User talk:Hugsyrup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message.

If I have recently left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I will be watching it for at least a week after my last message. If it's been longer, message me here or ping me to be sure of getting my attention.

If you leave a message here I will reply here, so please click the 'watch' tab at the top of your page in order to add my talk page to your watchlist.

If I answered your question at the teahouse then please reply at the Teahouse, not here. It allows other editors to contribute, and I don't currently have time to have extended 1:1 discussions about queries.

WP:TOP25[edit]

Basically, once every two weeks or so you will be asked to write your own report, thus giving User:Igordebraga some much needed time off. The report is generated from User:West.andrew.g's WP:5000 list, but requires some sleuthing to piece together. Not every entry on that list will be real; botnets plague Wikipedia and sorting the real from the dross is an art.

When I retired I made a list of the job requirements for any potential successors:

Rule 1: Check the mobile percentages. The mobile viewing percentages are without question the best tool in our box. You can divide this project into the time before we had them and the time after, since they completely revolutionised the process. As a general rule, if a page has 5% or fewer mobile views, or 95% or more mobile views, then it can be excluded summarily. Most "normal" pages have between 50 and 75% mobile views; if a page has between 17 and 30%, that's a good sign that it is a Reddit thread.

Rule 2: Check the news. Most sudden appearances of swarms of related topics can be traced to a single news event. Be prepared to do your research; you will have to know the story inside out to cover every entry.

Rule 3: Watch the viewing patterns. The pageviews page is your friend. Just remember to click "begin at zero". Different types of topic have different viewing patterns. Reddit threads and Google Doodles have one or two day spikes followed by rapid returns to normal. News stories have sustained rises and shallow falls centered around the Main Event. If a page has a strangely flat viewing pattern, with seemingly the exact number of viewers every day, it's probably fake.

Rule 4: the type of article can usually give away its origin. If it's an article on a strangely offbeat topic with seemingly no global relevance, like Hawaiian pizza or Bill Werbeniuk, then it's probably a Reddit thread. If it's an article on a personage of historical, academic or artistic import of whom you may or may not have heard, like Maria Mitchell or Carrie Derick, then it's probably a Google Doodle. If it's a current celebrity, then check the news.

Rule 5: The hardest topics to locate aren't usually the most obscure ones. Those can usually be found with some precision Googling. (sidenote: this job requires at least a red belt in Google fu. Learn that virtual monstrosity's weak points and tame it before you start) The hardest ones to locate are those that hide in plain sight- celebrities for instance may be on the list for any number of reasons. If you're not sure, check the viewing patterns over the dates covered by the list (DON'T just click "last week" unless you're starting this as soon as the data come in), locate the point at which views were highest, then narrow your search to the days immediately before and after. Remember that views occur AFTER the event they're following, so pay very close attention to the days before the spike.

Rule 6: Reddit is not your friend. I can give you my Reddit gate, and the standard advice: to search for a Wikipedia entry on Reddit, type "url:" and then paste the article's web address after it without a space. That USUALLY works. On the occasions when it doesn't, follow rule 5, and if that doesn't work, flat out tell Google to search Reddit. Don't lose hope; if it looks and acts like a Reddit thread, it almost certainly is one, whatever Reddit thinks.

Rule 7: Like India? Hope so. Because you're going to have to get familiar with that culture in ways you never imagined when you went to buy incense and sitar music at your local new age store. You'll need to remember that different Indians speak different languages (Hindi, Tamil and Marathi are the most important) a rough understanding of modern Indian history and the importance of cricket, and a blagger's knowledge of all things Bollywood (such as the difference between an "Indian film" and a "Bollywood film", the meaning of the word "crore"; who is marrying whom; innumerable actors named "Khan"). Sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia and India is the world's second largest English-speaking population. Welcome to the new world.

Rule 8: boxofficemojo, metacritic and rottentomatoes are your best resources for the buzz surrounding films, TV and video games, which usually show up because they're newly released (occasionally not, so keep an eye out).

Rule 9: If the article is on a person, check his or her birth and death dates.If s/he's dead, and it's his or her birthday, then it's a Google Doodle. If the celeb is alive and it's his or her birthday, or if the celebrity died in the last week, then you have your answer.

