User talk:Scope creep/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jofish Kaye[edit]

Thanks for your feedback. Errors fixed as per request, and pinging you here, also as per request. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jofish_Kaye

Dunoon[edit]

Hello! Thank you for your message about Dunoon. It's nice to chat and collaborate with Wikipedia editors for the public good! I believe your edit is incorrect - your version reads: Dunoon is covered and operates under two separate central governments, the devolved Scottish Parliament and UK Government.

It mentions 'Government' and then links to Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is not a Government.

It then continues and UK Government. Again, UK Parliament constituencies and the UK Government are two different things. The UK Government derives its authority from the UK Parliament (which is made up its constituencies naturally). But again the Parliament is very different to the Government. So the link says it is one thing, and then links you to a completely different article.

Whereas the original version, "Dunoon is covered and operates under two separate central governments, the devolved Scottish Government and British Government" says Dunoon has two Governments and then links you to the Wiki articles about the two Governments, not the two Parliaments. That is correct and essentially why that version is more accurate and informative.

Perhaps you would prefer it to read "Dunoon is covered and operates under two separate central Parliaments, the devolved Scottish Parliament and British Parliament"? That would also be correct. But the version you prefer is at the end of the day not accurate because a Parliament and a Government are two different institutions.

I hope I have put my case clearly and logically. The British Parliament's website explains the distinction between the two institutions better than I can here: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-government/

I hope I have summarised fairly and logically why your edit is incorrect and I am going to revert the edit.

Warm wishes,

Fionn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionn12 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Let's chat this over on the Dunoon talk page and I'm sure we can resolve it.

Gaetano Ciancio Article[edit]

Thank you for your help the article got approved, however now it has the following comment: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". I thought you said you were going to remove this tagMedkatz (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021[edit]

Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021
On behalf of WP:WPWW, with appreciation for the women writer biographies you created during first quarter 2021. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

iMerit[edit]

On a side note, I smell meat and socks in that discussion in case you haven't already. Just FYI I am sure this is one that will get some IP votes and Newbies jumping in on the last day. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41: What one was that? I've been away a few days with work. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMerit. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CNMall41:. I missed that. If it happens again, get a salmon out the freezer and whack me across the face with it. I could witdraw it, if you want? scope_creepTalk 16:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NEVER. I hate fish!! In fact, I don't have any issue with the nomination. I have made mistakes in the past and likely will in the future so you are just keeping the flow of Wikipedia alive. I guess I came here to mention that some of the !votes smell a little meaty to me in case you haven't seen it already. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, no need for withdraw. Let the community make the decision. No harm, no foul. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, very much so re: meaty smell, very much so. scope_creepTalk 10:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested page move[edit]

Hi. I think we should move the page Fiona Lazareff to Fiona Scott Lazareff because most of the reliable sources who mention her list her as Fiona Scott lazareff. I note that other pages have been created under this namespace in the past but deleted due to their lack of notability. I think we should move the page.92.40.194.157 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2.40.194.157: Well if that is what she is known as, I can do it for you. Are you absolutely sure? scope_creepTalk 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats it. scope_creepTalk 14:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure.92.40.185.117 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request To Review Draft:Aaron Duncan[edit]

Hello @Mr.Creep when you get a chance I would like you to review Draft:Aaron Duncan please if no-one has looked at it as yet. I submitted it for review. I've been working to get it reviewed. Thanks In Advance. --Akim Ernest (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stauber[edit]

Hey! I've recently re-submitted this article, and I know you denied it last time. I have removed the bad refs and added in some better ones. If you could check it out, that would be great :) SupernaturalAcee (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn or not?[edit]

Hi, I've seen that you appeared to withdraw at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gbagbo Junior Magbi (2nd nomination) but then reverted Nehme's closing of the discussion. I've closed it as it looks like unanimous keep with nominator then withdrawing. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted your comment as the AfD template will need to be restored to the article as well (something that was subsequently removed). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Thanks. scope_creepTalk 21:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan E. Cober Help[edit]

I've gone through and removed the one external link on the biography for Alan E. Cober and additionally added some additional citations where they could be found. Mind checking it out and removing that embedded links template, or should I do that? Cober has been deceased for over 20 years.Rezimmerman (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezimmerman: You have improved the quality of it quite heavily. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 15:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Draft: Chris Buzelli[edit]

Hello Scope creep, hope everything is okay in your world.

In your notes on the Chris Buzelli page which you moved into draft, you request that the following citation be removed or replaced:

49 Illustrators 54 Medal Winners which refers directly to the original source of the award being mentioned: a post by the Society of Illustrators, and very reputable as a reference by any standard imaginable I would think. They are the society that gave him the award, and the article is simply cited as such. There are multiple other citations that you request to be removed that are from both very respected organizations and publishers and very similar to the one I've mentioned. Should I list them all for you?

