Open main menu

User talk:Hasteur

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

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 retirementEdit

  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)

  • 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 goEdit

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?Edit

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 commentEdit

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)Edit

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.
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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Hasteur. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:GoRuck has a new commentEdit

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:GoRuck. Thanks! Hasteur (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GoRuck (December 12)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HighKing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.
HighKing++ 16:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GoRuck has been acceptedEdit

GoRuck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


GORUCKEdit

Hi Hasteur I think I have put my foot in it. Sorry. Do you want to give you a hand to fix your article? I'll can possibly find good references. scope_creepTalk 13:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of GoRuck for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GoRuck is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoRuck until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HighKing++ 16:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributorEdit

Please remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA, e.g. at [1][2] and [3]. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Don't be a twat and you won't have that problem. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Relationship to GoRuckEdit

Someone pointed out that you once said you were "asked by the company" (GoRuck) to help develop an article about them on Wikipedia "so that we could potentially move to mainspace" and acknowledged that "there is a COI". Did that asking involve some potential form of payment? Do you have some close relationship with the company, or was this just in some arms-length casual email conversation? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: I was not paid for the editing. This was an arms length "Could you work on this please" type conversation. That is why I put it through AFC. Hasteur (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I have made a couple of adjustments of Talk:GoRuck to clarify the situation. Based on what you said, I wouldn't even consider that something that needed mentioning. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

  Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherency (homotopy theory). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Specifically, calling my comments "kibbitzing" is inappropriate (I'm as free as anyone else to participate in AfD discussions), as is accusing me of trying to "modify your intent". If you think I misunderstood something that you said, then please point that out, but comment on content, not contributors.Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Abdel Aziz MahmoudEdit

I reverted your review of Draft:Abdel Aziz Mahmoud, since the draft is clearly in English, not Danish.--Auric talk 22:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see you didn't read and see the danish quote that was CV. Fine. G11 it goes. Hasteur (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
A quotation in another language doesn't count as "draft in another language."--Auric talk 10:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!Edit

  For pitching in on Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. -- Worldbruce (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Revive HasteurBot?Edit

Since you are back, can you revive HasteurBot, specifically the task that sends pre-G13 notifications, and does G13 taggings? Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14. Feel free to go and support Hasteur (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of old HTML TagsEdit

Hello! I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I tweaked your comment at WP:AN per WP:LINT. Specifically, I removed <strike>...</strike> because it's an obsolete HTML tag, and used <s>...</s> to replace it. Obsolete HTML tags run the risk of creating readability issues in the near future when old HTML tags get retired from MediaWiki, so editors are trying to fix formatting issues whenever possible. Cheers! OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

HasteurbotEdit

Hi,

Apologies I've not done this earlier. I've now unblocked your bot. Good luck with the BRFA :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

DRN Clerk BotEdit

The clerk hasn't been updating case status for 48 hours. It may be stuck (maybe on a misformatted case?) Can you check on it? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I gave it a swift kick in the nuts. While I was at it, I also converted it over to the better version of pywikibot so that it should be even more stand alone. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Every now and then computers need that, as I learned in my 45 years with them. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion tagsEdit

Do not re-add declined speedy deletion tags. If deletion is legitimately needed, one might consider WP:MFD. WilyD 06:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

ExplanationEdit

Just to be really clear about my revert: a generalized request for other editors to watch out for "non-constructive edits", separated from the locus of the dispute and not naming anyone, does not involve anything related to personal attacks and certainly not AGF. Extending your dispute farther, as your comment did, is pointless and unpleasant. If you want to chide Taku, do it somewhere other than WT:WPM -- there is no need to pollute yet another forum with the absurd arguing. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Taku non-neutrally canvassed and cast apsersions at the page. Directly in that location is the right place to call it out and request it be redacted. Your substitution of your personal feelings does not trump WP:TPG, Specifically refactoring other editors comments. Hasteur (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
You do not apparently understand what canvassing is, nor aspersions. I have no feeling about the underlying issue. Please stop extending your argument to WT:WPM, where it does not belong. I will absolutely continue to revert you until we are both blocked for edit-warring, if necessary, in order to keep this fight off WT:WPM. --JBL (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
See you at WP:EW since you and Taku are attempting to overrule WP:TPO Hasteur (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome to report me anywhere you want; as long as you keep this fight off WT:WPM, I will be content. --JBL (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You mean wellEdit

...but please back off. There's NO need for this situation with Taku and others to be so contentious/hostile. Buffs (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Leave Taku alone. Stop wikistalking him. If he moves these to userspace, what the hell is the problem? Buffs (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Buffs: The problem is, I've seen this exact damn playbook from him 4 times already. Ignore friendly advice, Get in trouble because someone has a policy reason to start taking harsh action with respect to his drafts, kowtow to whatever is needed to get the heat off (AN-Flu anyone?), return to the previous behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. Tiger don't change his stripes. Hasteur (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I never said anything to the contrary about Taku. I'm ONLY talking about YOUR actions. Buffs (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case OpenedEdit

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/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Hasteur".