User talk:Hasteur/Archive 12

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Example

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

IPBE RfC v2

As you commented on WP:IBE RfC Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request, you may wish to also comment on my alternative proposal, WP:IBE RfC Automatically grant IPBE to users by proof of work alone . Sai ¿?✍ 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Spamming?

diff. We can't have people challenging the support !votes ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I am also interested who is behind Special:Contributions/188.215.27.91 ('reference') and Special:Contributions/194.228.32.241 (and a couple more IPs performing these actions). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: If they move my challanges, I'm going to undo citing WP:TPO and warn them directly that if they do it again I'm going directly to AN. My bullshit tollerance threshold is already gone today. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If yours stay, I am going to move mine back next week as well (oh the joy, my weekend starts now). Maybe I will even do it now.

The noindexer is active, but now discussing (yes, I really think it is Rotlink, and if Rotlink is not the owner, it may not be Rotlink but the owner). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: What I would do is copy your objections to suporters back to their original locations and collapse the portion that CFCF has put below. You get the "Revert" and at the same time not commit a WP:TPO violation yourself. I am a hairs breadth from filing a RFPP Semi (to the end of the RFC on the main and talk pages for this since the IP hopper can't stay put (and I would note that IP hopping was a symptom of the RotlinkBot/Archive.is botswarm). Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it is him. Gaming the system. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be advised that this does not violate WP:TPO — the vote section is simply intended for votes — as explained in the background section. The Oppose-section should similarly be parsed out to a new discussion section, but I will not do this because Beetstra chose to vote twice in different comments. It isn't about not allowing challenging comments, but about keeping discussion at one place so that we don't scare away new editors. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 18:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please show exactly what part of TPO it violates, because you're stragith out of line. Hope you like ANI drama because you did it again. I've marked it as Vandalism and will now proceed to ANI. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There is an explicit instruction on how to comment, and I merely proceeded as per WP:TPO: Off-topic posts — moving them to a section where they were better suited. There is nothing to be gained in the RfC by simultaneously discussing things in 3-4 different places! Carl Fredik 💌 📧 18:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request on arbitration decision against Rodhullandemu

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Rodhullandemu and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In response to the HasteurBot on Draft:Granatanine concern. I think there exist encyclopedic notability

I created the 2 draft-pages, on Granatane (User:RIT RAJARSHI/Granatane) and Granatanine (Draft:Granatanine). ( Originally I attempted to create the pages because I did not knew how-to request an article) .

Though the created-draft-pages failed at review (because I could provide so-little informations). But still, I think, there is encyclopedic notability of these 2 topics. Because... the terms, Granatane and Granatanine, are often-used in the field of Alkaloids (Some alkaloids, allied to tropane, such as pseudopelletierine contains them in backbone), natural-products organic-chemistry, drug-action, Ligand-receptor interaction ( such as Sigma-2_receptor#Ligands ) etc.

But when I started search web on the main, backbone compound (and nomenclatural origin) compounds 9-azabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane (Granatanine) , and 9-methyl-9-azabicyclo[3.3.1]nonan-3-amine (Granatane), I could not found useful informations throughout web ( so I tried to request the article and attempted to create the drafts).

I'm frightened to re-submit the article because I have very little information. But these topics should be further reviewed , so-that experts who know more about these 2 topics, could contribute, and the future will be benefited.

• The issue has been discussed also on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#11:01:10.2C_17_June_2016_review_of_submission_by_RIT_RAJARSHI.

Thanks.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

References

G13 question

Could I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_with_clearing_out_G13_nominations?

In addition to this editor, there are some other editors who "help" out by nominating G13s, and often do it wrong. If you are comfortable that the bot is keeping up with the backlog, I'd like to put together a nicely worded note for these editors to suggest that they should not nominate G13s, as that will be taken care of.

I have noticed some nominations by your bot, but most have been by human editors. One possibility is that the bot is not nominating many because of the throttling, and if human editors stopped, the bot would do them all. However, it occurred to me that if the creation of G13 eligible is exceeding the throttle limit, then maybe humans are nominating because they see the backlog growing. Is it proper for me to look at Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and conclude that the backlog is quite reasonable, and therefore we should discourage human editors from nominating at all?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hasteur. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Draft:Leader-1.
Message added 03:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see my comments on the draft for Leader-1. I am happy to help, if I can. CaroleHenson (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson That was an incredibly less than brilliant action... How are editors supposed to get content that has been in mainspace for several years (and the "See main article XXX"). I strongly suggest you UNDO that action immediately and let the Merge discussion take place. Hasteur (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thought I'd post a thought here rather than Talk:Pantheon-Assas University

