Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hasteur/Archive 12

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Hasteur

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hasteur (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 1 September 2017 (OneClickArchiver adding 1 discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:55, 1 September 2017 by Hasteur (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchiver adding 1 discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


G13 Eligibility Notice

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

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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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-azabicyclononane (Granatanine) , and 9-methyl-9-azabicyclononan-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.

Thanks.

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

References

  1. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/275187547
  2. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/275187547#section=Depositor-Supplied-Synonyms
  3. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/136318#section=Top
  4. http://www.caslab.com/Granatane_hydrochoride_CAS_49656-52-2/

G13 question

Could I draw your attention to Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Misplaced Pages editors in good standing are invited to participate.

The Challenge series – Current drives
Africa
Asia
Europe
Latin America/Caribbean
North America
UK and Ireland
1000 Challenges by topic

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Cheers, North America 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages: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)