And finally, Rule 10: Don't be afraid to admit defeat. Very occasionally you will not be able to locate the reason for an article being on the list. When that happens, just say so and move on.

Oh, and one more thing: it's not a rule, and you don't have to follow it, but try to inject as much of your own personality into the list as you can; this is, at its core, a fairly boring bit of info, and sparkling it up will engage readers' interest. You're not in the mainspace so the dry house style is not required and opinions can be expressed.

I would now add another requirement, post the Signpost crisis: if you say anything negative about a living person, be sure to back it up with a source (no need to do a full footnote, just a hyperlink is fine). Do not be afraid to say bad things about bad people, however. Remember, this is a work of journalism and no one has the right to bully you into censoring your own honest opinions. Serendipodous 08:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Serendipodous, that's great, thank you! I definitely think this sounds interesting and the kind of thing I could help out with. I always enjoy a bit of sleuthing and I'm fairly adept at squeezing the information I want out of Google! How does it work in terms of assigning me to write a report? Is that something User:Igordebraga will do? Hugsyrup 08:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If I were you, I'd just look at the current raw list (linked above), and start writing. Igor already has a draft page up. Of course, you should let Igor know, and I am certain he will be happy to hear it! :) Serendipodous 10:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh and one more thing: don't bother making anything special out of the "deaths in [insert year here] page. It is a rare week when it doesn't appear on the list. Serendipodous 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and of course, thank you! :) Serendipodous 07:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Will do. You're welcome, thanks for involving me! Hugsyrup 16:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The week is almost over, are you gonna do the pending report or start next week? (also, while this one doesn't have the Google\Reddit boosts Serendipodous mentioned, I set up two useful links

here to seek what those sites were doing) igordebraga  19:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: - it'll be easier for me to do next week's if possible - I'm away on a course until Sunday with very limited chances to get online. Once I'm back, I'll have loads more time to commit. Is that alright? Hugsyrup 12:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I'll even try to set up the list on Sunday morning to help you. Until then, I'll finish the pending one. igordebraga 22:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: - great, thank you! It looks as if the draft page is there, but not yet formatted. Are you still working on it, or shall I take it over from here and format the table etc? Hugsyrup 08:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You can format it, no problem. igordebraga 18:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Igordebraga: - I think I've got it nearly done. As it's my first one, would you mind taking a look and let me know if you think it's ok? Also, how do I produce the graph that goes at the bottom? Hugsyrup 08:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Another user made a tool to do those once they're on the main Report page. I generated the graph and put it in the weekly page and the Signpost draft, though not on the main Report page, if you want to add in yourself before the next one. igordebraga 16:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you do the week's report? Thanks! igordebraga 01:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I'll get onto it today and tomorrow. Can you just help me out with what is the correct way to do the chart that appears at the bottom? When I did this before it was flagged as not having a correct free-use rationale because there doesn't seem to be anywhere on the site that generates it that explicitly states that the owner makes it available for reuse. I probably just missed something, but I don't want to make the same mistake this time! Hugsyrup 07:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you were also bothered on Commons regarding the charts? Well, once it happened to me, the guy who complained withdrew it once Andrew.g added another file regarding the CC license. So maybe now it can go without problems. igordebraga 05:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: Yeah - I think my file got removed in the end, but fortunately you'd also created one so we used that. Hopefully this time it won't happen.
I've finished writing the report, but I'm not 100% sure about the process/timings for making it the main page, and therefore being able to run the table generator. Can you help, or let me know what to do? Just don't want to move it too soon, or break anything! Hugsyrup 10:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There's a list full of Jokers, smokers and midnight tokers to write, if you're interested. igordebraga 23:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: - Sure, I'll take a look. I may need a little help though, I'm away all weekend so if I don't get it all finished today/tomorrow I won't be able to polish it off at the weekend like I usually do. Hugsyrup 08:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen it, but there's an yearly report too. Claim what you'd like to write about! (maybe even one of the ones I've written, anything to help this get finished) igordebraga 06:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Xecced Ventures[edit]

Journalist Daniel Mpala of the respected publication VentureBurn clearly interviewed and researched the company! This is appears to be racist...

