Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 2 October 2013 (→Your edits at AFC: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

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)

• (talk page stalker) DGG, ^^^ I think just confirmed that userbox is set to the same limit (50) so the right side turns red when too many nominated. Technical 13 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • Technical 13 A ha.... the reason is that SPhilbrick is jumping on the nominations again. Special:Contributions/HasteurBot Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Teahouse Invitation

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 Misplaced Pages. Please join us!

Tariqmudallal (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/A Theory of Justice: The Musical!.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages. Thanks for participating in the drafting process. I consider the proposal a success at this point, no matter what the eventual outcome. equazcion 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)

Talkback

W. D. Graham 21:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hauser

I'm pretty new to wikipedia so not sure if this is the right place but I'll try anyway. You reviewed my article on Joey Cupido and I'm not clear about the problem. There is nothing in the sports figure guidelines about professional lacrosse players but I know that the NLL is the highest league in the world and pros that play there are considered the best lacrosse players in the world. Many NLLers have wiki pages. Could you provide more info?

Thanks

Thebigshadiw (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)thebigshadiwThebigshadiw (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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

This edit request to User:HasteurBot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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.

Misplaced Pages 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/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

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, Misplaced Pages: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

On 25 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article F.O. Oertel, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lion Capital of Asoka, a leading emblem of India, was rediscovered by an amateur archaeologist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/F.O. Oertel. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Misplaced Pages 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 . 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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. 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.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Alternative to "refbegin" columns for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

NRHP bot again

It appears that Doncram has been indefinitely topic banned from articles related to the NRHP. As such, would you be interested in picking back up the bot project that was requested before? Feel free to decline if you wish. I can ask at WP:BOTREQ, but I figured you would still have the code available if not the will. Sorry for exposing you to all that; it was a long time coming.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dudemanfellabra: Nothing personal, but I'd rather see the result of the "12:01" plea before moving forward. Hopefully the appeal will be resolved before Friday. If it is, I may start working on the task again. Hasteur (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no hurry. By the "12:01" plea, are you referring to this comment by Doncram? If so, I believe the admin replied here saying he wouldn't accept the appeal. Even if you have already seen that, however, I can understand the desire to wait until the paint is dry. No worries. Just let me know. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:01, 26 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|Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Silver

I just saw your review of Misplaced Pages 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)

Change of the order of deletion of G13 eligible submissions

Dear Hasteur: DGG has set up a by-the-day order page for keeping track of which G13 eligible submissions have been looked at. You said that the bot would soon switch to nominating in this order. Will you please let me know when this happens so that I can switch to using his checklist instead of mine? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless DGG is using the ordered list that my bot is using, the bot may still nominate in a different order than "Date Created". I'll see if I can get the helper script written tonight and ran so it dumps the list in single "nudge day" units (probably located at User:HasteurBot/G13_notifications/2013-09-26 as an example) Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not in a hurry, don't rush it on my account. I am finding as many to look at as I have time to before they disappear anyway. I may miss some, but I can't be doing this all day every day... —Anne Delong (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to put the list in front of people interested in doing saving as much as possible so that we become contortionists over the AGF we extend to the submissions. If that means running extra procecesses so that the cleanup crew has enough time to evaluate before the sweeper comes, then I'll do what I can to provide. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The way I go by the dating is very imprecise: I just use the dated categories, from the pages Category:AfC submissions by date/2012 There are many factors that can make this different from the true date, but I'm just looking to find articles to save, and I find this the quickest way. The most important extra process would be to not have the bot nominate more than 100 a day, in divided groups, no matter how fast the cleared out. The problem is the people who clear them out without looking at them. Using a bot as part of deletion process requires intelligent and careful humans. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

DGG I say this with all respect, but your advocacy for no more than 100 nominations is not possible. We get at least 300 new AFCs every day, so we'd be in a sisyphian barter of doing effort but never making any headway. Short of a 90% consensus that overrules the recent WP:AN thread, I'm not going to reduce the rate of nominations. Please stop throwing your "No more than 100 nominations" into every conversation about the bot's actions until you've established at least a 5 person nucleus of support for your proposal. @Sphilbrick and Fram: to weigh in as administrative collegues of DGG to potentially talk some sense Hasteur (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ping, Hasteur. DGG, you have been trying to reduce the deletion rate for G13 since the day it was proposed. You have had consensus against you at all discussions about this. You don't have to like it, but please accept it for what it is and move on. Fram (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And for the record the list of what page/who has been notified of G13 eligibility is at User:HasteurBot/G13 notifications. Each day (and in some cases multiple hours per day) is broken out so you can see what order the bot is progressing through the list. I'll remove records/pages once there's no more "active" nominations on the page. Hasteur (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

See subsection below about a discussion to reformat these pages to be easier to read by humans. Technical 13 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree here DGG, constantly pestering to lower the rate at which HasteurBot is nominating just needs to be dropped. I don't like it any more than you do; however, being on the AFCH development team and a member of the WPAFC project, I realize that it is a necessary evil. When I have extra time, I go through and try to save as many as I can as well, and have made/had made improvements to the helper script to make saving them and manually reviewing them as easy as possible. Feel free to suggest improvements to that system, and please just let the bot do what the bot does. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• I didnt say no more than 100 nominations , I said said 100 by the bot . I assume that individuals will continue to nominate. If only the bot is going to nominate, than 200 or 250 might be manageable , and that would gradually clear up the problem; but if you do not agree, we can calculate the rate which would get us up to a proper 6 month horizon in another 12 months. Trying to clear up accumulated backlogs all at once is not careful work, but it happens when people panic. Don't misunderstand me: I want to get rid of the unsalvageable material as much as anyone.