I just thought I'd leave a small explanatory note of my personal position regarding Launebee's use of "libel". I am under the strong impression that Launebee's native tongue is French and not English. As somebody who speaks more than one language myself I'm aware that certain words when translated from one language to another also undergo some change in meaning (or perception of meaning). A good example of a language dispute I came across was involving the French use of the word competent. The tl;dr version of it is that competent in French has a wider meaning than in English. Case in point, the Ministere Public has "competence" in dealing with terrorism. In this case what was meant was "is responsible for" rather than "has the skills to deal with". I don't speak French so can't comment on how the word for "libel" is perceived by the French. That said, you're pointing Launebee in the right direction regarding stopping their use of the word "libel". I assume any further incursion will result in you pursuing an NLT block. I may have held a mis-impression regarding your initial warning about "libel" and admit that I thought you were coming down stronger than necessary. I am, however, noting that Launebee does have a tendency to use inflammatory language in disputes and perhaps your stern warning will discourage them from pursuing it further. Thanks for your comments. Long explanatory note I'm afraid. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Hasteur: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

A comment

Hi. Sorry for replying here but otherwise the main discussion will become unreadable. My questions:

• Was it a mistake to have a bot to remove Persondata from 2 millions pages? Persondata was not providing any info and was not visible. So the Persondata code in the wikicode was just doing nothing. From the perspective, removing it was useless.
• Is is a mistake that bots and editors remove duplicated parameters from templates? Template work fine even with these parameters.
• Should a bot task of adding tracking categories to pages be ever accepted?

-- Magioladitis (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment related to BAG. It is very close to my opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You may also want to check User_talk:Ladsgroup#Latest_Dexbot_changes... where a group of editors decided to ask a bot owner to only change the wikicode appearance. -- Magioladitis (talk) @Magioladitis:

• If I recall correctly Persondata was a microcode format that extracted vital details about a Biographical subject to something that could easily be read by a machine. Based on that assumption the Deprecation of persondata (and it's template removal) is perfetly justified because it was explicitly endorsed as a change by the community.
• There's a fine line between a bot removing a duplicate parameter from a temple at the request (WP:BOTREQ) of the community (or some subset thereof that uses the template) and the bot(operator) deciding of it's own volition to rip out the parameter based on some opaque decision process.
• Yes, adding tracking categories is a accepted practice (to help editors corral pages of interest).
• I see the Ladsgroup discussion and I am saddened at how a editor that provided a useful improvement to the system was hounded off wikipedia by one editor screaming about rigid adherance to the rules. There are two ways this could have been resolved. First was to have Doc James make a pro-forma request at BOTREQ asking for this functionality, followed by Ladsgroup going to BAG seeking approval for these changes. The second would be to have the same "triggered" mentality, but similar to reFill return the user to the edit preview so that the triggering editor is the one that is on the hook for the cosmetic changes and making it firmly clear who triggered the change. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. So, for a direct question: Changes that do no affect the visual outcome can be acceptable if the community, by consensus via some transparent process decide it. Right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know that Anomie said that your comment is inaccurate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:DRN clerk bot

Would you support a request for making the interval shorter from 30 minutes? Ideally 5 minutes, but Perhaps 10 or 15 minutes? The reason why I ask is that the workload doesn't appear to be that large for each "run" that the bot goes through. Thanks again for making the bot. --JustBerry (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Is there a reason why you feel need such a short run time? The Template is only supposed to be a digest at a single time. If a discussion is proceeding rapidly we'd go from a maximum of 2 updates per hour to 12 updates in one hour (in your "ideal" case). As this is enumerated in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DRN_clerk_bot as the update time, I'm exceedingly hessitant to change it especially in light of other actions hapening around the wiki with respect to bots. I suggest you seek consensus for this change among the users of this template at WT:DRN. FYI: Senior DRN volunteers (TransporterMan—Robert McClenon). Hasteur (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no discussion of you changing it. This is a discussion of would you support a request to change it. After asking what you thought--the bot creator--I was going to reach out to Transporter and Robert on the DRN talk page anyway. --JustBerry (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, it's as simple as changing the "scheduled run" of the bot script, practically trivial to do. If we were so inclined we could run it once every minute, at absurdist speed. Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I realize. There are times when multiple volunteers and editors have edited a case within 30 minutes. That's why I thought I might suggest 10-15 minutes. Is that unreasonable? Or, do you simply think reducing the interval at all is still unneeded? --JustBerry (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: It's not a critical change per say. It's a matter of consensus/project preference (as long as the frequency is reasonable). --JustBerry (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll reply once more, but I personally think updating the Case scorecard more frequently than 30 minutes is excessive. If someone wants updates more fresh than 30 minutes, then they should have the page on their watchlist. At the and of the day, the bot is there to service the needs of the community. Hasteur (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:JustBerry, User:Hasteur - I don't see it as essential to keep the summary consistent with the activity even every 30 minutes. I personally think that once an hour is good enough. Maybe JustBerry can explain why they want to speed up the bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Looks like the discussion is heading unfavorable towards shortening the interval. Thanks for considering. --JustBerry (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This is one of these cases where I feel that I must have missed something. When a reasonable editor proposes an idea that seems just silly, I wonder whether I have missed something. What was the reason for asking to speed up the bot, or was it just a random idea? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Was the idea that unreasonable? I mentioned the reasoning above. 30 minutes is fine, 15 minutes might keep things more current, e.g. when a volunteer fixes a case title because the bot had trouble parsing a link in the section title, etc. However, there's clearly no dire need for it. --JustBerry (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I am willing to drop this conversation all together if others no longer wish to pursue this change. Thanks again. --JustBerry (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@JustBerry: We're just trying to understand why the change is being suggested (i.e. When did the bot not updating more frequently cause a problem?) Hasteur (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There's really no problem as much as a perceived convenience for volunteers and involved parties to see a more frequently-updated case status. --JustBerry (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The truth is that I've never used the status form much. I just scan through the cases and see if something needs attention. Once a volunteer takes one, I don't pay much attention to it at all. I have no opposition to making it run more often, but neither do I personally feel a need for it to do so. I do see an issue with it running too often, just for strain on the system concern and possible issues with crashes (neither of which may be a genuine concern, since I'm not strong in systems or coding). So I guess I land on the side of being vaguely concerned to neutral. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes.