Yes. I didn't remove that source, so I am not sure what your point is? Hugsyrup 14:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contestation[edit]

Hi Hugsyrup, Thanks for reviewing the article on Userbenchmark. Unfortunately it was marked for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. I would not agree as I use this site all the time and it is referenced in the Guardian multiple times and Toms Hardware online magazine as a PC owners resource, with the later stating that it reaches 10 million people every month. I did appeal the speedy deletion, but haven't heard back. Do you have any advice about next steps? Much appreciated :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiagress (talkcontribs)

@Tiagress: I believe I marked it for deletion because it did not 'credibly demonstrate the importance or significance of the subject'. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are not based on how much you use the site, or even whether it is mentioned in magazines, but whether it has received substantial coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Essentially, the article as it stood did nothing to suggest why Userbenchmark is significant enough to have an encyclopedia article, and contained no sources to demonstrate that other people think it is significant. If you believe you can solve these problems, I would suggest you recreate the page - not directly in mainspace as it will likely just be deleted again, but as a draft by following the instructions at WP:AFC. You can then work on it and submit it for review by an experienced editor, which will reduce the chances of it being deleted again. Note, however, that it will only be accepted if you can find sufficient sources to demonstrate its notability. Good luck. Hugsyrup 09:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply! I will look at creating a draft as suggested. Kind regards.

COI[edit]

That is incorrect. My first edit was of your National Front entry, which was entirely National Front propaganda. Your editors rejected every single correction, all of which was to correct propaganda of the National Front. I years later made corrections to your entry under my name. I do not know who posted it but it had errors. You rejected those. Finally I made corrections to your Der Stűrmer entry and the Nazi line that their newspaper was a serious paper of record. Again you reject that correction. Someone else pointed out a long line of pro-Nazi propaganda on Wikipedia including these comments

The English Wikipedia pages are far more sympathetic towards the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS than the German ones. Of the mainstream websites, Wikipedia and Amazon are the worst distributors of pro-Nazi perspectives and the Wehrmacht myth. — Jens Westemeier, military historian

Yes, this is one of those myths about Nazi Germany at war that simply won't lie down and die, no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart. The nature of Wikipedia is a large part of the problem, because "enthusiasts" are the ones who tend to spend the most time writing and editing. — S.P. MacKenzie, military historian

So Wikipedia regularly publishes Nazi and Fascist propaganda. It is not at all irregular. And you regularly also, according to the following entry reject corrections by international experts on the holocaust and World War II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-04-26/Op-ed?fbclid=IwAR2QrO-YWKs1N_wunEuCBpMPzUqnVEW0cNa9dBb-SUcL2fvM_CEkZllC9oo#Reaching_out_to_outside_experts


Nice to try to turn it around and argue I have a conflict of interest. I might if you count having most of my family killed by the Nazis. Do you consider victims of the Nazis to all have a conflict of interest? Do you think I am not civil enough with Nazis? I am supposed to assume you are acting in good faith when experts try to remove obvious propaganda and you refuse to change or delete it and pretend to have a site that provides objective information. I long for the days of credible, objective encyclopedias published by knowledgeable scholarly and objective publishers.

Cathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschnei (talkcontribs) 19:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cschnei: No, the conflict of interest issue relates to you editing an article that you state is about you. I’ll have to take your word for it that you are that person, though I find it a little shocking that a professor chooses to speak to people the way you’ve spoken to people on here. Hugsyrup 19:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually you never rejected a single edit I made on my own entry. They were simply factual corrects and were accepted!!!!!!

The only fights I have had with Wikipedia is their entries on Fascists and Nazis. Those are the only edits you reject. So the argument about my own entry is a red herring. I did not complain once about that and you did not reject my edits which again were factual and I actually might know the facts of my life. Horrors! Why would you even bring up factual corrections that you accepted on the entry you posted under my name? That is a clear evidence of guilty conscience!! Ha!

Now lets get back to the real issue not the red herring. Why do you refuse to delete or correct Fascist and Nazi propaganda. That is actual Fascist (about Fascist governments and parties, like Accion Francais) and actual Nazi government and their supposedly irreproachable party newspaper? Why is Wikipedia acting as a transmission and communication site for Nazi and Fascist propaganda? Why do you reject corrections from experts?

Cathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschnei (talkcontribs) 19:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You have now filed a complaint against me that because my family was killed by Nazis I have a conflict of interest in removing Nazi propaganda? Unbelievable!!!!!! And here is my first conflict with Wikipedia. You see, about Fascism. Wikipedia is the main organ of propaganda now of the fascists and Nazis. I am a scholar not a propagandist so that is why my entries are rejected as conflict of interest?????

Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:23 PM to info-en

Your entry on the National Front in France (a party formed by the remnants of the Waffen SS and VIchy) is full of misinformation and propaganda. It skips over the role of the fascist organizations that formed it (and says they were French monarchists!!!) and says it won the last regional elections, when it does not command a single region. I spent a day fixing that article. I am an expert on France, wrote a celebrated book on the top and teach at American University. I gave you an entry and you insist on keeping an entry that was clearly written by a partisan of the National Front!!! It is incredible what you have in that entry!!!! It is not the leading party in France, it did not almost win the 2002 election, it lost 80 to 20 percent, it is not kept out by the French election system but by the willingness of almost every party in France to keep it out. And Wikipedia keeps that entry and rejects mine? Really. I will warn all my students not to ever use Wikipedia and use that example. And I actually donated to your site once. Would you do the same for Nazi entries?

Cathy Lisa Schneider

SO NOW WHY ARE YOU CREATING A BIG LIE AND CLAIMING THAT my complaint is about my own entry, which I never complained about. Is there no body that wikipedia answers to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschnei (talkcontribs) 19:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cschnei: I am, to be blunt, largely uninterested in your ‘complaint’ since I do not edit, and never have edited, articles related to Naziism or fascism. I placed a notification on your talk page warning you about Wikipedia policies related to editing an article with which you have a conflict of interest. That is all. Arguing with me about France, the National Front, and whatever else you are concerned about is really entirely pointless as those issues have nothing to do with me. And I’ll say again what I said at the Teahouse - you will get a much better response from people if you can be a little calmer and more polite. Hugsyrup 19:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Is my being Jewish the reason I am being banned under conflict of interest?[edit]

Because I care that holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda is being spread through Wikipedia, I am being banned as having a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschnei (talkcontribs) 19:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

No. You are not being banned. And our rules on conflict of interest are well-established and apply to everyone - see WP:COI. Once again, the conflict of interest relates to you editing this page Cathy Schneider which appears to be about you. It has nothing to do with any other articles, and therefore you being Jewish is obviously not a factor. Hugsyrup 20:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Please spare me few minutes of your time[edit]

Hey @Hugsyrup: , i was looking for reviewers who are very active and i happened to come across you , i'm preparing for a journey and i have a feeling i might not be active on wikipedia for a while ,so can you please review this draft for me Draft:Nutty_o ,i want to make sure if its declined ,i will be active to correct whatever reason that may have caused it to be declined,thanks a lot.Selena Moreland (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting Results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election[edit]

I saw that you've set up a redirect on the results page I created and wanted to say thanks. I thought I'd checked the page history for when the 2017 page was created and got it into my head that it was about this point in the election cycle but I'd clearly forgotten the actual date of the 2017 election and it wasn't actually created until afterwards. Do you know if it is possible to automatically undo the redirect at say 10pm on the 12th December when the polls close? If not I'll do it manually.

Kind regards Mindi Crayon (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I’m aware it’s not possible, so you would have to do it manually although it’s quite likely someone else will if you don’t, so I wouldn’t worry too much. Hugsyrup 16:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Just as a FYI[edit]

