User talk:Hzh/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

A user keep removing Alternative script

You can see him use a reason that the Chinese and Tamil is not using in Pahang, but actually others Malaysia state do alternative script in infobox.Maybe you have a good guideline to oppose that vandalisme like what you did before. hope you can helping this, Thank You. angys (Talk Talk) 10:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@*angys*: There is no specific guideline that would forbid the use of Chinese and Tamil in the infobox, and whether to add these in the infobox is just a matter of preference. You are entitled to use local/native names, see for example Template:Infobox settlement, WP:INFOBOXGEO, WP:PLACE. You can add the local transliteration of the name, there is nothing to stop you doing that, saying that they are not official languages is irrelevant. Hzh (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, but how can I recover the script because somebody has do edit after that, can you help it to recover the alternative script, Thank you. And that user said Pahang is a sultanate, can use WP:NPOV to report him in WP:VIP? My explanation is not good and I am not confidence to participate a edit war with him. angys (Talk Talk) 14:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@*angys*: There are various ways of doing it. If you want to partially undo an edit without reverting the whole edit, click on an old edit, e.g. [1], then click edit, copy the part you want to undo (don't save at this stage), then go back to the current article, click edit, and paste and save the edit (this method is useful when there are intervening edits and it is no longer possible to revert, so you don't disturb other people's edit this way).

As for the question of whether there is currently a Sultanate of Pahang, I have no idea what the status is. If pushed, I would say that my opinion is no, as the state is not actually ruled by a sultan, the sultan is (perhaps) only a titular head with no true power, but that is just my opinion. It is a tricky area, I remember an argument between the Sultan of Johor and the Malaysian government on something similar (the extent of the power). It is best to base your argument on official position rather one person's opinion, because to argue that someone else is pushing a POV, you have to show that the person actually is doing so against commonly or officially accepted opinion. Do not use WP:VIP for content dispute (they will simply ignore your complaint when you file your complaint there). Hzh (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thinking further about it, a sultanate may refer to the office of the Sultan, so as long as there is a Sultan, there will be a sultanate. However, I wouldn't argue anything on this based on personal opinion, but from actual official position. Looking into the history during the Malayan independence, it would seem that the sultans do still have certain powers, even if they are only considered constitutional head of their respective state. Hzh (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all the work you've done on Tottenham Hotspur F.C. And their other pages. Govvy (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: That is very kind of you, thank you very much. It's been a pleasure editing Spurs related articles, and I should thank you for your work on the article as well. Cheers. Hzh (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

		Rack and pinion
		For maintaining a streak of at least 25 reviews per week during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog drive, you are awarded the rack and pinion. Thanks for your contributions and keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Hzh, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sabah

Hi, sorry about that. But maybe you can leave some tips or suggestion in the article talkpage so any interested editors can fix the problem because an article with good status should not have any maintenance tag that stay too longer. Molecule Extraction (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Molecule Extraction: The person who split off the section leaving an unsatisfactory summary appears to have ignored it (I would say his behaviour is hit and run). There is for example no mention of the religious affiliations and little on the ethnic composition and languages of the state which are quite distinct from the rest of Malaysia, and it therefore became uninformative, and should no longer be considered a good article. I would probably have to do it myself when I can get round to it. Hzh (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hzh: I do think like that too. But no worries, I will try to make some expansion in the section as soon as possible. Molecule Extraction (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lubu people

You've labelled a number of revisions for revdel but nowhere does it say what the material is a copyvio of. You need to specify a source so we can be sure that revdel is appropriate. You can add the source into {{Copyvio-revdel}} using the |url= parameter. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Nthep:Sorry about that, the url parameter wasn't given in the link I used. It's now been added. Hzh (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Nthep (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

John Sing Tang

Hi Hzh, How are doing. I checked it as part of a WP:COIN drive, and it is eminently notable. The notability tag is only there if there is some doubt that the article is notable. It is merely an indication of notabily. Not that the fact it has a lack of references. It does have more than 2 pages of reference of Google Books and several others on various sources, so it can be removed, which is the correct logic for the notability tag. Nothing else. You replacing the tag has merely added extra work onto the next person to come along. Cheers scope_creep (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Nearly all the sources appear to be short mentions that don't confer notability per WP:CREATIVE. At the moment there is only one obituary and one article on one of his buildings. As far as I can determine, he is a minor regional architect, the only claim to fame might be as an exemplar of Googie architecture, but that source has been removed, and I'm not really sure him being the first Chinese American architect in Arizona is enough to qualify him for notability. I'll have look round and see what else I can find, otherwise he is very marginal as far as notability is concerned. Hzh (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hzh, Yip, Yip, I don't know either, it slim, although if I think if it went to Afd I'd vote for keeping, primarily due to the need for diversity of article for a particular subject. They tend to be serious practical people, and I can't see him having a seven year career. It is possible, more likely probable that he worked for Del E. Webb Construction Company at some point, meaning that he did designed more than the few buildings listed in the article. It needs somebody with access to newspapers.com to come in, (I don't have it) and provide some strong evidence. I see what you mean with the Googie architecture. I never knew the name of it before, but I always thought it was deeply cool. scope_creep (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I don't see diversity as a valid reason, I have not come across it as in any notability guideline (you can point me the correct guideline if I had missed it). As far as diversity is concerned, the problem as I see it is more that many articles about individuals or things in different cultures get deleted (or nominated for deletion) because of a lack of sources in English, many people simply never bothered to look in non-English sources. As for this article, I will have a look at it another time and try to improve it if I can. The tag is there because it is marginal and it is a request for people to improve it, otherwise it would have been PROD or AfD. Hzh (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting help on article about Chinese folk singer Abao