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive case notifications for this case you can remove yourself from the notifications list here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call

This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.

DRN Newsletter 1

You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the The dispute Resolution noticeboard. To stop receiving messages in the future, remove your name from The volunteer list.
Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

B4 clarification

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom question

The last sentence at your ArbComm post is unclear to me. What type of ban? No need to discuss, just suggesting you clarify your post. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: See my response to Softlavender where I clarify that I mean a non-indefinite site ban and how I'm being very precise with what I'm asking for. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be offline a lot more for a few weeks. Thanks for your help on several fronts. . Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned Mad7744 Draftspace cleanup

An admin speedied the articles you group MfD'd. Good job. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I'll start working the 2015 batches later today (for me) Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

see the thread in AN. Don't think you need to. Just find someone with the right tools. I'm traveling so my editings gonna drop off for a bit. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

WCW Ding Dongs

Your comment previously was that most of the references were to historyofwwe.com, and that they were in "this matchup". Respectfully I would respond with two points:

1) My proposed article has no less than thirty-four different references, including one (albeit brief) by The New York Times. I've looked at other enhancement talent who have wikipedia pages and Jim Powers(24 references), Dusty Wolfe(6 references), George South(7), Mike Sharpe(4), Mario Mancini(6 references), and Sal Bellomo(5 references) all have far less. I looked up a random favorite Miami Dolphins football player from my childhood, Mark Higgs. He has just seven references. In the draft that I am proposing, these also include seven book references. I'm not certain how many more references that I need?

2) Regarding Historyofthewwe, I've limited the usage in the article. It's only there to provide some fleshing out of their key match history. That said, I'm not certain why historyofwwe.com would be considered a "fan site" whereas similar match aggregate sites like cagematch.net or www.profightdb.com would not be. The site's creator has published the results in print - The History of Professional Wrestling: World Championship Wrestling 1989-1994 (Volume 4). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2014. ISBN 978-1499656343. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help). I've never seen the veracity of the site or of his books challenged. I can use the other two and will if necessary - I'm just not certain if there would be a similar challenge to either.

So my question is simply, what do I need to do to get this finished? Since I submitted in early June I've shortened the article, added two more book references, and one more online reference. Any help would be appreciated! Marino73 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marino73: In summary your both argument are covered under Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and is a demonstration of the weakness of your argument. Don't do that. I strongly suggest you go talk to WP:TEAHOUSE to get the requisite training and help. Hasteur (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore the fact that it is written down does not help in this case as it's clearly labeled (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Program) as Self Publishing content (see WP:RSSELF) which gets thrown out again. I say again, barring established news organizations (such as ESPN, CNN, ...) bringing the creator on as a source, there's no way to determine how reliable the person is and therefore doesn't move above a Fan site. Hasteur (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 6, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

About your edit summary

About your edit summary, which reads partly: "Do not restore non-redirect until you can give this more attention". Who gave you the right to make such a demand? The draft namespace isn't your backyard. -- Taku (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:UP I request that you stay away permanently from my talk page because you have demonstrated personalizing the issue, WP:OWNership of articles which are not yours to own, and a constant failure to use the Draft space for it's intended purpose. If you want to retain the content, keep it in your user space or move it to the articles themselves. Arguing that Toroidal embedding is different than Toric variety is being tendentious and rude. Hasteur (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot

Thank-you for bringing the bot back to life! Something broke free and over 600 G13 eligible pages showed up (I was finding them in declined categories). Some are 2 years stale. Can/will your bot batch nominate them? Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

They will be nominated for G13 1 month after the bot notified the users to give them an opportunity to potentially come back and make a change. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot for the "Nominating" side of the process. Also pop in to WT:WPAFC if you want more details. Hasteur (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

DRN bot issue

Hello I am a volunteer at DRN, and I am included in the relevant list. However the bot fails to recognize me as one. Do you know why is it?? --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: Bot did exactly what it was supposed to in terms of following the template for "added" users. I've corrected your entry on the list and invite you and other volunteers to be careful when adding yourselves. Hasteur (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops sorry. I had never noticed it. Thank you! --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there,

I'm letting you know I have reverted some of your vandalism in the draftspace; i.e., a undiscussed and unwarranted removal of the content. Please refrain some further disstruction. You're welcome to develop the content or merge them into the mainspace articles (but I don't think just redirecting them achieves anything.) -- Taku (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: That is not vandalism. You are now being disruptive for WP:OWN reasona and will be reported to WP:AN. Hasteur (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Truthiness sources"

Your comment about "Truthiness sources" makes it sound like there is something wrong with some source I posted, which is misleading in a discussion seeking a topic ban for political articles. Could you please strike it and consider another turn of phrase for whatever it is you were trying to say ? ~ ~ ~ ~ Factchecker_atyourservice 03:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I said exactly what I intended. your reality distortion field is simply working overtime and supplying you plenty of alternative facts. Hasteur (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Do you really think The New York Times is an "alternative facts" source? Factchecker_atyourservice 01:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you think your presentation is anything but a demonstration of a "alternative facts" delusion? I'm done debating you. Clearly the satire is so far tongue in cheek that you've rolled over and come around the other side. Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not "debating" me, you're just making barely intelligible yet intentionally hostile comments. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richardson mothership.jpg

Hi, thanks for your message on Commons. Yes, if you were able to visit the site and to photograph the building yourself there shouldn't be any problem, as you would then be the owner of the copyright in your own image. Although the architect will have copyright in the design of the building itself, the US has freedom of panorama which means that you are allowed to photograph the building without worrying about anybody else's copyright. It would be a useful thing to do, as there don't seem to be many photographs of it online. I found another one here (image towards the bottom of the page) but it's not free to use. If you'd like me to check the licensing and tagging of the photograph you eventually take, do feel free to leave me a note. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:LexiBoling

I never said wikipedia was a indefinite draft storage space or whatever the hell. If you simply type in Lexi Boling in the search Wikipedia bar, you will see the page has already been created by someone else. So there is no need to continue to edit the draft I started. The problem is, that other user uses the exact same sources I used... but my draft was rejected and they were approved. So if someone wants to delete it they can go right ahead. Peace.Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: My bot simply was reminding you that your page had become eligible for G13. Based on your above statement I've taken the bold action of redirecting your effort to that page. If there's something that's missing, feel free to add it to the mainspace page. Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice?

May I make some unsolicited advice? I understand that Taku has a lot of crummy draft pages sitting around, and I am sympathetic to the idea that these should not just sit around forever ignored. (I think I voted in favor of deleting one of them.) And I also have been able to observe his argumentative behavior in a few places and what makes it so annoying. But it also looks to me like you're making this into something personal. Your goal is presumably to build a consensus around dealing with Taku's drafts in one way or another (probably, some should be deleted or moved back into a user page, some should be polished a bit and made into articles, and some should remain as drafts), but I think that the ferocity with which you are engaging undermines this goal. This edit, for example, does not serve any constructive purpose -- it just reads like venting. I would suggest trying to exercise more restraint as far as engaging with him is concerned -- I think it will be better for arriving at a desirable consensus. Again, just my unsolicited two cents. Best, JBL (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: I'll hold back from direct replies to Taku, it's just driving me up and down the walls that he invests numerous times the amount of bytes defending these turdbuckets as actually doing something about them. I repeat here, if Taku even made one single change to the pages to get them off the "Draft namespace, not in AFC, 6 months unedited" list I stop focusing on his creations. I am trying to sort out the entirety of the pages that meet those criteria (from User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report). Personally I'd love to see Taku commit to putting his drafts irrevocably into AFC (i.e. take the AFC submission banner off after they got rejected) to allow an independent set of eyes evaluate if the page is ready for mainspace and to provide feedback as to what needs to be improved. This has the side benefit of if they continue to leave the Draft to be unedited after it's been reviewed, CSD:G13 applies at 6 months and pages get reminded about at 5 months unedited. Hasteur (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the annoyance mentioned in your first sentence is completely understandable -- it's a shame that he's clinging to the obviously useless pages so hard. Best of luck with your project! --JBL (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a bot guy so thanks for the explanation on CSD talk. Too bad we can't automate the nominations, but eventually the bottom of the pile will be found. Taku requested REFUND on 5 or 6 G13 deleted and then the admin detagged another 5 or so. At least they are off the stale list for a while. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Most people take their religion a lot less seriously than Taku takes his junk pages. The fight is an absurd waste of time. How about we just disengage and close ANi and all other discussion. We G13 as we find them and let him request refunds or remove the tags. At least the list will be clear for a while. His pages will pop up in 6 months unedited and we can seek deletion more firmly then. This drama makes us look bad and distracts from the effort to empty the backlog. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

