deletion as soon as it hits mainsapce. Hasteur (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

this was a long time ago, in Russia. We don't have a death certificate! there are photos and letters and other documents in the museum. He was a relative of my grandfather. He has paintings listed in art galleries in Russia, see links. They do not give a date of death either, obviously this is not known. BTW can you read Russian? I am a complete beginner - I don't know what WP:REFCITE is.

Elzunia olsson (talk)Elzunia olsson —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: International Day of Charity (October 1)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Likelihoodist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Likelihoodist (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edits at AFC

If you decline something, give a valid, policy- or guideline-based reason. It's common courtesy. If your reason is invalid, it doesn't help fledgling editors or seasoned IP editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Crisco 1492 I've re-declined. You're not a project member of AfC, you're not familiar with the levels necessary for AfC. DO NOT remove the reviews or I will take you to AN3 for edit warring. The submissions are in AfC space and under the auspices of AfC. They're not the property of DYK. Now go make trouble elsewhere. Hasteur (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RE; Pierre Kaan AfC

Hi Hasteur,

I've got a couple questions regarding my AfC on Pierre Kaan, French resistance leader during WW2. This is my first AfC so please bear with me.

You say, "The article for the group he lead does not list him.". Could you be more precise? Which article and for which group? Pierre Kaan was a member of a numerous of groups and there are many articles written about him. I have outlined numerous sources pointing to this fact.

My principle source (La liberté de lesprit) outlines his involvement very clearly in the chapter dedicated to Pierre Kaan and explicitly states his leadership position on lines 25-27 of the fourth paragraph on page 172.If you need additional reassurance check the article in Liberation (http://www.liberation.fr/societe/1999/04/02/le-bras-droit-de-jean-moulin-mis-en-causeles-filles-de-pierre-kaan-poursuivent-l-historien-jacques-b_270181) and please re-examine the external links I included at the bottom of my article.

Pierre Kaan is referred to by numerous articles on Wikipedia including the Pierre Kaan and André Malraux pages on the French Wiki. This article intends to fill a well-needed gap in the English Wikipedia's coverage of resistance activities during WW2.

I have checked Theonesean's criteria that you seem to advocate as good guidelines and I can see nothing forbidding the use of foreign language primary and secondary sources.

Please advise. IHARVWD (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Oak_Furniture_Land

Hello, I hope that you might be able to clarify the reasons given for declining the article Oak_Furniture_Land.

1. This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. My opinion is that the reporting about the company in the BBC News, The Times, The Telegraph and the Manchester Evening News, as well as numerous smaller independent publications, demonstrates 'Notability'. 2. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I have quoted the company's website with regards to the current number of stores, is that the concern? I realise that it is not verifiable but it seems likely to me that it would be the best source for current details on that point.

Comment: Also we don't need citations for every single major city this company has a presence in. My thought was that the fact that the company does have an independently cited presence in many major cities makes it a notable organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDPW75 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing at Afc

Hi Hasteur, I noticed that you reviewed several of my Afc reviews, thanks for that. As for now I only got pass ticks, so I hope I'm doing well. I'll try to remember to request people to use citation footnotes as you mentioned on my review of Laura May Coope. You also reviewed my review of Glenn Carp and said: "Please remember to run citebot and reflinks. It cleans up a lot of problems." I wanted to say that I was unaware of a request to run citebot and reflinks, I don't recall seeing anywhere a request to use those. Otherwise, I was wondering why I should use citebot and reflinks on an article clearly unsuitable to Wikipedia. It seems like a waste of time. Crispulop (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Crispulop: User:Citation bot crawls the page and looks at the raw citation templates to look for ones that it can combine into a named refererence (see [3] for an example). This is useful in that it helps uncover single source type problems. User:Dispenser/Reflinks crawls the page in question and cleans up many raw references and wraps them in persumed appropriate templates which format the reference better (see [4] for an example). Both of these tools are available in the {{AfC submission}} template under the review tools hidden sub container. Click the "show" link to the left and it'll have pre-composed links to make the tools run. Making the submission more "article like" makes it easier for reviewers to evaluate the submission at a glance. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I had already seen the Citation bot at work but was not familiar with where to find it. I am familiar with reflinks, it's useful. Crispulop (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GM_Korea_(Chevrolet)_BLD24

Are you saying that the at the official Daewoo Bus Company's history web page listed at the External link not the valid citation? Rjluna2 (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Zach Vega.
Message added 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback 2

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Zach Vega.
Message added 23:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District Councils' Network

Hi Hasteur

On 3rd October you rejected the entry Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/District_Councils'_Network leaving the comment that there was still not enough independent reliable sources.