Hey Hugsyrup, I saw that you had recently reported Noormohammed satya as a possible Cuty Pie Sweetu sock, so I thought you might be interested in the SPI report I just posted, on a range of IPs that are very obvious CPS socks – it looks like Noormohammed satya has been creating articles on their behalf, and that's probably what was going on with the article you noticed as well. I'm assuming good faith from NS, at least for now... Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea: thanks for the heads-up. I’ve seen some fairly fishy behaviour from NS in the past as well, and reported it, but both times the evidence hasn’t been deemed quite sufficient. Really appreciate you letting me know about your report. Hugsyrup 18:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like your spider senses were right! I'm no fan of grave dancing, and in this case I did retain my assumption of good faith (in many cases I don't, but I've been trying to be more charitable recently) so I'm a little sad that they did turn out to be a sockpuppet, but it is good to know that there are people around who pick up on signs of abuse. I do consider unpaid editing abuse of the encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I really appreciate your help at the Teahouse. I understand why the message was left at my talk page but the coldness of it really raised my hackles. I'm going to log off and play some games for a while, but I really appreciate the advice you have given me (and digging out that backlogs page for me as well) and will use it going forward. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks LampGenie01! I don't blame you for being a bit put out - sadly there are a handful of editors here who appear to be too busy and important to take the time to be courteous when dealing with what they see as a 'problem'. I've had the exact same experience myself, and sometimes just taking a bit of time away is a good idea. But don't let it put you off for good! Hugsyrup 15:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to your courteous reply, I fully intend on continuing to edit. Don't ever lose that kind and helpful nature. It's more beneficial to the encyclopedia than any amount of knowledge on rules and policies. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Winter![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Hugsyrup, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

MrAKinsey (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your Speedy deletion template, I was thinking for it. Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I'd literally just tagged the same page only an hour before, for the exact same copyvio - so it was a no-brainer for me! Hugsyrup 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Creation[edit]

Blessing Adewale (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Hugsyrup, I don't understand how to sign in my comments. I hope this works!

Happy holidays[edit]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019[edit]

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your tip[edit]

Hi Buddy , thanks for the tip , out of 24 reference i have removed 13 references and remains only 11 which are notable and passing WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR Thenews , dawn , tribune , brecorder and others are notable newspapers in pakistan. i also want to mention that Nabeel Zuberi gave interview to BBC asia network but that link is mentioned by BBC in tweets only so i didn't add , can i request you too look ? as this article was created in november 25 and yesterday i recreated it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nabeel_Zuberi

Thanks

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Memon KutianaWala: Apologies, I don’t review drafts by request. However, I am sure someone will get to your draft in due course. Thanks! Hugsyrup 08:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Hugsyrup, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays[edit]

Happy Holidays text 2.png Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

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

Good luck[edit]

1old thing[edit]

I made an edit to the article Alasdair Gray and I don’t see it on my list of contributions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odonanmarg (talkcontribs) 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 
@Odonanmarg: you may have edited while logged out. Is this the edit you made? If not, then I am afraid most likely you didn’t save your edit. It is theoretically possible for an edit to be entirely removed from page history and contributions, this is known as ‘oversight’ but this is very unusual and only if your edit was so seriously offensive to justify that step, which seems most unlikely - and you would have been told! So editing while logged out, or simply not saving the edit are the most likely options. Hugsyrup 08:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

W2S[edit]

Hi @Hugsyrup: I reverted your revert on my revert on W2S. Having more than 250k followers on whatever social media site, whatever it is, is notable per policy. Having 9.5 million followers is a modern day miracle. He is entirely notable. Whether or not there is enough coverage to support an article is another matter. If you think it needs to be taken to Afd, then i'll chip if there is nothing to support an article. Certainly it seems a lot of Youtube folk are notable at the level, but don't have sufficient coverage outside social media to make for a normal article. I would take it to Afd if you want to test it. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 17:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it is 14.5million followers on one account. The dude seems be a whale, an enormous amount. I reviewed it as part of NPP. scope_creepTalk 17:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Thanks for taking the time to write a note - conversing by edit summaries is never the best approach!
I don’t think I totally agree that a simple follower figure makes him notable in the absence of substantial independent coverage (which is conspicuous by its absence despite the best efforts of two editors with clear COIs) but I take your point, and the presence or absence of the tag isn’t really worth arguing about!
I would love to take it to AFD but I haven’t because there is an obvious redirect target, and I know I’ll be criticised for taking something to AFD when the outcome I actually want is a redirect! I previously redirected the article and was reverted, so I have now raised the redirect on the talk page, however, and I would welcome you chipping in there if you are interested. Thanks! Hugsyrup 17:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@Hugsyrup: I wouldn't worry too much about the fact there is a redirect present. I review on NPP and many many many redirect getting written over and that is probably the best way of doing but it ends up that many of them are junk and must be reverted. Quite a lot get taken to Afd. If it goes to Afd and it is result is back to redirect then you can ask for page protection to ensure it stays there and as the Afd is consensus, some SPA tries to change it back, you can ask for permanent protection. When you look at the top 16 references, not a single one proves WP:SIGCOV and are secondary sources, so it would be pushed back to redirect. It is spam target and likely a paid for article. scope_creepTalk 17:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Even the supposed awards are junk. scope_creepTalk 17:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah - the sourcing is really poor. But what I’m getting it is that in my experience it’s pretty strongly frowned upon to take something to AfD if you aren’t actually proposing that it be deleted, which I‘m not - I want this redirected to Sidemen. So now, having tried implementing the redirect but been reverted, I’m not sure I have any option but to let my discussion on the talk page play out and hopefully get a clear consensus for a redirect. If you agree, it would be great if you could weigh in on that discussion. Hugsyrup 21:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for correcting my mistake! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion about unregistered editor edit warring to add stuntman to multiple articles[edit]