Hello, I have recently created a draft about Abao, the Chinese folk singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abao . I was wondering if you could help add some more references or any other information to this draft article if you happen to be interested in this particular singer. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canton japan (talk • contribs) 09:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Canton japan: He seems to be notable enough to warrant his own article, and I'll be happy to help. There are however a number of biographical details that needed to be sorted and checked first (there were for example rumours of his death which may not be true), so it might take a while before I start editing it. Hzh (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

I just thought I put it forward to GA, I really have no idea how long it will take, but the PR for Tottenham Hotspur F.C. doesn't seem to be going anywhere! :( Govvy (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: The Tottenham Hotspur F.C. article looks mostly OK to me, a PR may not be necessary, although you can always contact editors who might be interested in the article to review it. However I think the section Social responsibility may need rewriting, and add for example Tottenham's involvement in sponsoring London Academy of Excellence Tottenham. It also needs a section on training grounds (Cheshunt, Chigwell, and Enfield), facilities and other associated buildings and organisations which I will add another time (new articles may also be created). Some of these such as the Tottenham Experience and new shop would not open until later in the year, and I expect there would be a lot of rewriting in the coming months when the new stadium opens. I'm also wondering if the Academy and U-23 article needs to be separated.

As for History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C., I feel it could still do with some improvements, but we'll see how it goes. I'll start with the reorganisation of Northumberland Development Project soon. Hzh (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Very cool, got back from work and found that the article passed GA. Much of the credit goes to you also, cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Just building on work already done by others, including your good self, excellent work. I'll deal with the points raised in the review for Tottenham Hotspur F.C. a bit later. I'll probably rewrite a little bit and delete something (I see no reason why David Baddiel needs mentioning specifically, given that other people including the Prime Minister have commented on it as well). For the time being nothing major will be added, more additions will come another time. Hzh (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Years ago I didn't mind David Baddiel, but after some of his comments against Spurs, I really don't like him anymore. Govvy (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Hzh, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Kane Brown article

Hello, I just received a message claiming that an unconstructive edit of the Kane Brown Wikipedia article was linked to my IP address. I have not made any edits to that article. Thank you for your time. 184.53.33.209 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You either have a new IP address, or you have a dynamic IP, i.e. you get a new IP everything you log on. Someone else have used the IP before. You can usually ignore the message if you have dynamic IP or if it is your new IP address, because it is not intended for you. Hzh (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption

Just wanted to say thanks (before I forget) for all the work you're doing to improve Good Epidemiological Practices. It looked like a WP:TNT to me, but if it can be rescued in its present version, that would be great. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: The article as it is do look problematic to me, and may require quite a bit of work to bring it to a reasonable standard. The tobacco section still needs some work to tidy it up - they rely on too much primary sources to construct a narrative, and don't appear to be neutral. I'm not an expert in the issue, someone else who knows more may do better on it, but I'll go through it a bit later. The main problem might be which direction the article should take, but I'll leave that to someone else should they want to rewrite the whole thing. Hzh (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

My amends to Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club page

Your message: Hello, I'm Hzh. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tottenham Hotspur F.C. without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hzh (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My response: The amendments I made did not affect the facts detailed on the page, they simply improved the English grammar, punctuation and syntax of the words, making the article read better. It seemed to have been written by someone for whom English is not their first language, who is still learning how to construct a sentence without repeating themselves. I have been speaking and writing English, my native tongue, for over 50 years. Please restore my changes. Thank you. KinsaleAnnette (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You removed all the honours, what kind of edit was that? That's why you got reverted. Govvy (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@KinsaleAnnette: I did not actually change your edits on grammar, I simply restored the large chunk of the content you removed in the honours section. If you want to remove a large amount of content, you should explain why first. Hzh (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Error in editing

That was indeed an error I didn’t even realise I'd made. In which case, thank you for restoring the data I deleted. I find the editing environment totally user-unfriendly, very easy to make mistakes. So frustrating! KinsaleAnnette (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@KinsaleAnnette: It is possible to check your edits before saving - if you click on "show changes", it will show what you have done. If you have inadvertently removed content you did not intend to do, that will show up. Also if you look into "view history", you would see clearly a large amount of content had been removed (-2,640 in red). It is easy to make mistake, but also easy to restore. Thank you for your edits, the article needed copy-editing. Hzh (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Hzh, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Alden Shoudy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

IAWI

thanks for the undo. but we as non admin can not overturn a non admin closure under law. wings blades of gothic did it and lots of flak. Even tonyballoti endorsing it people are angry. so this is the poor state of Wikipedia. it's another wrong snow close btwQuek157 (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Hzh, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Henshall (photographer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wood Norton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Now United

Hi Hzh. I partially reverted an edit of yours where you removed an advert template without an edit summary. [2] I came expecting to find a typical inexperienced, undeclared paid editor. I hope you have enough editing experience to realize why I'd assume that from your edits. Please use edit summaries. Please don't remove templates without clearly addressing the problems. Please work to avoid looking like an undeclared paid editor by declaring any conflicts of interest you may have and following NOT and POV far more closely. --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: I'm afraid I have no idea what you see as being like written an advert. You should explain that first. Whatever that was left after I edited are not adverts, nor do they violate NOT or POV. They are simple statements. If there are specific issues you want to address (particular sentences, etc.), then do it in the talk page, rather than leaving an unclear tag, or throwing random accusations against other editors. Hzh (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm happy to refactor anything I've written above it will help us move forward.