What's an editor to do? And hang in there! The world is a bit nuts I think!Rezimmerman (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok as a ref. The other references, 18,21, 23,24,26,27,28, 35,36,37, 44 have to come out. They are self-published and not worth a sot. Please remove them. scope_creepTalk 08:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on this Scope creep! I improved all the citations you suggested. put some eyes on it as time allows and if it needs more medical attention, I'll be on it like white on rice. Cheers and hang in there!Rezimmerman (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cricketers[edit]

Please self-revert these moves to draftspace. They are part of an expansion of team lists by the cricket project in order to facilitate compromise/consensus solutions for articles on cricketers where finding significant coverage is a problem, without having to send them all to AFD. The reference provided in each article is sufficient for verification, especially when combined with the references contained in each of the linked articles. Thanks, wjematherplease leave a message... 11:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: They are not referenced. I was planning to put more in but ran out of time. Add a whole bunch of references to each of them, and I'm sure they will pass WP:AFC. scope_creepTalk 12:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather: For months I've been looking at reams of the cricket stubs that are blp's up at WP:NPP and , with a single profile references or some dodgy sports site. Not addressing is a form of systematic bias that is being organically maintained and it needs to stop. It is wrong for Wikipedia and wrong for people who are supposed to read these rank wee articles. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are plainly not unreferenced. Each article contains a reference to a reliable source (paywalled, admittedly). That is sufficient for the purpose of these lists – indeed the ones you moved are essentially indexes of the corresponding categories. Your argument is not helped by painting ESPN Cricinfo and Cricket Archive as "dodgy sports site"s. I suggest you open a centralised discussion before causing further disruption. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything Wjemather has said, these lists are needed WP:ATDs used as compromise for cricket articles where finding GNG coverage has proved difficult. They are referenced. They are also certainly not "dodgy sports sites" given that CricketArchive is provided by the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians and CricInfo is provided by ESPN. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then they shouldn't be on Wikipedia if coverage can't be found for them. The core problem here is the 2-state system that is been going on for ages. In one side is sports editors creating the crummiest of BLP article you have ever seen, single line entries, in the thousands, and linking to machine-generated profiles on cricket and other sports site, because they see other sports editors doing the same, with no encyclopedic content, and the other side, is people doing BLP's, have to follow a whole load of policy with a big chunk of genuine reference that satisfy WP:SECONDARY and WP:V. Is that fair? scope_creepTalk 15:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is why these lists have been created, so these articles where sourcing only exists in databases or statistical profiles can be redirected to list articles when it is clear and obvious that there is no sourcing, so they don't have to go through the AfD process. There is no guideline currently that you cant create list articles that only have sourcing from these databases or statistical profiles as these articles have all been created under the presumption they pass NCRIC, the cricket SNG. Currently because this SNG is considered weak there's been a large drive to delete/redirect a number of articles that pass the SNG but not GNG as GNG is needed even if an article passes an SNG, and the SNG is in the process of being improved. In these discussions it was decided that list articles are a good alternative to stub article and so some have been created as seen here, although these ones are basic and in need of improving. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penderel Moon[edit]

Hi. Please stop your massive draftification drive. Even when people disagree you're reverting it as you have done at Penderel Moon. You're clearly not assuming good faith. If you did this again, I will bring it to WP:ANI. Störm (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: The ONDB is sometimes wrong. Where is the other references, it is not 2008 anymore. scope_creepTalk 15:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added additional refs. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Articles[edit]

I noticed a comment you made elsewhere on the above topic. Article Rescue Squadron (I call them Project ARSehole) are dedicated to preserving even the most crap of articles, and canvas others to their cause, and each other to discussion. They routinely remove Speedy and Prod tags without justification and are incredibly arrogant when they do this as there is nothing in the P&G to stop that miserable behaviour.

I note that on one of the deletion pages that are current there are at least two senior members of that group enjoying themselves. IMHO theirs is most definitely not WP:AGF good faith editing. Just wanted you to know that you are not the only one to note this sort of thing. It is my sincere hope that sooner or later, that sort of behaviour becomes unacceptable. Best, -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, Your not kidding. I can't understand why it is being done. Where is the value? If it is a good article, well done, but this is about the fourth article I've seen in this series, and they are all crap. scope_creepTalk 18:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing to do is keep complaining. It has been going on for ages, and we have some terrible articles that the ARSeholes are responsible for. I once threatened to take the train down to London to attend a wikimeet that one of them attended. I wanted to give them a piece of my mind. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked them to close AFD[edit]

This article Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan is an AFD that is in it's third relist after 7 days. I did so since I think that three times is the maximum that it can be listed for deletion. Also I have add a reference section to your talkpage as well to keep things separate. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Why hasn't it been deleted if the decision is to delete at Afd? That is weird. Also, you posted this to my user page. I moved it to here. scope_creepTalk 07:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right here it says it was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan. I don't understand it either. Sorry about putting the message on the wrong page. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did want the article kept didn't you? I have kept a copy of it and it's subpages for future use. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Davidgoodheart: Thanks, but no. I thought that one of them might be notable. scope_creepTalk 13:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for letting me know this. Here is an AFD Disappearance of Maya Millete that I though that I would let you know about. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thank you for the request for references on the Mike Omer article[edit]

Hi there! You are 100% right about the references, I'm still working on it. I slistened to a few interviews with him and all the info is jumbled up in my head. I'll make sure to source everything. Please keep letting me know your thoughts! אמנות או נמות (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion[edit]