G13 declines

Hey just curious, what's your rationale for declining the G13s for Draft:Genus (film), Draft:Norco (film) and Draft:Shadow Run (film)? They were created and abandoned in June 2015 and the only subsequent edit was Legacypac's MfD nomination (which I think would qualify as "maintenance action such as tagging") so I would have thought they would have qualified? No shade, I just came across them via MfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

He takes a narrower view of unedited than I believe is warranted by the criteria. Also, my CSD noms were just after the close and update to reflect G13 expansion, when I went through and CSD'd a bunch of recent MfD noms. I'm not sure if he was aware of the close yet. I figured it was not worth fighting over and an MfD close was more solid than a G13 refundable close. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: See Legacypac's argument. In the grand scheme of things it's six of one, half dozen of the other. If voters at the MFD advocate for G13, then I'm happy for it, but that's because I think a MFD nomination is an editor change and not the finessed "no edits unless it's a trivial". A MFD has a firmer consensus (from multiple editors having participated in it) than a single editor and admin participating in a CSD. Hasteur (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I was just curious if that was the view you were taking. Thanks for replying so quickly :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Bot messages regarding G13

I just ran across one of your bot's terse G13 notices (on DGG's talk page) and it struck me as perhaps being unsuitable for notifying the less involved editors to whom it may be addressed. After doing some more research, I see that the bot takes the trouble to deliver different messages for different kinds of users. I'm very impressed! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The terse notices are for people who have opted in at User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications for notifications that a page they have interacted with in the past for AFC is soon to be G13 eligible so that people can choose to try and save a page. Hasteur (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

MfD

MfD was specifically cited in the closure at [1], so some of my MfD/Taku comments are now obsolete. Time permitting I will review and strike/update as appropriate. If there are any specific discussions in which you would like to see an update from me, please feel free to ping me to them and I will prioritize. VQuakr (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Bot nominations?

Will your bot nominate all these? [2] Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

All of a sudden almost 3000 pages piled up [3] will your bot get them all or should I keep reviewing them manually? Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to. I'll take a look at the bot, but it's going to be after the weekend. Hasteur (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac So, turns out I wasn't scanning the Category:AfC submissions by date/2017 subcategories for early notice (5 months unedited). I've enabled up through September 2017 so more will start getting notified on. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Taku topic ban proposal

I don't think you'll mind, but I wanted to explicitly note that I was unusually bold and expanded the initial evidence.[4] If there's any objection you can certainly revert. Alsee (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: I was trying to let AN readers be astonished/flabergasted by Taku's previous misbehavior by only linking to the section in which they were indef blocked for the personal attack rather than put it out in the open on AN. Kind of a "jack in the box" suprise when Taku's own words more quickly indict him than anything I could write. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, I'm not sure I follow. It was at least two links away and I don't think people saw it until I put it out there. I very nearly missed it. Alsee (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's better spelled out. People vote like lemmings and don't click all the links. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call

This volunteer roll call is sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at dispute resolution noticeboard. If you are still interested in assisting at DRN and are willing to do so by either handling at least one case per month, or by helping at administrative and coordination tasks on monthly (at least) basis, please add your username here. Volunteers who do not add their username on the roll call list will be removed from the volunteers list after November 15, 2017 unless it is chosen to have them retained for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. In case you are removed from the volunteers list, you may re-add your username at any time. However please do so only if you can and are willing to participate as described above.
Either ways, I would like to thank you for your participation and assistance at DRN so far, and wish that you will continue contributing to the encyclopedia and assisting when available.
The DRN coordinator, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN clerk bot