From my perspective, I didn't make any accusations. I was attempting to give my initial impression as a start of a conversation on why I think the article has serious problems and why I think it should be tagged for improvement. I was hoping to make it clear that the lack of edit summaries were very unexpected, if not problematic.

The article screams of undeclared paid editing, but that's just an impression from repeatedly finding poorly sourced, promotional content in it. I'll follow your advise and look closer.

My apologies again. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Greetings, Hzh. Are you a paid editor, as Ronz implied above? We should know. -The Gnome (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: Well, I have made over 70,000 edits over many years on numerous article, if I were paid, I would be rich, which I'm not. In other words, no, not paid a single penny, sadly. I came across the article as a new page reviewer, and I was simply trying fix some of the issues in the article (which I try to do with the articles I reviewed, such as tidying up, finding sources, etc. You can simply examine my edit history). Hzh (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you a member of the PAP?

Just asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.249.54 (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what are referring to. If you mean PAP of Singapore, I'm not a Singaporean, so, no. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Optical (musician)

I am the initial author of the current Optical (musician) article. I'm informing you that I will be removing the notability template from the article, and below are the reasons.

His musical partner Ed Rush has had his own Wikipedia entry since 2003 with equivalent notability coverage as do hundreds of other living artists covered on Wikipedia. Previous articles on Optical were constantly being deleted to the point where one could freely suspect malice. The page provides ample external sources (Discogs entries, newspaper articles, production and musicianship credits on notable albums by other artists, among others).

I understand that people who are not into drum'n'bass could jump to a hasty conclusion about this person's notability, but one's lack of insight into a complete subculture does not justify putting undue notability requirements that are not put on other artists. Matt Quinn aka Optical is, in drum and bass, and electronic music in general, about as notable as Jimmy Page is in rock music. To me, someone who has been a part of that scene for the last twenty years, having to justify it looks more than ridiculous. But I do understand where the error might have come from as it's not reasonable to expect everyone to know everything about everything. Still, if the genre has the page, the sub-genre he essentially started has it's page (Neurofunk), his pioneering work has a page (Wormhole (album)), his peers have theirs (Dom & Roland, DJ Fresh among others), less notable artists have theirs, many of whom have been his proteges or fans before becoming famous themselves (I'll point some articles: Cause_4_Concern, Noisia), and semi-related significantly less notable artists have theirs (Fred V & Grafix come to mind, because I personally like their music) then I see no reason to doubt his notability.

If you have concrete, specific objections on the article and specific parts of it please put them in talk page or add specific objection templates where applicable. However, given previous history of attempts to document Optical on this site, without proper reason and notifications, I will object and likely remove any unjustified blanket tagging of the article. --Bmarkovic.79 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bmarkovic.79: My concern is not what you assume to be. Normally, an article is created for an artist or group that have achieved some prominence. As far as I can tell, Optical is only famous for being part of Ed Rush and Orbital. Any sources of note are about the duo, not the individual. Discogs and other listing sites do not contribute to notability. Therefore, there should be an article on Ed Rush and Optical, not on Optical. This is made clear in the guideline WP:NBAND - members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. You can therefore create the article Ed Rush and Optical, and Optical can be redirected to that article (Ed Rush is marginal as a standalone article as there are sources about him outside of the duo). Optical should only be created as an article when the person has done work outside of duo that has received significant coverage. It is why Jimmy Page has his own article (outside of Led Zeppelin, he was part of The Yardbirds and The Firm, and has done solo work that received attention). I'd suggest that you first move the article to Ed Rush and Optical or Ed Rush & Optical, rewrite the article as a duo (information about Optical alone can be a subsection), and when you have found enough sources on Optical alone, then that article can be recreated. Otherwise deletion is the likely outcome for the Optical article if you cannot find independent coverage of him outside of the duo. Hzh (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hzh: I disagree with the move and the notion. While Matt Quinn is most notable for his work as part of the musical duo, both musicians have had successful separate careers as well, both as musicians (i.e. making/producing electronic music) and as DJs. In the case of Optical, the most notable pre-Ed&Op era release is "To Shape the Future" that was published on a very notable Metalheadz label. I have added a news article that reflects on this particular fact and sheds more light on the parts of his career that were separate from the Ed&Op collaboration. --Bmarkovic.79 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Hzh, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium

It feels like you're making Northumberland Development Project article redundant, I was wondering if we should cut back a bit the amount of information Hotspur Stadium article. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: At the moment, it is simply adding the relevant parts from Northumberland Development Project, then see how to adjust the content. I will trim some of the content added (particularly in the history section), and then add more that are specific to the stadium (facilities, pitch, etc.). It will look different by the time it is finished. I expect it to take a few weeks as the World Cup is taking my attention away from the editing. You are however free to trim anything you think is not relevant, and I can then adjust them. Hzh (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the world cup is taking everyone's attention!! :P Govvy (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Karpal Singh

MrNigerian (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Stop threatning. Facts are being added about Mr Singh, as per issues raised by the Sikh community towards him. Not defamation or POV. It does not say he supported the genocide, it states that he was silent about it, when Sikh politicians throughout the world condemned the Indian government for the atrocities. A fact about his life.

