User talk:Hugsyrup/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Happy Winter!

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

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! Hug^syrup 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Creation

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

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

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)

Merry Merry!

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

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)

WP:TOP25

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. Serendi^podous 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? Hug^syrup 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! :) Serendi^podous 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. Serendi^podous 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and of course, thank you! :) Serendi^podous 07:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Will do. You're welcome, thanks for involving me! Hug^syrup 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? Hug^syrup 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? Hug^syrup 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? Hug^syrup 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! Hug^syrup 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! Hug^syrup 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. Hug^syrup 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)

Regarding your tip

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! Hug^syrup 08:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Hugsyrup: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはHugsyrupたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

1old thing

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 (talk • contribs) 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. Hug^syrup 08:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

W2S

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_creep^Talk 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_creep^Talk 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! Hug^syrup 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_creep^Talk 17:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Even the supposed awards are junk. scope_creep^Talk 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. Hug^syrup 21:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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

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

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. Hug^syrup 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A pie for you!

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!

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

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

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

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

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)

Terence Mordaunt

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. Hug^syrup 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. Hug^syrup 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)

Re Teahouse Message

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 (talk • contribs) 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. Hug^syrup 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 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

why did u delete my article anesia May.

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. Hug^syrup 10:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your help reverting that vandal on my talk page, sorry I wasn't on to help you out though. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries! I was still watching your talk page from when we spoke before, so I thought I’d jump in and help. That’s the good thing - it doesn’t matter if you’re not on as someone else is usually around to lend a hand :) Hug^syrup 10:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A7 applied to radio stations

Hi Hugsyrup -- thanks for pinging me. My edit summary declining your A7 speedies was not very informative, sorry. I am surprised that another admin deleted a radio station under A7 as they do not seem to me to be eligible. For a start they are not companies/organisations but rather products/services, so strictly A7 does not apply. Additionally, as WP:BROADCAST is rather lax, discussion as to whether a particular station meets its guidelines or not -- including after improvement by the addition of reliable sources -- will usually be needed, thus requiring an AfD rather than a speedy. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: no worries, and thanks for taking the time to drop me a message. Edit summaries are often not very informative so that's not your fault! Likewise, I apologise if the tone of my AfD nominations were... well... a bit grouchy. I was slightly frustrated as I was genuinely trying to follow the right process and be selective about which articles needed an AfD and which (I thought) would be accepted for A7 based on prior experience - so the seeming inconsistency in outcome was annoying. But of course I understand you're right to push to AfD if there is any uncertainty at all, and discussion before deletion is never a bad thing. Hug^syrup 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Arsenal Hvar article

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 (talk • contribs) 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? Hug^syrup 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 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@RDam94: it’s perfectly acceptable to add offline citations, if they cover the topic in detail. Good luck! Hug^syrup 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 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, I tried to resubmit for approval, and am not sure if it worked... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDam94 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@RDam94: it doesn't look as if it's been submitted. Not sure if that has anything to do with it being moved while you were editing it - but you might just need to try again clicking the button at the top of the page. Hug^syrup 14:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I made a simple but crucial mistake when trying to publish last time :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDam94 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for all the help; could I ask one more question. google does not seem to find the wikipedia article, is there anything I can do about this? To me it seems that the article is online for all, and could be properly indexed by google. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.211.10 (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Hugsyrup

Thank you for creating Murder of Alistair Wilson.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Hugsyrup, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Hugsyrup,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list

Hi Hugsyrup! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed on the AFC's participants list, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months. Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to regain access to the AFCH script, you can do so at any time by visiting WT:AFCP. Thank you for your work at AFC, and if you start editing Wikipedia again we hope you will rejoin us. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Hugsyrup,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

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

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Hugsyrup,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Hugsyrup,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 808 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Hugsyrup,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 9299 articles, as of 20:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)