Hey Hasteur, any idea why the bot removed a listed discussion from the table while it is on the DRN board? Nihlus 05:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: I'm currently at work so I don't have full control right now. I see that the discussion has already closed. Do you still want me to investigate this? Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not super important so don't go out of your way, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't malfunctioning. Nihlus 15:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Hasteur:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

ArbCom Cases

I agree that it is never a bad idea to improve the instructions on the odd chance that it might avoid someone making a stupid mistake. However, surveying the filers who filed stupid cases is not likely to be useful, and is what I was saying would be trying to prevent things that could not possibly go wrong but went wrong anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon And what I was trying to imply is that it seems like there has been an uptick in editors jumping to filing ArbCom cases as their first recourse in dispute resolution. If we took the time to figure out why they are using ArbCom first, it'll potentially reduce the number of these trivial requests and time that Arbitrators have to spend on these and get the arbitrators to finishing their existsing caseload. Hasteur (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hasteur. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

16:42:09, 2 February 2018 review of submission by Stas`

• Stas` (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pro:Atria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hasteur thank you for reviewing the draft. I will try to answer the questions you left. The article was submitted to allow changes and updates to a list of articles that already include references to the topics I cover in the draft. The list is available under the see also section.

In regards to the general tone of the article, as I mentioned previously, this is my first contribution and I'm still learning about all this. As a result, I removed all the content from the draft that is not backed-up by references. I hope it is better now.

To answer your question about the implementation. The alternatives you mentioned are not Managed File Transfer solutions. An MFT solution provides both, the client and the server side, along with scripting/automation support. It's important to mention the following special differences:

• OS support (AIX/HPUX/Solaris).
• Multi protocol, including WebDAV. FTPS authentication does not provide x509 mutual authentication.
• HTTP API (for authentication/authorization/accounting).
• Low memory footprint, even with many connections.
• Single process (no threads) Python + Twisted based (we might want an article in which we describe out library/software stack).
• Available for ARMv7 and ARMv8 CPUs on Linux.

I tried sending edits to the relevant articles, but those would get rejected due to the lack of an approved article. That's the main reason I submitted the draft. Please let me know if other changes are required for the draft to be approved. Thanks in advace. Stas` (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Level structure

I have started the thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Draft:Level_structure. -- Taku (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag

Hi, Hasteur.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Hasteurbot's automatic notification concerning Draft:John Raley

Hasteur,

First of all, your bot is pretty dope! Just wanted to let you know that I have edited that page a fair amount since it was rejected in October and have resubmitted it for creation as a wikipedia aritcle. Unsure exactly how this whole process works in terms of draft deletion, but if you could let the powers that be know that that isn't a dead draft article yet, and to please refrain from deleting this draft until it is reviewed again (edit: or direct me where I might go to let those power know), I'd be very grateful!

Thanks, Rejewskifan (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rejewskifan: Hello there. Thanks for the praise regarding the bot. Because you've made changes to the draft the 6 month timer that my bot gave you the reminder on has been reset. As long as you keep improving and re-submitting the work, it won't be put up for deletion under the "Stale Drafts" criterion. Hasteur (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hasteur: gotcha, sounds good, thanks for the quick reply!Rejewskifan (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to say another quick thanks on the speedy reply regarding this again, got the draft reviewed and accepted, and the notification from your bot definitely got my butt in gear to get the article in a better state than it was. --Rejewskifan (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Promising draft

I propose that drafts tagged with {{Promising draft}} be no longer nominated for CSD G13 by the bot. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Jjjjjjdddddd: Since you seem to only raised this on my talk page I'm inspired by the words of Hector Barbosa. "I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means No". First The bot only works on drafts that are tagged with the AFC submission banner, second it only does nominations of pages that meet the Stale, third the Promising Draft is only a request without any policy force. Until there's a firm consensus to prevent G13 from being enacted on Promising drafts, I personally am not going to implement this exception. Hasteur (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If drafts tagged with {{promising draft}} are still regularly speedily deleted, the template is pointless. If the template does not represent consensus, the template should be deleted. On a side note, {{promising draft}} is similar to {{keep local}}. @SmokeyJoe: At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 1#Template:Promising draft, you alluded that this template was well discussed in preparation. Can you link to some of those discussions?; maybe we can all agree if there is a consensus for the template or not. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I found this: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts. ... Pages where the template has been applied should go to [miscellany for deletion] instead of being deleted [per] G13 ... — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a little surprised at Hasteur's strength of opinion that this is a very bad idea, I had not yet much advanced my thinking on it, and am not inclined to argue against him. If he would like to say why it is a bad idea, I'm interested. I could start suggesting some reasons. The complexity of the task to modify HasteurBot? The possible breaking of his Bots function by changes in the template not under his control? In favour, I believe that if any experienced editor in good standing opposes deletion of any page with good faith and good reason, then that page should not be speedied, because speedy deletion is for uncontestable deletions.