It is irrelevant. Anything possibly contentious about a person needed to be sourced. Hzh (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Mosque

Hi there! Thank you for accepting and updating on Cambridge Mosque. Actually, that's my first article, and I translated that from German. Regards. --Adeninasn (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Spurs GA

I was just having a read through the GA, I assume that you that put down done, maybe you can change them to {{done}} template and sign each one (~~~~), be much appreciated thanks, Govvy (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Certainly, will do that later when I start adding sources and adjusting the text. Some of the those needing sources are written by me (I roughly know where they come from, but need to check them first), but some are not mine, and I'm not sure if I can find sources for those I didn't write. Might take a couple more days, we'll see. Hzh (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sakura Guardian

Thanks for tidying up the page, HZH - nice one!Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: You are welcome. I would however recommend that you add an infobox for the article. Also stage production (not capitalised) is not the standard term in film (stage refers to theatre) and I'm not sure what it means (film production?). Hzh (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 50 reviews during the 2018 June Backlog Drive, please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping New Page Patrol and keep up the good work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

I have had a couple of messages from Govvy a few minutes ago and the user says I may copy the icon to the userspace - {{GA user topicon|article_name=Tottenham Hotspur F.C.|date=7 July 2018}}. I'm not sure if I have full permission to do this or leave it as it is... Iggy (Swan) 11:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Swanny my dear friend, I was just trying to have a laugh with you. Govvy (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have seen other people add it to their user page, so it's fine to use it if anyone wants to. Personally I haven't done anything to my user page (it's been left blank), so I won't do anything until I have decided to write something for my user page. Hzh (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Ah, I see you have added it, thank you. Hzh (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't help myself, thought I'd give you a few icons, hope you don't mind. :) Govvy (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy that you did. Cheers. Hzh (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sinhalese People

Hello you recently reversed my edit for Sinhalese People, Since the government of Sri Lanka doesn't provide accurate information on how much Sinhalese people are recorded since the number has been 17 Million for quiet a long time I think its a right time that number increases to 19 million and the cited source says the last time it was recorded was in 1997 same goes for the language too — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLOGLK (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@DLOGLK: You may not simply add any number you wish without a source. Without a source you might as well as add 25 million, 30 million or whatnot (and people have done that to many articles), and no one would be any wiser as to whether it is correct or not. Hzh (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

VAST - Black Magic

Hello, I have restored this page. Please don't delete it as I am involved in a major promotion for this new album that is pending release.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan-S79 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ryan-S79: Please read WP:PROMOTION. You may not used Wikipedia to promote anything, promotional articles are likely to be deleted. Hzh (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Capitalizations

Please note that there are rules governing capitalization of titles per WP:NCCAPS. Capitalization should only be used when it is a proper name, and that is not a proper name. Note also the wrong use of capitalization of subheadings in the article. Stop capitalizing everything. Hzh (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I understand you, that "Regional Ethnic Autonomous" is in the law as you can see, but the word system is not. So I think that's the reason that u object. But consider this page " http://www.gov.cn/test/2005-07/04/content_11789.htm " which uses the full English equalvelent "Regional Ethnic Autonomous System" as the Title. What do you think? @Hzh. 邬山 (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Hzh, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Typing in bold face

Thank you for telling me to avoid typing in bold face at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. This was just a gut reaction - I get so used to using the bold face at deletion discussions, that it just flowed out of me! I hope that you did not mind my comment saying that I agreed that the article on Simon Friend (Levellers) should just be Simon Friend. I thought that this was just an innocuous way of saying that I agreed with the comment that since we only have one article on Simon Friend, it should just be called Simon Friend. Vorbee (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee: I only said it because it wasn't clear what you were agreeing to. It could be read as voting and agreeing with the deletion, or agreeing with keeping. if you were agreeing with the comment made by Necrothesp, then add one or more colons (:) in front of your reply (you use one more : than the previous one}, it will indent your reply so others can see that you are replying to that comment. Hzh (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Why

Why are you deleting my stuff on American Idol season 16 TheBadassNinja (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Read the edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Malaka vs Malacca

I notice you are an occasional Malaysia article contributor. Do you know about the following for the Malaysian state:

There are many articles and categories using 'Malaka'; there are also many articles and categories using 'Malacca'. Articles' text is the same way. I do not find any text saying there was a name change. What is the correct name? Are there any references that discuss a name change or the difference? Also is Malaka simply the name in Malay and Malacca the name in English and as an English encyclopedia should we therefore be using Malacca? Hmains (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hmains: The issue has been discussed in Talk:Malacca a number of times, see for example Talk:Malacca#Requested move. There was indeed a decision by the state government that the state be called Melaka - [3], however, it is not still not widely-used enough except in Malay sources (which have always used Melaka), so there is no clear consensus to change the name yet. However, it may be changed in the future if Melaka become the preferred term used in English sources. Hzh (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks much. I will change nothing from what it is currently Hmains (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European Diving Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biennial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northumberland Park, London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR Bronze Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1000 reviews in the past year. Thanks for your reviews of new articles and redirects; your efforts are appreciated. Keep up the good work. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Han Chinese, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Rzzgn (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Levy (businessman)