Hi! I have a couple of questions about what you said here. I'm always trying to improve as an editor so it'd be great if I understood your reasoning more. Am I not right in saying that what should be included in articles is material based on reliable sources, whether or not Wikipedians believe it to be true or not? If so, why would a belief that only health and taxes motivate people to vote rather than public figures motivating people to vote be a good reason for deleting the article if the material was cited to reliable sources saying that public figures motivated people to vote? For example, a survey was cited for the 2020 election, so it cannot be said that it is impossible to know that figures motivate voters or that it is very rare. Also, why would material about music cited to Rolling Stone, one of the most notable music publications, be considered inappropriate for the article? Even if one thinks these sources are too American-centric and thinks that, say, Asian sources should be used more because the American sources don't know what they're talking about (despite the fact that material quoted was cited to a source from India), why would that be a valid reason to discredit the sources if they're reliable? Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bgkc4444: How goes it? The sources were not strong to support the assertions you were making and effectively the type of sources were the wrong type. When you creating an article that examines the ethnographic effect of a person within a particular culture, then it needs to be an academic article, with academic sources, that provides a balanced view, that is backed by research. When the Rolling Stone editor says that Beyonce has created or revived a particular type of video production, that is a subjective statement. It is an opinion from a fan. He is writing for fans, from one fan to another. He hasn't done the research to prove it, so it is subjective. More so, from an ethnographic viewpoint, he is inside his own knowledge domain, which is specific to fans, and the knowledge that is associated with the domain, may not be amenable to drawing the types of conclusions of the type you're looking for, as may not be rigorous enough to support any particular. So when you're writing an article on these types of cultures, you need academics who tell you want is going on, and will provide research to show that it is true. It a complex subject. Surveys are a strange thing. They are a moment in time when certain conditions exist and after that moment passes, they will not exist again, in that same state. Any number of things can change a person mind. It is so quick, by the time the person (the surveyor) is finished talking to another person (the surveyed) they can change their mind. So it can't be used as a reference. It is Non-RS. When you say they are reliable sources, they are reliable sources, the organisation is reliable, but the sources aren't reliable, they're subjective because they aren't in the domain of cultural ethnography. It is effective fan fiction. Only cultural anthropologists and ethnographers who do the research can say for sure, that something is true, in that domain, unless it is a source, that is so common to everybody that is true. For example, You say could Germans lost the 2nd world war, and it's true, but you also say that a huge number of people believe in QAnon, which is false. It is disinformation. So to be sure that your facts are correct, look at the research. Go back and write the article again. Find researchers, that look at fan culture, and how it behaves in the context of Beyonce. It might not as big an article, but it will absolutely true, it will be an academic article and nobody will be able to say it is not true. Hope that helps! scope_creepTalk 20:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American research produces a titanic amount of excellent research. scope_creepTalk 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks so much for taking the time to detail your reasoning - I appreciate it :) Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lister[edit]

  • Scope, thank you for your note-- as for a reference that King Edward's appendectomy was in June rather than August 1902, there are many that are reliable and verifiable, but this is one example [1]. By August 24, his coronation and his surgery were but a memory. I'll see what I can find about a source about Lister getting the Knight's Grand Cross. Mandsford 17:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mandsford: Well done for catching that. External editors seem the ones that are picking up the errors at the moment. It was pretty clear from Gbook references, that it was true. I left that reference in. I think it just covers the statement that that King made explicitly to Lister, thanking him and not for the appendix part. I will need to check it at some point. I don't think it is an academic source, and couldn't immediately see a way of verifying it. If you can find anything on the KCVO, it would be ideal. I would have thought he would have been awarded it as a surgeon to royalty, but for some reason, Godlee, his initial biographers, doesn't mention it. There may be some other reason. scope_creepTalk 17:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further, there's no mention of the Knight Commander of the Victorian Order in Lister's obituary in The Guardian of February 12, 1912. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76833273/death-of-dr-joseph-lister/ The King of Denmark made him a Knight of the Grand Cross of the Order of the Dannebrog according to a 1918 biography, but I don't see him on lists of the KCVO conferred by Queen Victoria or King Edward VII or George V during his lifetime. Mandsford 17:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good reference, and more or less reflects the awards currently in the article. I wonder why the editor added it in? Possibly it is something to do with the Order of Merit being arranged. That question is definitely answered now. scope_creepTalk 17:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rafael Delorme (May 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CommanderWaterford were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi there. You said here that Lyanbox782 is a paid editor, right? Since I’m the one who got him blocked for general crazy and disruptive behavior, I was just wondering what proof you have for that and why it isn’t tagged on his talk page because it should be especially if he ever makes the mistake of appealing the block. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 19:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Smuckola: Just by his behaviour. Most editors now are paid. More than 80% of the new articles that come in are paid for. That I think as well as the work on Yahoo articles. It is immensely boring updating the logo on several dozen articles, all for Yahoo. scope_creepTalk 20:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of business people[edit]

Hi, I don't normally get involved in business related notability discussions, is there any guidance that I should be aware of that means the sources I found for Benjamin Smith are insufficient? I don't want to clutter the deletion discussion unnecessarily. WP:GNG doesn't go into much detail, but I think the sources I have found should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which is stricter than WP:NBIO. The Financial Times is a national newspaper with a wider audience than a trade paper like Aviation News. TSventon (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Not really. If they're from a reliable source and they are in-depth, they're comprehensive, not just profiles, or summaries of available information. Company articles are subject to NCorp, sources on those types of articles are subject to WP:SIRS. I think that article is close to being kept. I think if you found another decent ref, combined with what is there, it would probably be enough to satisfy WP:THREE. There should be more as KLM flies everywhere. scope_creepTalk 20:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My current conclusion is that WP:NBIO intentionally leaves room for editor opinion. I think that Benjamin Smith's 700 word profile in Les Echos contributes to WP:THREE, while you don't. Finding in depth sources on line is difficult as the publishers quite reasonably want to be paid for them, e.g. de Telegraaf lists 22 articles "about" him and all but one are paywalled. I also think that the main problem with the article isn't insufficient sources, it is that few or no editors without a COI are interested in contributing to it. TSventon (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avalanche (Consensus Protocol)[edit]

Hello, Scope_Creep! Thank you for your insight on the draft I’m trying to improve. I re-submitted the draft after making additional corrections.