I'm unsure at how you've come to this conclusion as there are numerous sources in this article from a variety of independent organisations. On my count there are sources from 5 different independent organisations on this article. For example the entry has references to newspaper articles (from The Guardian and The MJ), a reference from government publications as well as references from other independent organisations which include a press release from an English Council.

Could you please explain how there are not enough reliable independent sources in this article please?

Review of article

Thanks for reviewing my article- "Santacruz ( East ) TPS III & V Mumbai" . Will make appropriate improvements and resubmit it. Vastuvit (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Vastuvit

My proposed article on "The Born-Oppenheimer Time-Dependent Equation for Molecular Systems

Dear Sir:

For some unexplained reasons you or some other members of the Wikipedia decided not to publish my paper, claiming that this subject is already discussed in Wikipedia. There is a basic misunderstanding regarding my contribution and the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation as presented in the Wikipedia. There is no connection whatsoever between the Born-Oppenheimer APPROXIMATION and the material I discuss in my contribution. Not only does my contribution treat the Time-Dependent Approach for Molecular Systems (the Born-Oppenheimer APPROXIMATION is TIME-INDEPENDENT), but in my contribution no approximations are mentioned. Thus, altogether there is no connection whatsoever between the two issues.

I insist you do one of the two following things: Either you permit publishing my contribution as it is (there is no need for additional editing) or you consult a real expert, namely, a physicist specializing in the field of molecular dynamics. If this is not done, your activities cannot be considered appropriate, they would be contrary to integrity, honest and the spirit of the Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration.

Prof. Michael Baer The Fritz Haber Institute for Molecular Dynamics The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baemic (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello Hasteur,

You've reviewed my submission earlier today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/WeWi_Telecommunications,_Inc.

You've rejected it based on notability and I'm not sure I quite understand why. I've added references from very reputable sources (The Daily Mail, Globe and Mail two of the largest papers in the world) and other very reputable sources, all of which have (to the best of my knowledge) verified information. Could you please kindly let me know which parts aren't verifiable so I can correct or remove?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSNR (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Review of AfC Line and Space

Thank you for reviewing the article that I wrote, I would like to continue editing it so it can get published, I just wanted to clarify your comments. You think the "firm profile" section is fine but the other sections need to be edited down to 3 bullet points each, is that right? Thanks for your help on this. Emstarace (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.214.9 (talk)

Emstarace That's correct. Hasteur (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ulysses Owens Jr.

Hi,

This is in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ulysses_Owens

I am new to Wikipedia, and have been trying to get this article up and going for some time now. Do you have any suggestions? I have many citations, all of which are legitimate, and I have included many more references, as this was suggested by multiple reviewers who declined it. Now that I have added these references, I am declined for "clusters of references," which implies that there are too many, and I should only select the top half - what do you mean by that?

Given sometimes very low quality of work found on Wikipedia, it seems it should be easier to get a multiple Grammy winner and member of a famous jazz group covered, I must be doing something very wrong. Any help is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicktgrinder1 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for a New Article

Hi, Hasteur!

I read carefully the reasons for your deleting the page about Nikolov, and the underlying Wikipedia rules, such as "the golden rule".

Well, he is certainly not so notable as a politician or an football player the entire country talks about, but he is very notable as an economist. This fact is, in my opinion, clearly evidenced by the many interviews in the media. I can also place more links but (1) they will be in Bulgarian and (2) then we can approach a point where the article may be perceived as excessively long.

What concerns the independent sources, there may be other Bulgarian economists mentioned on one of the official pages of the National Library of Germany, or the University College Cork, but I have no knowledge of any such case other than Nikolov.

In addition to the above, it is worth noting that the Google search for "Bogdan N. Nikolov" might not have delivered many results, as the inclusion of an abbreviated middle name is highly uncommon in Bulgaria. You can try "Bogdan Nikolov" in Latin letters, or even better in Cyrillic "Богдан Николов" and see the results.