This is a quick note to let you know that I've opened a discussion at WP:ANI about the unregistered editor edit warring to add a stuntman to multiple articles (American Academy of Dramatic Arts‎, List of Florida Institute of Technology people, List of Ohio State University people, and List of Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University alumni‎). I'm letting you know because you have reverted at least one of his or her edits or had other interactions with him or her. ElKevbo (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Jake Ellis is notable[edit]

Hi Hugsyrup, I saw your message in the history of Jake Ellis, would you please add that as a comment to Talk:Jake Ellis. Thanks for your review and support, SWP13 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@SWP13: I don't think you need to worry. I already removed the CSD tag from the article so it is not currently under any particular threat of deletion. The notification placed on your talk page was from before I removed the CSD, and your talk page was the right place for it as it was a courtesy notice to you, so there was no need to move it to the talk page of the article itself. Hugsyrup 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg You are so awesome! Thanks for helping out earlier! Need more editors like you. SWP13 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the Frog Bikes update! Digitalfort (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Terence Mordaunt[edit]

Thanks for your help. I have made a note about the use of Companies House and the Charities Commission. Sadgrove (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sadgrove: No worries. I'm still taking a look at the article and I'm afraid you're very reliant on primary sources. Things like a company or university website, an org chart, etc are very rarely suitable sources. What we are interested in on Wikipedia is what do other, independent, people say about the topic. For example newspaper articles, books, etc. I'll leave a tag on the page to note the issue, and hopefully you can work on it a bit. If not, you run the risk of the page being nominated for deletion. Feel free to ask here if you have any questions. Hugsyrup 14:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I've removed another three sources. Do you think it passes muster as a page? As it's my first page creation, and one about a slightly controversial individual, I'd value your thoughts. I'm pretty new at this. Sadgrove (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sadgrove: It's borderline I would say. There are still a lot of primary sources, so I've looked only at the secondary sources - i.e. mainly the news stories. The Bristol Live one is decent; the Plymouth Live one isn't great as it only mentions him briefly in the context of a big list, but it establishes his wealth so that's a start; I don't have a Times Subscription so can't read that, but I suspect that it is just his name on a list so not really substantial coverage; the Bath Business News one is no use as a source as it is not about him and only mentions his name in passing; and the Business Insider one is another very brief mention on a list. So, as I see it, you only really have one source that passes the WP:GOLDENRULE - 'significant coverage in reliable, independent, sources'. However, you have two or three other sources that offer brief coverage. My guess is that if this went to WP:AFD the result would probably be a redirect to Port of Bristol, but it could end up being a 'keep' especially if more sources could be found. At any rate, I'm not going to nominate it for deletion myself. My advice is to trim out the remainder of the primary sources and try to find two or three more decent articles in reliable sources, that substantially cover Terrence Mordaunt, not just mentions in a list etc. Hugsyrup 09:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice. I have removed the primary sources and added more secondary ones. What do you think? Sadgrove (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Hugsyrup,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Re Teahouse Message[edit]