Per your advice, I removed references 4,9 and 13 and replaced them with more scientific sources found on Google Scholar. Here are the references removed:

Here are the new sources I added from Google Scholar Publications: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=avalanche+protocol&oq=Avalanche+proto

(Source: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

(Source: Cornell University)

Regarding the reference #18 now, can you explain the rationale behind removal of it? You mentioned it was written by the contributor, so I double checked it and found at the bottom of the article that the author is actually a staff writer. I don’t mind to remove it if you still think it is not a good source: Gregory Barber is a staff writer at WIRED who writes about blockchain, AI, and tech policy. He graduated from Columbia University with a bachelor’s degree in computer science and English literature and now lives in San Francisco. STAFF WRITER

Lennoxhill (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennoxhill: It looks decent. That is a cracking article. scope_creepTalk 13:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on edits, not editors[edit]

The comment in this diff ("Please do not post up anywhere again. It is meaningless pap.") seems rather unnecessary, regardless of whether you are correct. I am not trying to single you out here, but I'd be quite happy if stuff like this didn't happen at AfD. jp×g 06:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: The statement he made, made no sense. It designed to fudge the whole thing, and the usual kind of stuff that you get from the WP:ARS editors. The problem with Afd is it no longer working. It is entirely broken as it favours a specific subgroup at the expense of everybody else. This is supposed to be a global encyclopædia, but at the moment it is not acting like it. scope_creepTalk 10:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:28:52, 15 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SanJuanHouston[edit]


All done revising Ryan Abbott(lawyer) as requested!

SanJuanHouston (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SanJuanHouston: How goes it? How about fixing the references next. Currently, they are bare URLs are really not worth anything, as web pages change ever 6 weeks. Take a look at WP:REFB which will give you a small tutorial on how in-line citations are correctly formatted. This reference, https://www.surrey.ac.uk/people/ryan-abbott once it is expanded out to a full cite, doesn't need to be used individually all over the article. In that instance, you would use ref tag. Here is an example:

as well as a solicitor advocate in England and Wales.<ref name="sur">{{cite web....</ref> He is a registered patent attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and a member of the California and New York State Bars.<ref name="sur"/> It shouldn't take too look to fix the citations. The article is looking better already. Please give me a shout when your finished and I will pass it to mainspace. scope_creepTalk 11:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symeon Shimin[edit]

I'd appreciate help, not sure why if there is some standard layout there isn't like a form, I did try. if you need ref's please let me know. there was one section I tried to reference but the information got tagged as self-promotion because it leads back to his book, or website about his book that was authored by his daughter.

@MaddAnna: Look at other biographies of artists to see how they are structured. Take a look at WP:MOS. I need references. The ones from the book are ok for a very limited number, but not all of them. I need three other sources. Remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. Large chunks of the article will need to be removed if there is no refs. scope_creepTalk 00:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:15:58, 18 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ltsqrd[edit]


Please give some advice on how to improve this draft in order to get the page approved for publish. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Ltsqrd (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltsqrd: Try and find some good WP:SECONDARY sources that validate why he is notable, from newspapers ideally. Not PR-generated content. Hopefully, that helps. Try and take out some Youtube references. Newspaper and magazine sources, e.g. reviews from websites that show the program is notable. Half the amount of Youtube video you have at least. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 11:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artist[edit]

Katie Gately[edit]

Hello,

Do you mean I should remove all the hyperlinks or the sources i.e [1]?

@Cheynoel: You need to sign your comments, so people know who you are. And provide to the article so I don't search for it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm new to Wikipedia the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Katie_Gately Cheynoel (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheynoel: Start with Blue Tapes url link and remove and do the rest. scope_creepTalk 18:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cheynoel: That is a good start. The lassie is definently notable. I think I can probably promote it to mainspace now. scope_creepTalk 13:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jean-Philippe Bonardi[edit]

Dear Scope creep, thank you very much for the insightful comments and suggestions. I have amended them and I was wondering whether to resubmit the page? Any additional suggestions and advices are welcomed. Thank you for your time. Appologies for not signing my comment. (Jpbonardi (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Jpbonardi: You need to sign your comments so folk knows who you are. Use the ~~~~. I'll take a look. scope_creepTalk 17:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That guy is a tank. No doubt about it. Can you resubmit please. I think you will need to add some more secondary sources to it, once it is promoted. Most of the first block of sources, are article by him. The article wont get nominated for deletion, but it needs secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY, to flesh out it a bit, otheriwse I'll need to put a tag on it. Resubmit it and I'll promote it now. scope_creepTalk 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Thank you, he is really fascinating person. Do you have any idea where to plug the additional secondary sources? Or maybe preference for them. Additionally, I wanted to ask you whether I have a time limit for adding them? Thank you again for your help. Jpbonardi (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpbonardi: No, there is no time limit, but it would be nice if they were there. Put them anywhere I suppose, wheres suitable. I don't know if you planning to write a new article, or want to expand this one. Every new article goes into the WP:NPP queue, where it is reviewed and as there are very few secondary sources, it may be sent back to draft, to get some more work on it. It does happen. All you need is three, that maybe discuss his work, per WP:THREE. scope_creepTalk 18:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Of course, I was asking because I was wondering if I need to rush for it or I can do proper analysis. I will be expanding this one for now to make sure it reaches satisfactory quality, I am a scientist so I will try to contribute more and more with new articles as time goes on. I appriciate all your help, thank you. Jpbonardi (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:50:15, 20 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Darasmithpr[edit]


Hi, my draft was declined because they said there was only mentioned press but I included full features from the highest regarded fashion news outlets more than once. How can I fix this? I have plenty of more reference to add but WWD is a news outlet that should be considered a legitimate news source. And isn’t Forbes as well as Elle?