But I remain absolutely amazed that anyone would think it to the benefit of WP to delete salvageable material. I do not approve of letting bots do what they do without the opportunity for proper manual checking at least not when the effect is to let admins make single-handed deletions.

So far from "continually pestering", most days I do not comment on this at all anywhere except my own talk p, where of course I comment to everything that anyone brings there. If anyone is interested in following what I think on AfC and related questions; I have collected my more substantial past user talk on the matter at my Archive on this subject. I am not interfering with what you are doing. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Easier to read G13 notifications pages

Hey guys, I just looked at one of those pages and could not read that wall of text as it was. I suggest a simple modification to those pages to create a table making it a little easier to read. You can see what this looks like in this revision where I tested the idea. I simply added a table top and bottom, replaced all of the "#" with "|- \n| " and replaced all of the " by " with " || " and that gave a much cleaner and easier to read output. What do you all think of this? If you like it, maybe Hasteur will modify the bot to recognize that format and either it can go through and update them all or I can zip through them with AWB or something (probably easier). Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 14:01, 27 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)

WP:AN/I thread about you

Anon IP calling for you to be banned. Thought you might like to know, since the IP didn't bother to inform you; Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_to_ban_User:Hasteur. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thank you. I have laid the groundwork for what I consider the start of a defence citing the appropriate policy guidelines, calling the question regarding the IP's own disruptive behavior, and turning the charge back that sufficient evidence for a community ban has not been presented. Hasteur (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

///EuroCarGT 23:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Daniel Pappoe

Hello Hasteur. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Daniel Pappoe, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 00:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot Task 5

Please don't tag pages which contain {{WPAFC/project}}, {{WPAFC-admin}} (and other redirects) and {{WPAFC}}; see example edit at. Regards, mabdul 05:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) oppsie! Technical 13 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll add those exceptions to the list. I apologize. I tried to deduce what the rules for the pages were, and now that we have a full tagging I can add these to the list. Next run for the task will probably be in a few months. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot gone wild

You should read my 1714 30Sep2013 post at “Bot gone wild”.Sammy D III (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

G13 nominations

To give those who typically focus on the evaluation of G13 eligible submissions time to focus on other things (like the AfC backlog burn), I'm going to suspend the hourly nomination pulse and the "Give me more" trigger on the G13 nominating bot. I will still notify on pages that become G13 eligible, but will not take the process of making any new nominations until October 31st.Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC) @Anne Delong, Sphilbrick, DGG, Kudpung, Davidwr, and Technical 13: FYI so you're not wondering why the bot has gone silent on new nominations. Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Hasteur. I will continue to work on these, but I'm glad the pace will be a little more manageable, because I'd like to take part in the drive. I believe that Ritchie333 has also been helping out with this. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The timing is perfect. I've tried to look at them more closely, but that's very tedious, and I was running out of steam. Will be nice to do something else for a bit.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now that the bot is taking a rest, is it okay if I nominate a few really useless ones (blank or only a few words, or articles about one's cat? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Anne Delong I think the only thing the admins might want is for the "last date before nomination" to be populated. If you're using the AFCH tool for the G13 noms, it'll do that for you. Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am. It doesn't appear to work on postponing drafts, though, and some of these are likely to need rescuing because they have never been submitted. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Anne, which version of the script are you using and can you give me a couple of example diffs so I can troubleshoot it for you. I know that postponing is working in the develop version, as that is what I'm using. Technical 13 (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am using just whatever everybody gets if they choose the script in Preferences. It works find as long as there is a decline template, but when there's a grey draft template it appears to be working right up until the final save, and then says it can't find the template. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Anne, can you give me a link to an example page please? I need to see exactly what it is doing and be able to test and view the error log for the page. :) Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Although I won't be nominating anywhere near the 1200 a day that HasteurBot could be doing up to with just hourly pulses, but I expect to be nominating 200 - 300 - 500 on most days through October. I've decided not to participate in the drive directly as Theonesean's course isn't ready yet and I'm not comfortable with reviewing submissions past what I need to for script testing. Technical 13 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/International Day of Charity.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

• So you're telling someone who disagrees with you and points you to a guideline specifically showing you're wrong a troublemaker? Good to know AFC has such trustworthy people.

And if you want to know how silly your argument about "not being a member of WP:AFC" is (WP:OWN, much?), would you really support me reverting your edit at the DYK nom because "you are not a highly active DYK editor" or "listed as a DYK contributor"? Seriously. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)