The main purpose of {{promising draft}} is to highlight drafts that reviewers think hold promise, for other editors to find and work on. This is the positive opposite side to the job of reviewing drafts for things needing deletion. Godsy, did I was "well discussed"? Perhaps "oft discussed" would be a better word choice, I think there was never a specific location for the discussions, and that its creation was never formally discussed. On day I discovered by chance that it had been created. Created by Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) 22:49, 4 August 2017. I see consensus support for the creation at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_66#Template_for_promising_drafts. I think that discussion was good enough.

My idea was not so much that it would protect forever a draft from G13, but that it would ‎be used to advertise these promising drafts to editors who may like to work on them. There has been little progress on implementing this. I think we need the tag to autocategorise, and to advertise the category.

The tagging protects the draft for another 6 months. Should it protect it from G13 indefinitely? Maybe no, if no identified editor actually can find the time and energy to improve the draft.

An alternative way to protect the draft indefinitely for the interested editor to userfy it and remove the AfC templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm surprised this hasn't been implemented yet: otherwise, the template (which was recently kept at TfD) becomes virtually pointless. G13, like other speedy deletion criteria, is for uncontroversial deletion: the moment someone says the draft shouldn't be deleted then it isn't uncontroversial anymore and proceeding to tag it regardless will go squarely against the basic principles of the community. The only question is whether the exemption should be handled by a change in the bot, or – if implementing such a change proves to be considerably difficult – by modifications to the way the template is used. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• My intention as the closer of that discussion was that adding the promising draft template should protect the page from G13 deletion indefinitely. I will echo the request to Hasteur: If it is technically practical to implement a fix wherein your bot does not nominate pages with the promising draft template, please do so. Reasonable requests to change the template to make the implementation easier should be accommodated.

Speaking as an ordinary editor, the idea that adding he promising draft template should auto-categorize drafts is a good one. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I've poked the hornet's nest. The Template "requests" that people not nominate for G13, much like keep local requests that it not be sent to commons. There is no policy force behind it. The Bot and G13 are 100% uncontraversial. The page has not been edited in 6 months, with the author being notified at 5 months stale that their page is in danger of being nominated for G13. There's no grey space. The template only kicks the can down the road 6 months to the next eligibility date. However if you all want an exception, then the bot will procedurally nominate for MFD under "Would have been CSD:G13, but page has non-policy Promising draft on it" and summon each one of you who feel this template is in the right to defend the page at MFD. I'll give you a hint, for the amount of pages that both have the AFC submission banner and the "promising draft" typically have significant problems to the point that the Promising draft usage should be questioned. A prime example being Draft:Norris Babiera. I would bet after a few months a new consensus will come into being stating that the promising draft has no policy force in excluding G13 and that it is only a request. Hasteur (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The Template:Promising Draft has no policy behind it - it was something dreamt up during G13 expansion. It also went through a series of wording changes so what it said the moment it was applied is hard to tell for any given draft. It has been applied almost willy nilly against not many drafts by a handful of editors that appear to have no interest in actually moving the pages to mainspace. After an initial serge of activity interest in digging for promosing drafts faded away just as I predicted. I ran some of the first bunch of these "promising drafts" through MfD and found that the template appliers were not willing to defend them. Therefore precedent is established that these pages can be deleted G13 by the bot. When the template use drops to zero in a few months we can scrap it. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Insulating these pages from deletion permanently is a dumb idea. I've been working through the list from time to time and finding a lot are a less than promising. Some simply cover existing topics. Others are long abandoned and would be better with TNT. Some will never survive MfD. If a single editor can place this templaate without discussion another single editor can remove it, resettling the six month clock but leaving it open from G13 again. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rice University Department of Bioengineering

Your removal of {{promising draft}} from Draft:Rice University Department of Bioengineering is based on your opinion (i.e. "promising draft is not valid here") while my restoration is based on the evaluation of community consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts. My opinion in addition to that is that "the content of a page, not just the page itself, may be promising." I would suggest that you take a look at WP:BRD (if you are unfamiliar with it), which is an explanatory supplement that details a good method of avoiding edit wars. The only way I am comfortable with the template being removed is if Calliopejen1, the contributor who placed the it, gives their consent. Bar that, I'll be restoring the template in a few days, unless community consensus has been established against (or the close is overturned) this discussion. That aside, I would have no objection if you redirect the page to either George R. Brown School of Engineering or Rice University. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Rust_en_Vreugd_(Capetown)

Hi, Thanks for the heads up.

So Nothing to add to it from my side. I've moved it to main wikipedia. If within the 14 days you aren't inclined to add anything to the article to improve it, but only wish to delete it, you may go ahead.