Darasmithpr (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darasmithpr: That article reads like an advertisement as you well know, with a link to the shop, and forbes is not a reliable source. It is junk. Most of the references are PR, read like PR because they are paid advertising. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how it reads like an advertisement? I followed the same format as every other fashion designers page. Nothing was promotional but fact stating. None of the references are paid advertising, that’s not how articles like that work. I removed the website for her brand, although when I look at every other fashion designers pages their website is listed under external. I’m confused as I followed the same format and verbiage as other fashion designers. Darasmithpr (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just passing by, I notice such sentences as "Sadoughi's accessories are favored by many celebrities including..." and "Lele Sadoughi has also collaborated with many fashion brands including" ... DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment on the PS draft submission[edit]

Thank you, Scope creep for your recent comment. Since last 5 months we have been trying to get input from experienced Wikipedia editors such as yourself. We kept changing the scope of the article until there is not much left besides the ones which can be cited. Also changed the resources and eliminated primary ones. So there is work being done and followed up. For such a short article we have 12 citations but we are happy to hear where do you think we can add more. Please keep in mind this product is being developed as we speak and articles are being written about it as it ages and gains prominence. We are on the lookout for new ones to update the article all the time.

HTRDC (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)HTRDC[reply]

Draft:Peter Mostovoy[edit]

Hi, thanks for your help. I made some changes. I hope now it's enough to be published. Thank youFigelvigel (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Soviet shortwave radio transmitter.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Soviet shortwave radio transmitter.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peter Mostovoy[edit]

Hi, I made the changes. Can you check the article ? Thank youFigelvigel (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Figelvigel: There are still sections that don't have in-line citations. scope_creepTalk 21:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TO Scope_Creep Hello Scope_Creep Thanks for your message I'm work in ICICB Group and my manager asked me to create a page for our company like atari and another company. Let me know what I can do to accept the company on Wikipedia.


Draft:Wolfang Heindel[edit]

Hi Scope_Creep, thanks for your help and critique. I tried to implement all your suggested changes. Would you be so kind and help me out again. I'm quite new to Wikipedia and I'm sure I made loads of mistakes :D Cheers mate :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wolfgang_Heindel Tobias Geller (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tobias Geller: It is not really my purview, but I will take a look at it in today. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Anything helps :D Tobias Geller (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added in the websites Names :D thanks again for your help. I just realized, I misspelled your Name in my edits. I'm very sorry for that but I have no clue how to correct it. Please don't take offence.Tobias Geller (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peter Mostovoy[edit]

Dear Scope creep, I added more inline citations, could not be more I guess. Please, can you publish this article, it's very important for the hero of article 83 years old. Thank youFigelvigel (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Figelvigel: I have fixed those refs in the article. You will need to add at least 3 or 4 others. I removed several which would stopped it passing. Hope that helps. Look for the Citation Needed and put an in-line citation in. scope_creepTalk 21:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope I made changes you expect.Figelvigel (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Figelvigel: You have just put the same stuff back, that I took out. Ref 2,3,5, 12 aren't suitable for various reasons. Change to something better. scope_creepTalk 23:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

o.k. the new last changes are better? believe me, there are no better refs. let's finish this article, please.thank you2A00:A040:184:DAF:E4AD:8BA5:B550:A398 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you, Scope creep.2A00:A040:184:DAF:E4AD:8BA5:B550:A398 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Große Berliner Kunstausstellung
added links pointing to Alfred Agache, Max Stern, Theodor Hagen and Ludwig Hoffmann

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:49:05, 31 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bmxrules1[edit]


Dear Scope creep, thank you for reviewing the article. We've been waiting for 6+ months already for the article to be published.

Actually I was using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emelie_Forsberg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kílian_Jornet_Burgada as templates. This is standard infobox for sportspersons (please see more links )

Other athletes' pages look much the same 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sportsperson_infobox_templates 2. please check Skyrunning World Championships winners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Skyrunning_World_Championships_winners 3. or Russian athlete example https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ризаев,_Ирек_Евгеньевич

Infobox results are not repeated in the body of the article. I have left only selected most important results in the infobox excluding them from the body of the article.

So asking you to accept the article and finally publish it.

Please let me know on my further steps - should I resubmit the article now?

Bmxrules1 (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: would be really grateful if you have a second look at the article please Bmxrules1
@Bmxrules1: You will need to resubmit it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I have just resubmitted. Thank you. Bmxrules1

Request on 11:34:00, 4 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Si14360[edit]


Dear Scope creep. Thank you for your suggestions to improve the text of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sergei_Ipatov. I finished to make corrections of the draft. There were small corrections of the text (e.g., two sentences have been moved in a revised form from “Awards” to the end of “Career”). The references have been changed considerably. Former references 14 and 15 have been removed. The reference 1 was changed to the website of the Russian Academy. Only 6 references were left in external links. Some former external links have been deleted, but most of them were transferred to in-line citations. Some in-line citations (mainly to publications) have been added. Now there are in-line citations in different parts of the text. If needed, the in-line citations can be added to the text that you will mention, but now already there are many in-line citations. The reference 42 is the same as 2, and the reference 43 is the same as 1, but I do not know how to combine the references. Si14360 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Si14360 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Si14360: Yip, that looks better. Please take out refs 18,19,20,21 which become links by mediawiki software. They don't go in the article. Give me a shout. scope_creepTalk 14:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Große Berliner Kunstausstellung, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Romney, Fritz Friedrichs and Louis Lejeune.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Draft:Network Entropy[edit]