So, is there any way you can reconsider your decision? I mean, when I look at the statement on your page "Either they belong, deserve the benefit of the doubt or are so beyond hope that deletion is the best remedy for them." please don't discourage me to the point of thinking that "deletion is the best remedy" for my article. :)

Best, Martin Georgiev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ted Duncan

Dear Hasteur...I have submitted an article of an important person, my Dad, Theodore Roosevelt "Ted" Duncan who was a famous music arranger (radio and movies) and also a famous inventor (Mattel) I have submitted the article with many sources for the data listed but I can't seem to "edit" in the footnotes into the body of the article and need HELP doing so as I am only marginally computer literate. Any help you could give would be appreciated. Thanks, RogerAnnerogerduncan (talk) 2:53 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Lori Adalle Toye bio

Hi Hasteur.Obviously I am new at creating articles, but I don't understand why this was rejected. For one thing, Lori Toye was a pioneer in her field, creating the first Earth Changes map ever at the time. She has also been widely quoted and interviewed regarding her maps and is the author of many books pertaining to her field of endeavor.

If there is a specific problem, please let me know and I will try my best to comply.

Thank you Craig Howell (mothervine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothervine (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Xsyon Article For Submission

Hello Hasteur,

Regarding the submission of the page that was declined on October 14: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Xsyon

The reason given was: The sites that are not self published are either trivial mentions or short blurbs that do not meet the in depth coverage. Hasteur (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am confused by this declination and would like the article to be reconsidered. Most of the references cited are more than trivial mentions from notable websites for this class of game (MMORPG).

I believe that the following references are not trivial mentions:

Reference 2) http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/514

This is a full section of mmorpg.com dedicated to the game Xsyon. It includes a description of the game and links to 4 long and descriptive editorial articles regarding Xsyon. http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/514/view/reviews/loadReview/138 http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/514/feature/5144 http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/514/feature/5126 http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/514/feature/5110

It includes a News section citing 31 unique news articles written about the game.

Reference 6) http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/514/feature/5013/A-Brave-New-World.html/page/1 This is a full review of the game by a notable source.

Reference 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15) These are short articles, but from notable sources and pertain to notable events for the game.

Reference 16)http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/03/02/choose-my-adventure-destination-apocalypse-now/ This is the first of a series of articles written about adventures in Xsyon by a notable source. The full list of articles is here: http://massively.joystiq.com/tag/choose-my-adventure-xsyon/ Would including the link to the full series help?

Reference 17)http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/04/12/community-detective-issue-20-xsyon/ This is another long editorial article describing adventures in the game.

Reference 18) http://event.mmosite.com/gameprize/?action=gamelist&id=26 This is a notable award from one of the largest MMORPG websites.

In preparing the article I reviewed articles and their references for similar games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wurm_Online https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Online

I have provided more external (not self published) links than these entries, from the same and additional sources and have provided links to articles that match or exceed the depth of the articles references by these two Wikipedia approved entries.

How should I proceed?

I can include more links to unique articles at both mmorpg and massively.com the premiere mmorpg game websites, as well as news articles from many other sites but feel this would be overkill when comparing similar Wikipedia entries. How many more references would be required?

Please reconsider this submission for approval or advise me how to proceed.

Thank you Stormbusta (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)StormBusta

Regarding 'Tent platform'

Dear Hasteur,

simply saying that sources were unreliable and then denying my submission is somewhat cheap. I would very much appreciate explanations. I can only guess what you mean.

I believe that the Guidebook of the USDA Forest service is a reliable source. It covers at least the first section of my article. For the rest I gave examples in the form of pictures and links, which is sufficient proof for my 'claim' that the mentioned variants of tent platforms exist.

The 'tent platform' is one of those lightweight topics that hardly anyone writes citeble papers about, but which it is present in the form of various descriptions and fotos on the web. It is a simple concept that everybody who sees the photos will immediately understand and agree with. It should therefore be included in the Wikipedia.

If you find that my article needs improvement, well, then I suggest that someone else than me should better do that, because I am too much a beginner to Wikipedia and English is not my native language.

Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.254.196 (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)