I was thinking after seeing a talk page post on Levy that maybe we should put some focus and work towards improving his article next. Let me know if what you think, cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: I don't actually know much about Levy, although I'd be happy to help with any improvement of the article. It may take some time as I assume there would be quite a bit of reading to do. Hzh (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blue Inc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Levy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Noel Conway (Lecturer)

Please expand on why you tagged this article for notability. Noel Conway has had significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, and I've provided references to two of them (The BBC and The Telegraph). Jdee4 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jdee4: It's essentially WP:BLP1E, a person only known for one event, and that event is not even particularly significant, given that he lost the case, nor was it the first of such cases. If he manages to be successful at the Supreme Court, then that might be significant, and may warrant an article, but for now his notability is questionable. I added a tag rather than nominating it for deletion, giving someone else another chance to check. If you want the wider Wikipedia community to examine its notability, I can always nominate it for deletion, then they can decide whether to keep it or delete it. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hzh: Thank you for your explanation. I suppose the significance of the event in question is debatable, although given that the issue is highly contentious and actively relevant not just in the UK but multiple jurisdictions, I do view it as significant myself. For comparison, Diane Pretty and Debbie Purdy both have pages, as does Tony Nicklinson (albeit in the form of a page for the court case R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice). Diane Pretty and Tony Nicklinson both lost their cases too. No need to nominate for deletion at this point I feel. Jdee4 (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jdee4: I have no idea if Diane Pretty was the first of such cases, if she was, then that might be notable. Note that the article on the person Tony Nicklinson was redirected because the subject was deemed not notable - [4], which may be a possible fate of this article (being redirected or merged into another article). There are numerous news items every day (e.g. burglary, murder, accident, etc.), and the people involved are not necessary notable even if reported widely by reliable news sites. We normally only include people who have longer-lasting significance (see WP:NOTNEWS), therefore if his case resulted in a significant change in policy or law (or its interpretation), then an article on him would be warranted. Hzh (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Chronicle (UK TV series)

You did a really good job improving that article. I found a barnstar for you. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For significant improvements to Chronicle (UK TV series) while the article was at AfD. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: Aww, thank you very much. The article needed improving and it was simply a surprise that anyone would consider it not notable. Also thank you for the copy-editing, I often don't see the mistakes I made. Hzh (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your excellent work in sourcing and expanding Chronicle (UK TV series). Good job! Simon Adler (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simon Adler: Thank you! The article still needs a bit of work, but I'll see if I can finish that within the next few days. Hzh (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Chronicle BBC2 title.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Hzh, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Question for you

I was just wondering why you changed the edit on the 92nd Century page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dklover77 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dklover77: For something to warrant an article, you need evidence that it is notable enough, and that means multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. If you can provide that, then by all means remove the redirect and give the sources. Hzh (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So I used "https://web.archive.org/web/20070710041555/http://www.marco-peuschel.de/simtrans.pdf" as the reference on the page. It talks about the Simultaneous Transits by Meeus and Vitagliano and it has listed on one of those dates that on November 5, 9106, Venus will occult Regulus. Is that link a good source?(Dklover77 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Far future events are not usually included due to WP:CRYSTAL. The events listed are also not particularly notable. Please note that all centuries in the distant future are redirects. Also, what is so particularly interesting about the 92nd century vs the 82nd or the 72nd or the 62nd, etc.? --Ebyabe (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh I was working on as many as possible. I was gonna edit more centuries and give them more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dklover77 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dklover77: I think the information can be put into the millennium article. As it is, there isn't much to warrant an individual article on the century. As far as I can tell, all the centuries from the 31st onwards don't have their own articles. Hzh (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note also that the source you gave isn't really about the century itself, but transits. Hzh (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Someday Cowboy

Hi Hzh, Thanks for bringing the Someday Cowboy article to my attention regarding notability. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia--I've only written 10-20 articles about indie rock bands and albums so far. But I think the Someday Cowboy meets WP:Album notability, specifically under the first criterion: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." There are four sources in particular that I think address this criteria: The Edmonton Journal, Vue Weekly, BeatRoute and Earmilk. The Edmonton Journal, Vue Weekly, and BeatRoute all list independent editorial boards on their websites (for example, here: http://beatroute.ca/contact-2). Additionally, Earmilk is a major music blog with a readership of two hundred thousand and they premiered the record. I also noticed in my web searches that the album is charting on some American college radio, so I changed that sentence and added more citations. Tracklan2 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tracklan2: As far as I can tell, there might be only one that can pass the criteria on sources (Vue Weekly), even that some may quibble as it is local rather than a national publication, the others are short mentions, or passing mentions in article about other subjects (e.g. the singles). For notability requirements please see WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. I will put up a tag on notability, please add sources you think that would indicate notability - they may be coverage of the album, reviews by significant publication (reviews in blogs are generally ignored unless they are attached to notable publications), chart entry (college charts don't count towards notability), etc. before you remove the tag. If the issue is not fixed, then it will be either nominated for deletion or the page gets redirected to the artist. The result of any nomination need not be deletion - it can also be kept or merged or redirected to another article, although it will need significant improvement in sources to guarantee survival. Hzh (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on adding more sources that indicate notability. I'm curious why the article from BeatRoute Magazine does not indicate notability to you. Although the article also discusses the release show for the album, it contains significant details about the music on the album. BeatRoute magazine is published both online and in print. Perhaps I should add a citation to the print edition of the article published in BeatRoute.