Hi Scope creep. What is the "Can you please remove ref 3. It is borderline reliable." issue? When removing it, do you suggest to remove the "There are several formulations in which to measure the network entropy and, as a rule, they all require a particular property of the graph to be focused, such as the adjacency matrix, degree sequence, degree distribution or number of bifurcations, what might lead to values of entropy that aren't invariant to the chosen network description." sentence from the first paragraph, as well? Regards, --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 06:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gryllida: Do you think it is a decent paper? There is not a lot hinging on it, so if you can change it, all the better. It is suggested papers from EGU are a better source. The RS folk are not keen on mdpi.com as it often fails higher sourcing requirements, e.g. if the article is updated in the future. It is borderline, so if you can it is probably better. scope_creepTalk 09:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Would moving it out of lead, and adding attribution -- like this -- perhaps work? --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 00:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Holl_(writer)[edit]

Thank you for your guidance on the article I'm working on. I've added book reviews as suggested. If you could please confirm I've provided what you requested I would appreciate it. I'm still working on your guidance "There is a lot and lots of profile page. Find WP:THREE refs which are WP:SECONDARY and add them in as the first three." TimHitchings (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TimHitchings: He is definently my kind of man. scope_creepTalk 14:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand the comment "my kind of man". Unless you're a fan of craft beer as I am. Can you provide clarification of the WP:SECONDARY and the "add as the first three" please. This (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-holl-craft-beer-problems-20180903-story.html) is in the publications area and is an article that contains the author's own thinking. Is this an example of what I need to find more articles that are similar? Thank you TimHitchings (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TimHitchings: Yip, That fact he is into his beer. I'm definitely a fan of craft beer!! For the last decade, it has been a really big thing here in the UK. 20 years ago there used to be only maybe a couple of dozen makes of beers. Now there are hundreds, and the selection is big enough that you can get a different beer every month. Its great. Secondary means people talking to people about the suject who are not related or connected to the subject. I've moved several good sources to the lede and the top of the article. The LA times articles are a good example of him being a writer to pass WP:NAUTHOR. The podcast stuff I would probably take out, as it seems to be all profile references as opposed to newspapers, eg. like the LA Times. More of that would be ideal, but if you can find more of those types. I moved the reviews up to the top as well. I think there is probably sufficient to pass now. More refs like LA Times to strengthen it, make it an easier pass. scope_creepTalk 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I note that you have revised the article. Is there other things that I can do to try to get this article passed? Thanks. TimHitchings (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TimHitchings: I've done quite a lot of work on it, more than half that article. I think it is probably better if somebody else reviews it. Can you resubmit it, to get the process started. scope_creepTalk 19:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've resubmitted as requested ,TimHitchings (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really have hopes up this time. Hate to be crushed again. TimHitchings (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TimHitchings: It's not the done thing to promote an article you have worked so heavily on. scope_creepTalk 22:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Of course. My pardon if you thought that was what I was asking. While waiting for another review, if you have time, could you please provide some of your expertise so that if I work on more articles I may do a better job in the future? I note that your early ask was for me to add references such as the LA time articles. I know I added a couple with quotes and then it appears they weren't of quality so they were removed. I'm reading thru your edits on the view history which contains your notes on why the edits were done which is helpful. I'm kind of surprised that podcasts were not helpful as they appear to be very popular these days. Again, my thanks for you doing so many edits. TimHitchings (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jeremy Schwartz[edit]

Thanks for watching this article. I have added quality sources as per your recommendation. For example, The Independent Evening Standard The Guardian. Please tell me, my article is worthy of publication an i can Resubmit. Thanks for the help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeremy_Schwartz

Hi @Schwartz Jeremy: I checked the Evening Standard and the Independent. One of them in the Evening Standard, as an interview is poor to middling, but there is no WP:SECONDARY sources as such. As a BLP you would need at WP:THREE of these. Also I see your editing your own article. I know you have a WP:COI declaration, but usually, the prescribed method is to use WP:EDITREQ to create it, if your on here anyway. Editing it directly is usually verbotten. Hope that helps!! scope_creepTalk 09:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible then to remove the article in order for another author to publish it? Or is it breaking the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwartz Jeremy (talk • contribs) 13:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt De Luis[edit]

This had three sources, and I imagine these were missed, so can you please fix the page history for the page that you accidentally moved to draft.Fleets (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fleets: I never edited that article on Kurt De Luis? scope_creepTalk 08:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Kurt De Luis says otherwise, so it sounds like your account has been hacked.Fleets (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request To Review Draft:Winning Jah[edit]

Dear Scope creep, thank you for reviewing the article. I have re-submitted the draft you declined on the 1st of June. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winning_Jah NOTICE501 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for cleaning up and accepting the biography of Bob Boote. Hopefully others will see it and add more detail.

Again, thanks Mredwin (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mredwin: Thanks very much. scope_creepTalk 21:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:31:04, 17 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jopogigio[edit]