Hi - I wrote on Teahouse and you kindly answered (I'm sorry I don't know how to directly answer your point there so I found you here - the heading was "Banned from Wikipedia"). I just wanted to say it wasn't just the first article that was taken down but also friends in different countries tried writing pages concerning the various initiatives I'd been involved in concurrent with the development with electronic media in the UK and those pages were taken down as well (one writer was a professor of history, writing about a piece of history). So it follows me around. Whether or not one constitutes a valuable input is a judgement and I certainly won't write anything about myself because I was naive when I wrote the first article thinking that I was contributing to an alternative history. But I know many people involved with film and video who get someone else to write about them and frankly what they've done often, is minimal. This is not ego - I'm 67 and not 25 so I have stuff under my belt. But there's a deeper issue: video has systematically been given a false history - even the most recent BBC programme studiously ignored the greatest UK maker who's died in obscurity - fortunately wiki has an article on him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hopkins_(political_activist)

...but when you look at the person who has the greatest recorded history in the academic canon for being the 'father of this medium' they have many books about them (and the irony is he shot film rather than video - I know that's esoteric to you, but across all human knowledge small inflections in the telling of histories contributes to the false histories generated - but Hopkins is systemically removed - airbrushed out...)

I shan't of course write something about myself - but I guarantee if even you put something up about me as a subject - it'll get taken down (if the prior moderator is still alive or he's automated a take down).

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Flaxton (talkcontribs) 14:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Terry Flaxton: I am very confident there is no organised or automated effort to remove articles about you or related to you. However, as I referenced on the Teahouse, Wikipedia has strict standards for including a subject. These standards can sometimes seem counter-intuitive to unfamiliar users who may believe that a topic is notable or important, but if it isn't backed up by appropriate reliable sources that cover the topic in detail, the page will rapidly get removed. If you believe a topic justifies an article, I recommend creating it through WP:AFC as this will avoid hasty deletion and enable you to have your articled reviewed by another editor for acceptance. I hope this helps a bit. Hugsyrup 14:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks [[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup] You'll have to allow me a little paranoia as I have seen a page where other moderators berated the original moderator for being harsh. I ask myself the question: With the world full of nasties, how could it be that a good thing like wikipedia has little ecologies for survival of people who like to wield the baton that causes pain - sure bad people are trying to put false truths up all the time - but people like myself are just trying to abide by the best even if we occasionally get it wrong through naivety. It's certainly kept me away from wikipedia for years. So quite counter productive. All humans are notable - not just the few that are acceptable rule wise. Anyway - have a good day and thanks for your help and advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Flaxton (talkcontribs) 16:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

why did u delete my article anesia May.[edit]

Why was anesia May deleted Dmay81 (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmay81: please could you read the notice that I placed on your talk page as this explains the reason, along with links to applicable policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with articles about notable subjects. It is not a social media site or personal website. Hugsyrup 10:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Arsenal Hvar article[edit]

Hi, first of all thanks for the lightning-fast assessment, I am new to Wikipedia, this is my first article, and there was a note that it could take months to get a reply.

The article is about a very important building in the city of Hvar, near where I live in Croatia, the central building except for the cathedral. That was my motivation to write something about it. As I am new to Wikipedia, I can understand that the citations are not extensive, and I would be very grateful for advice how to expand on it.

The article is short, and is in essence the summary of a very detailed doctoral dissertation on the Architectural faculty of the Technical university Munich. The work has been peer reviewed and published on their website (accessible in the citation link). The text in the Wikipedia article is a shortened summary published as part of the dissertation in English (the dissertation is in German). I hope we can agree that the text in the article (you can check it by reading the summary in the dissertation) is genuine.

The question is how to make it clear through a citation here? That is why I placed the citation on the History heading. Thanks in advance for you help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDam94 (talkcontribs) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@RDam94: the issue with having an article published on Wikipedia is not only verifiability (though that is of course important) but also notability. Which, by our standards, means ‘has it been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources’. If it has then hopefully you should be able to find those, although sometimes books and offline sources can be tricky. If such sources don’t exist then unfortunately that suggests the topic may well not be notable enough for an article, even though it is perfectly factually correct. I hope that makes sense? Hugsyrup 18:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, it s very helpful, I understand. I should add online links - citations for parts of the article, that shouldn't be to hard. Is it possible to add offline citations from authors in scientific papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDam94 (talkcontribs) 18:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@RDam94: it’s perfectly acceptable to add offline citations, if they cover the topic in detail. Good luck! Hugsyrup 19:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I managed to add citations for important claims, and also made a few connections from other webistes, the national television to show relevance. Should I go for resubmision or? Thanks again for your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDam94 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)