@Tracklan2: It does not look to be substantial to me as well as being a regional magazine. However, that is just my opinion, should the article come up for deletion discussion, you can argue for it as a source. Some may accept your argument and vote to keep the article. The other sources don't appear to contribute to notability, therefore you may need at least another one similar to the Vue Weekly article. The sources need not be online (although nowadays any publication of note would have an online presence). Hzh (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to try and rescue Angelique Rockas company`s Wikipedia page Internationalist Theatre from deletion?

Thank you! Alizafar567 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alizafar567: I'll certainly take a look. It seems to pass notability guidelines as it is, although those who vote on deletion discussion on companies/corporations tend to be more strict with their criteria, which can be an issue. You can vote on it, citing the appropriate guideline (although new users voting on such discussion may face scrutiny). It may take a while for me to go through all the sources, so I won't vote on it just yet. Hzh (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chronicle (UK TV series)

Hello! Your submission of Chronicle (UK TV series) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks for letting me know, although I did not nominate it, someone else did. I do however intend to go though the article in a few days' times as it still needs some adjustment and additions, as well as some clarifications. The 20 million figure wasn't worded correctly I think. Hzh (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Hzh, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Chronicle (UK TV programme)

On 24 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chronicle (UK TV programme), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that more than 20 million people watched Chronicle during its three-day live coverage of the raising of the Mary Rose in 1982? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Chronicle (UK TV programme)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI...

Books don't need accessdates. They are reserved for webpages only (not pages of books or journals...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks for the info. I was going through the references just adding them where needed, although for the books I was thinking of using the other methods for books so that they might be consistent for all the books. I haven't quite decided what to do with them yet, do they need to be all the same format? I was wondering if that is what "consistent citations" means. At the moment I'm still going through some books to see what needs to be added (for example, the 1930s-1940s period is not well-covered at the moment), and if there are parts that need to be trimmed, so perhaps a couple more weeks before it is finished. Hzh (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What I have done is put books at the bottom and use sfn templates for separate pages if I am using different pages to cite things from a single book. If I use the book just once I will leave it in the refrences section - like in Canis Major I think. Take your time - getting it done right is better than getting it done quickly, just give us a hoy when you reckon the content is right. We could also do the parent article. I have all these superstitious thoughts like if we get these articles to FA, then maybe Spurs will win a major trophy this season and Harry Kane will stay....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: The main article needs to be tidied up first I think. I'm debating with myself if it needs a section on training facilities and more on other associated bodies such as the academy, there is an odd mention of the training ground in the first paragraph and not mentioned afterwards, perhaps that needs to be moved. A couple of questions - the bolding appears unnecessary if "history of Tottenham Hotspur" is not used per MOS:BEATLESINUS, should it be unbolded or changed back? Do you have any objection about using singular for the club and plural for the team? The club is commonly used as a plural in Britain, although articles on other football team on Wikipedia appear to prefer the singular for the club? Hzh (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Also for the book citation, some of books I have are ebooks, and I'm not sure how to cite the pages, so I used chapter instead, is that OK, or are there ways to do it differently? Hzh (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That should be ok. Agree that it is frustrating when the ebook has no page numbers! Sometimes I'll look in the index to try figure out what page I am on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Sci-Hub shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Actually I made only two reverts, perhaps you are too keen to issue warning. Given that it was you who actually just stop discussing and started making POV edits, it is odd to ask me to discuss. I was still discussing. Hzh (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

About deletion of Pratisaad film article.

I have notice everything have different treatment and rules on wikipedia! Film page of Pratisaad Is marked for deletion and Sorry and Gadbad Gondhal as well. I did research over it for almost hour I found this director is a genuine one apart Pratisaad is worlds first film on homeopathy if you do research in that direction you will get lot of material over it! This film is a biography of world famous doctor. I have tried to find sources given to page but after checking this reliable pages of news papers i found this news papers dont keep old news only ie not before 2016. For this check neatly the reference editors quoted must be genuine but may be archive or deleted . The award mentioned they have won is genuine check IMDB Awards section which us very genuines and reliable source of information for films! The directors page having genuine reference which make clear he made films and SORRY is film he made which is clear on net he is delaying due to may be he wanted to release in festivals. Though I’m marathi I understand marathi film makers ofter do that Sorry has got awards which is not recognised so its not available on IMDB But after research i found the awards official facebook page where film SORRY and Gadbad Gondhal’s nominations and awards announcements are there check page and see post of oct/nov/dec 2017. https://m.facebook.com/ambarbharari/?tsid=0.7972966838332627&source=result

Facebook count as notable reference kindly check Tu Maza Jeev posters reference for it. I have also noticed on IMDB and on net TIVEN2240 is user whos name is listed on Tu maza jeev films IMDB page as Social Media Marketing Manager which is against paid advocacy right??? After raising this many people have got banned. Tiven and userkiran may be misguiding kindly do translation and reckeck links , IMDB , Facebooks of everything they initiate to delete.