At least I did my part. I started the article. If all you could think of upon seeing it, and your first point of action is to countdown to delete, instead of see ways to improve it, then so be it.

Nkansahrexford (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:History of Thailand since 2001

As a thoroughly involved editor, you should not have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:History of Thailand since 2001. Please revert your closure promptly. It is clear that the author's statement was made out of frustration, and in any case this page, like all pages here, is the communitiy's, not an individual author's, and once the question has arisen, the community should decide what happens to it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Author requested it, so that resolves the problem. Kindly go away. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur with DESiegel, "just move it under my user page if you must" is not necessarily a userfication request especially because of the vast amount of keep !votes. Please revert the close and move or I will likely be taking this to deletion review. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Very well, I will open a deletion review. See you there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hasteur, in your comments and edit summaries in this MfD discussion, you've ended up insulting almost every editor who disagreed with you. I can understand how annoying it is when a lot of people seem to fail to get one's point, but when you express your annoyance like that, the end result is – and I'm sure that wasn't your intention – the appearance that you see your "opponents" as imbeciles. This creates a pretty horrible editing environment. – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but the opponents are incompetent imbiciles. WP:SPADE. Hasteur (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind making HasteurBot's code available so someone else can take over?

While I respect your right to retire, would you mind making that bot's code available for the next generation to take over and carry on the work? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Conditions I will rescind my retirement

1. Calliopejen1 hands in administrator privileges under a cloud and stands for a new RfA due to repeated and significant failures in good sense and conduct unbecomming an admin.
2. Espresso Addict is sanctioned for repeated failures of common sense and conduct unbecomming an admin.
3. That the promising draft be rightfully as only a "request" in the same sense of postponing G13 deletion and is not enacted as a permanant immunication against G13.

I'm soft on points one and two, but point three is a non-starter. If you want to save a draft, make the conditions of G13 This applies to any pages in the draft namespace, as well as any rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages with the {{AFC submission}} template in userspace, that have not been edited (excluding bot edits and maintenance actions such as tagging) in over six months invalid. Drive by tagging without doing anything about it crapifies up Draft namespace. Hasteur (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Re #3. I am still leaning to Wikipedia:WikiProject Promising Drafts as a location for hosting promising drafts that should not be auto-deleted. I think the moving of a draft to that WikiProject would have to be according to some clear simple rules, such as: (a) the page mover is a WikiProject member and experienced Wikipedian; (b) the page mover posts two clear statements to the draft talk page (i) Why the draft is promising; and (ii) why the draft is currently not suitable for mainspace.
  This WikiProject could work, as a repository of high value drafts that are attractive to editors to browse for something to work on, and as long as it doesn't become swamped with anything hopeless in any way.
  Mostly Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts has serve a role in cleaning the vast swathes of cruft drafts. This is to be a better focus, taking out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts#New_articles_to_be_adopted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts is a venue for cleaners. Wikipedia:WikiProject Promising Drafts is to be a venue for rescuers.
  I am thinking to return to this idea maybe after a month after Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Request_for_comment:_Promising_drafts is closed, but will read any comments directed to the idea. I like having ideas, but don't claim them to be necessarily viable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• It seems you got your wish on point #3. The RFC consensus was quite strong that a "promising draft" template cannot postpone a G13 deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

Hi.
We've never interacted before, but I saw your bot was blocked, and came here to look for answer; but saw that you've retired. I hope you come back someday. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 22:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Point #1 is a bit strong but clearly they have royally screwed up and are out of touch with policy and common sense. Education underway and if the nonsense continues they can be dealt with.

Point #2 I've not seen anything too unreasonable but maybe I missed something

Point #3 is bang on, but the wind is shifting as more reasonable editors realize what kind of scam a few editors are trying to pull to defeat G13 and the Wiki Way.

I'd sure welcome you back as one of the key people in draft space management. Legacypac (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Saw your comment on the CSD page and am glad to see you still here. Hoping you stick around. It'd be a shame to lose you over this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm still gone, but god-damm! Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point in the middle of a already heated debate should be grounds for heavy sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Honest to fuck I think my eyes bugged out. If the edits had been done today, I'd have blocked them for disruption instead of commenting, but they were a couple days ago and they haven't done any more "experiments" since then so it'd be a bit stale to block for. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarification?

Glad to see you're back. What are the facts that I can't get straight here? Sorry if it's something obvious I've missed, it's really late now and my brain might have gone on standby. – Uanfala (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Welcome back! The editor whose username is Z0 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:GoRuck has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:GoRuck. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GoRuck (November 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by K.e.coffman were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GoRuck and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:GoRuck, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Hasteur! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)