Hi Scope Creep, thanks for your feedback on the Luke McGarry article. I think I've incorporated all the changes you suggested and tried to remove any "spam" links I came across. I'm still a little unclear as to your WP:SECONDARY direction, though... I believe that at least 2 or 3 of the articles referenced would appear to meet the requirements (for example, references 31 and 73), but if they don't, any further suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks again for your input. Jopogigio (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Jopogigio (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jopogigio: Yip, That is a lot better. The article still has embedded links, however. Remove these. They are not supported by policy. Remove and give me a shout. I have left a comment. scope_creepTalk 13:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Ahh, that makes perfect sense! I've gone through and removed any external links I could find. If you wouldn't mind taking another look, I think we might be good? Thanks! Jopogigio (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jopogigio: That's it in mainspace. The lede is a bit small, you could do with expanding and it needs cats. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSX Altenheim Subdivision[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Can I ask you about your AfC acceptance of CSX Altenheim Subdivision? I have had this draft on my watchlist for some time, and I was surprised it was accepted. Ignoring the fact that the author is an indef-blocked sockpuppet with a history of unsourced hoaxes, I would not have accepted the article in its current state. Of the three sources, two are dead links to fan sites. The last one is a primary source, which directly contradicts much of the article's contents - the route diagram on page 9 of [2] is completely different from the information in the article. While I have no doubt an article could be written about the Altenheim subdivision, this one is not it, IMHO. Thoughts? Laplorfill (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Laplorfill: How goes it? I did notice it was created by a sock. Certainly, at some point, the railway fan guys will come up and update it and keep it in good order. I didn't think it was not something that would be sent to Afd, so was an easy promotion, even without decent refs as it was a historical article and it was a reasonably decent shape for the type but it not a really important article in the scheme of things, i.e. not that contentious, that I needed to worry about. If you think it needs to be moved back to draft, go ahead. I am not too worried about that. I'm sure it will be recreated by somebody else, at some point. The draft needs to be flagged somehow. Perhaps you nominate it for deletion. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Laplorfill: Do you want me to move it back to draft? scope_creepTalk 16:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you could. I've tagged the redirect to be deleted, as I don't have the ability move it back to draft space with the redirect in place. I think draftifying it again is the best next step. Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'll do it now. scope_creepTalk 16:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox deleted the article just after I pinged you. I don't think there's anything more to do here. Thanks again, Laplorfill (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Laplorfill: which I think is a good outcome. It won't go back to Afc. Good work. scope_creepTalk 16:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William B. Jensen[edit]

Thank you for reviewing this AfC. I really didn't expect it to pass, as I noted on a talk page.

It came about because there is a wlink from Robert Hooke to his bio article on de.wikipedia (and, I notice, from quite a few other articles on en.wikipedia) and I felt I should try to rectify by creating an en.wp version. He seems to get cited quite a bit but that seems to be as far as it goes, nothing that I could find about him personally. I had hoped that others might be provoked to contribute but nothing. The de.wp article has only the same personal resumé (CV) as its only source. I have no plans to pursue it further. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: I will try and find a couple of references then. The guy is notable. I wouldn't have posted the message if he wasn't. He is writing for Encyclopaedia Britannica, so I suspect there is coverage. scope_creepTalk 20:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Please stop moving to draft space[edit]

I saw you moved again an article to the draft space. In Ragnhild Andresen is everything referenced and via external links you find secondary newspaper articles about here. So not needed to move to the draft space; like you did with many other articles. If you don’t like it, you can use the maintenance templates or nominate for AfD. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsOlympic: All you do as add some proper reference for BLP. Not two profile pages that is generated by a machine. Proper BLP refs. scope_creepTalk 18:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See articles where I linked to. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
scope creep, can you back off on moving SportsOlympic's articles to Draft space? It seems to have resulted in move wars with pages going back and forth. Let another editor take action rather than focusing so much of your attention on SportsOlympic since your efforts are clearly unwanted (though you seem to have made peace in the discussion below this one). It's SportsOlympic's right to move articles back to main space if they object to the move and if you feel strongly about it, you can PROD an article or nominate it for AFD. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I am not focusing soley on SportsOlympic, I was reviewing the page one at at a time, one by one in sorted womens list at NPP. I started at the top of the list and my my way down the bottom. There wasn't any focus on any person. Following the process is what you get. The editor just happens to have a load of non-sourced BLP's that naturally need to be draft for futher work. I'm suprised your telling me to this, particularly when that is the process. All that is doing is leaving work for some other editor that they should be doing himself. Lastly external links aren't references. It is just lazy way of doing it, again leaving it to somebody else. scope_creepTalk 09:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I don't look at who wrote the article I'm reviewing on NPP. The fact that they all went to draft is because they are rank. scope_creepTalk 09:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Himpel[edit]

Thanks for uploading the file File:Helmut Himpel.jpg. Is see the photographer is unknown, it is published over 70 years ago in the European Union. If that is the case, the image can be uploaded to Commons under Commons:Template: PD-EU-no author disclosure. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SportsOlympic: Your a gent. scope_creepTalk 19:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Helmut Himpel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teutonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Paul Eberhard[edit]

Scope creep, I think I have addressed all your concerns. Can you please review and let me know? I took out the Career section because most of the content couldn't be cited. I updated the citations; I think correctly? You were the first editor to mention the citations, so please forgive me if they still need work. I updated some of the content to make sure that Eberhard was the subject of most of the sentences per recommendation from the Libera Chat folks. Baeber (tadlk) 19:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Baeber[reply]