Kindly see this issue and sort. 🙏🏻 thanks 49.248.235.233 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@49.248.235.233: You are free to vote on the deletion, giving your reason for not deleting (if you want to keep, write *'''Keep''', then state your reason). Note that Facebook and IMDb don't count as sources for notability purposes. At the moment I have no opinion whether to keep or not, I was just stating my issue with the nomination. Hzh (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought undergrounding fact you will know seriousness oflobby and say kept on comment! Younerd to check Tiven2240 his pages created and paid advocacy. Though I’m not registered user request you to raise this issue to Admin or Burocat please . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.235.234 (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I received the same message on my talkpage. @49.248.235.234: IMDb is not a reliable source at all. It can be edited by anyone. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of raising the matter with any admin about this, I'm not even quite sure what is being requested of me. But in reply to 49.248.235.234, you don't need to register to make your opinion or concerns known. Hzh (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your work on Sci-Hub. We all have have lots of options for advancing the article but you are the one making different proposals and talking them through with others. I appreciate that you have been able to convene discussion. If you did choose to convene an RfC then I expect the Wikipedia community would comment. Elbakyan was a keynote speaker at Wikimania 2017 in Montreal, to which she was invited to speak because of broad community interest in her ideas about providing access to knowledge to the people who request it. Similar to the interest people had for inviting her there, I think there is Wikipedia community interest in making sure that this article presents this topic in the best Wikipedia way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thank you. There are a few editors who are keen to introduce non-neutral terms into the article, and the problem is quite extensive. I'm not sure an RfC is the best approach at the moment because it is so extensove, but we'll see how it develops. Hzh (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not ready to jump into general conversation but even if you do not call an RfC, but can narrow the scope of the issues, then I would comment. Thanks for probing the situation. Any conversation is useful and leads to changes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Misrepresenting other users, as you did here, is unacceptable behavior per WP:TPNO. Please stop doing that. If you continue to do that, I will seek community action. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Perhaps you should try to explain which bit I misrepresented, large part of what I said you did not actually challenge. A number of other editors have objected to your wordings, not just me. Hzh (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In that diff you wrote you did not actually reply to my point about it not being a summary of the sources. I and others have tried to explain how the content is supported by sources. Just for two examples, at Talk:Sci-Hub#Facts_in_plain_English,_and_ethics and Talk:Sci-Hub#Credentials where I placed discussions of sources and showed how they support the content. You can disagree with the presentation, but your writing you did not actually reply to my point about it not being a summary of the sources is untrue. If you continue making misrepresentations like that I will seek community action. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I have repeatedly stated quite clearly the problem with part of the sentence, e.g. in Talk:Sci-Hub#Framing the RfC and Talk:Sci-Hub#Problematic wordings that large part of what you wrote is not actually supported by independent reliable sources, and you certainly did not challenge me on that point, and you actually specifically stated I won't respond to the rest "the rest" being that very point. I did not even participated in Talk:Sci-Hub#credentials, which ended before I even started the RfC, so how is that a reply? Furthermore you went off refusing to discuss further in Talk:Sci-Hub#Facts_in_plain_English,_and_ethics (you said I will not be responding to you further), therefore you certainly did not reply to my more detailed analysis later, and when you went back to it, you still did not respond to all the other points made, such as partisan sources. Hzh (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be stated that issuing spurious warning is itself an offence. Hzh (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, your disagreeing with an effort to show how content is supported by sources, is different from not replying at all. You claimed the latter, and it is not true. Stop doing that. I will not reply here further. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you actually reply to the point about it not being a summary of the sources, I certainly don't see it. You talked about something, but I don't see you framing it as a reply to that point specifically (especially when you explicitly stated that you won't talk about it). Hzh (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I would suggest that next time, if you feel that there is an issue, just take the matter to ANI or any other appropriate venue. It has the advantage of everyone's behaviour being examined, yours included, and who knows, it might prompt the intervention of an admin or two in an article where WP:V and WP:NPOV have become a concern. Hzh (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Hzh,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A last warning

This response from you, asking me about why I cited "the word press piece", when I had clearly explained why here, and your note here, distorting what I worte here are both unproductive, not to mention distractions.

I warned you above about your abuse of the talk page.

Your behavior at the talk page has in general been poor.

I have gathered diffs and I will be seeking a TBAN the next time you make a comment on the talk page similar to the ones I have presented here and above. They are your editing privileges to keep or have restricted. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:I was simply puzzled as to you gave a quote that does not contain anything about darknet that is from a self-publish source. It is not about which source the eLife article uses (I did understand that), rather why use an unacceptable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Hzh (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You will do as you will. All I can do is warn you that you that i am very close to filing a TBAN case, filled with specific diffs. Please take your time and think carefully before saving further comments on the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If you misunderstood my point which is about not using self-published sources, rather than about it being a source for eLife, then the issue is not about me. Hzh (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hzh. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation

Thanks for notifying us at the Sci-Hub talk page, that you posted at RSN. In that posting, you misrepresented what the "about" page says, as I pointed out here. Please correct the misrepresentation of the source at RSN. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The review process in publishing research article refers to independent reviewers, not what the editor does. This article is presented as a research on Sci-Hub's activity, but there is nothing to suggest that it had undergone any review process by independent reviewers. Hzh (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Along with ignoring "editorial control", your post has the following additional misrepresentations:

Note however that no actual evidence was provided for the charges. The blog post actually shows a great deal of detail - there is some evidence presented. Yes the article says it will not put all its cards on the table. This is a half-truth.

Sci-Hub itself denied that it is involved. This piece published September 18, 2018. I am unaware of any response from Sci-Hub about the SK piece. Perhaps they did, but it is not cited anywhere in WP, and not by you. Yes she did say very specific, careful things in 2016 and 2017. She denied "phishing though the Sci-Hub website". That is a very specific thing. "through the website." Similarly "Sci-Hub is not doing any phishing by itself". That is about Sci-Hub itself - the website/software platform. She said "I did not send any phishing emails to anyone myself". That leaves a huge amount of room for the kinds of activities described in the SK piece.

Please correct these misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Look at the evidence closely, and you will find that the evidence presented does not show that Sci-Hub was involved in phishing or trading. E.g. the evidence that "the credential had gone viral" is not evidence that Sci-Hub is involved, nor the Passfans website. The claim by the Scholarly Kitchen is specifically related to Sci-Hub, and it gave not one shred of evidence to show that. You should note also that Scholarly Kitchen made the specific claim that the source of the activity as being Sci-Hub. There is another quote that says Sci-Hub is not doing any phishing by itself. Hzh (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You are aggressively misreading the content, which only says participation in the black market, which could be limited to just buying credentials. We don't know the extent of the participation.

I will be requesting the TBAN over the weekend. I have given you all the warning I possibly could, but your persistence in misrepresenting the content, the sources, and what other people are saying is disruptive, especially given the level of your participation (you are the #1 contributor on the talk page the last time I checked) Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that blog post itself is unreliable because it does not give evidence for the accusations it made. When you have such an source, you should be careful when using it for the content. The RSN will decide who is right or wrong. Hzh (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Note also that the content says the credentials used by Sci-Hub have been subsequently used by third parties and are bought and sold like other personal information in black markets. Subsequently is the significant word there - i.e. it indicates that Sci-Hub obtained credentials first before it spread to third parties and get bought and sold. The wording is not what you claim it to be. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: If you feel that you need to start a TBAN discussion, please do, but be aware of using arguments that may suggest you are the one who is being aggressive and disruptive, especially when you have been issuing warnings based on your misunderstanding, and refusing to accept my explanations. Hzh (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep i am aware of that. You can render the filing (and the community time to deal with it) unnecessary by becoming much more careful in what you write and striking misrepresentations when you do happen to make them. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way what the content actually says "Credentials used by Sci-Hub to access paywalled articles have been subsequently used by third parties to access other information on university networks and are bought and sold like other personal information in black markets." carefully matches the facts from all the sources, including Sanchez as well as SK. Most importantly Sanchez says Sci-Hub takes advantage of an active international market in stolen user credentials, where innocent users give up their passwords to phishing attacks targeting the university community.. You are not dealing with this very reliable source. You cannot continue pretending that it doesn't exist. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I will certainly endeavour not to misrepresent anyone and will strike off any such comment. However, note that a quick count shows that me and Guy have roughly the same number of signed comments (just over 100) followed by you (77) after I started commenting in the talk page (it's just a quick count, therefore there might be some errors, but the numbers should not be far off). I have a higher edit count simply because I tend to copyedit and adjust comment before anyone replies. Hzh (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me here, but I don't see the Sanchez article mentioning the sequence of event of the credentials it uses being subsequently used by third parties to access other information on university network. The wording of the Sanchez article can imply that Sci-Hub bought the credentials it uses (although it could also be interpreted as others buying the credentials for them), and other people then access copyrighted material via Sci-Hub. The sequence of events as described in the content would be only be found in the SK article. Note also that the Sanchez claim about the use of credentials does not have an inline citation, so it is unclear where it gets the information, and may be considered a primary source or an opinion piece. Hzh (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

In that piece, Sanchez describes a) phishing and b) subsequent use of the stolen credentials on Sci-Hub. Elbakyan denied phishing "through Sci-Hub" and also denied "sending pishing emails myself". Ruseell/Sanchez, to which the Sanchez piece is a follow up, says "Sci-Hub takes advantage of an active international market in stolen user credentials, where innocent users give up their passwords to phishing attacks targeting the university community. " That ref is important here as well.

That I have to quote sources to you at this stage, after you have made yourself the #1 contributor to the talk page, is a sign of how committed you are to ignoring the sources and "just say no", in any way you can, and not helping actually generate well-sourced content describing how Sci-Hub obtains credentials. You have never offered any content suggesting how to better summarize the sources, in all the 183 edits you have made to the talk page. Not once. I will not be responding to you further. I will be filing at AN. We will see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: If you think that is the best way to go, then by all means do it. Let someone independent assess the issue. I would just point out that while you complained about me misrepresenting the source, you have just done it with the Sanchez article, here and in the RSN. And BTW, I did offered suggestions in the talk page. Hzh (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

And at least for now, the talk page remains available to you to offer content that better summarizes how Sci-Hub obtains and uses other people's credentials. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I will do it in a few days time. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Hzh,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Hzh, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 13:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)