Hi @Baeber: The article has barely any biographical information on the guy, and need some information, perhaps 5k to say who he is. Ref 5 and 6 are pretty useless as sources and ref 11 and 12 are promotional as they are linked to a shop. These should be proper book cites. Remove the url to amazon. Lastly the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA), if it is notable it should probably be in its own article. scope_creepTalk 11:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:. I put back in some biographical information and a career section. I took out the YouTube references and the Amazon URLs. ANFA does have a Wikipedia page; I just hadn't put the reference in correctly.
@Baeber: That is much better looking and you can tell for sure that the guy is notable. That is much better. You provide references for those bits that are unref'd. I have created a education section for the article as education doesn't go in the lede. Career section, add more refs and one being a sloane fellow. scope_creepTalk 15:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Great! I added a couple of AIARC references. Enough? Baeber (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)baeber[reply]
@Scope creep: And some papers from the NAS Baeber (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)baeber[reply]
@Baeber: resubmit it and give me a shout. scope_creepTalk 18:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Done. And a thank you from me. I didn't know about the testimony before Congress. That was a fascinating find. Baeber (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Baeber[reply]
@Baeber: It might be worth putting in where he was born and died including a couple of references for it. That's it now in mainspace. scope_creepTalk 18:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I can certainly add that information. Thank you! Baeber (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)baeber[reply]
@Baeber: Can you add in some more refs where I posted the citation needed template. Don't copy or take anything more from: [3] If I'd have seen that copyvio I wouldn't have promoted it. The main career section needs rewritten, not copied directly from the other article. scope_creepTalk 19:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I'm not sure about the copyright issue since I'm the one who wrote the obit that all the others used, including the ANFA obit. But I have rewritten the language. I'm also not sure how to provide citations for work that was done long before the internet existed and didn't publish anything. For example, for Creative Buildings, I found an obit from someone who worked for Creative Buildings, which would show the company existed, but not that Dad founded it. Would that work? Or do you have another suggestion for where to find information about companies/organizations from the '50s and '60s? Baeber (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Baeber[reply]
Hi @Baeber: That is better. The copyvio score is down to the mid 30% indicating it is only the names of building and places that it is picking up as being the same. Good work. scope_creepTalk 23:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Update: Richard Owens (poet)[edit]

I have edited the entry "Richard Owens (poet)" as indicated (some content removed and references updated, formatted, and removed as needed). Please, when you have a moment, have a look and, if suitable, pass on to mainspace as mentioned. And thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnthecaesars (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your outstanding contribution to the Wikipedia community. Can you review that article, if you will be able to? It just stalled all my work. I would highly appreciate this. Thanks!

A small note. The past reviewer said that the article has no relevance, but I disagree, since the concept of "Handicraft production" was highly important within the framework of Soviet ideology, which led to industrialization and collectivization. This is written in the article. Links are fine too. MarcusTraianus (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcusTraianus: Thanks for that, but I think its yersel that's got the maximum effeciency of any editor on Wikipedia. Can you expand the first few refs to full cites and give me a shout. There is not one thing wrong with that article, apart from that. scope_creepTalk 18:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: If you meant that I should change the first links using cite web template, then I did it. MarcusTraianus (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranu Mukherjee[edit]

Howdy. Just a heads up that I made an attempt at rescuing Draft:Ranu Mukherjee. I think I was successful and have moved it to article space. I improved the secondary sourcing. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 03:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Possibly: I liked her work. Good Work. I was pretty poor at the time but much better now. scope_creepTalk 11:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hi - I've just moved a thread that another editor raised, which concerns your editing, from AN to ANI. Please take a look at WP:ANI#Political_reverts_disguised_as_Neutral_Point_Of_View. Best Girth Summit (blether) 14:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:18:23, 6 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Maxsantoro[edit]


Made changes to the Thousand Below draft according to your comment

Maxsantoro (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello Scope creep:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

Recovering article[edit]

Hey Scope Creep, please let me know how to recover deleted Wikipedia article.I'm waiting for your response. ThankYou --203.81.240.232 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @203.81.240.232: You would have to go and see an admin. I'm not one. User:DGG would be your best bet. He is fair. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 15:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I cannot tell what the article is. 203.81.240.232, you have not made an account to identify yourself, and under your current i.p. address I see no deleted articles; you or your phone service provider must have been using some other i.p at the time. If you can tell. me on my user talk page the exact title of the article (and it would help if you can figure out when it was deleted), I can take a look at the article or draft and advise your further. I became an admin to do exactly this sort of thing, but I need some information. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG. scope_creepTalk 15:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Mentee[edit]

Hello Scope creep. I hope you remember me. I am Ken. We met at WT:NPP/R on 22th on June this year. You were ready to be my mentor for teaching me more about AfC, as I had some flaws in some of my reviews. While we were going on, you said you were going on a vacation and give me a shout after two weeks. So, I'm here for that. Will you continue to teach me as you did till 26th of June? You can have any decision of whether to resume or to stop. Eagerly waiting for your reply. Regards. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 13:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ken Tony:, I was back from holiday yesterday, although I did a lot of work on the Joseph Lister article in the interim, as I took my laptop with me. Yip, we can do a couple more. I saw that comment by DGG. Really good editor. Good advice. If you need an admin, he is ideal. How about starting tommorrow, then. If you can find some more drafts. Those others are perhaps done by now, if they are not, we can take a look at them. scope_creepTalk 13:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes mate. We can resume from tomorrow. I'll also try to find some more drafts for reference. Thank you. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 14:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Symeon Shimin[edit]

Hello. You left a note on this article saying you were interested in seeing it published. I took a run at cleaning up the most egregious problems. I haven't moved it to article space as it needs a bit more work. I'm also not entirely convinced on the notability side. There's the Justice building mural, a study for the same mural held in the Smithsonian, the fact he illustrated many children's books, and finally the movie posters and murals. I guess together those all add up to notable, but I'm not sure. Anyway, just a heads up. --- Possibly ☎ 02:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Possibly: Coolio!! He is a major film artist of the mid 20th century. Those big backdrops he did, some were instantly recognisable. I hoping to update it with help with the draft editor but she dissapeared. Thanks for that Possibly. That is a lot better. Please promote it, if you can. Well done and thanks for that. scope_creepTalk 08:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Symeon Shimin. --- Possibly ☎ 08:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Gruber[edit]

I went ahead and accepted the AFC article for Marc Gruber, an article you previously declined. I was wondering if you could check and see if the references added are sufficient. At least one of them was good, but two were not. Thank you for your time. You asked the author to ping you when they improved the article, but they did not. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scorpions13256: The references on it are terrible. You will need to go back to draft. They are all WP:PRIMARY and you can't establish notability with primary refs. Which ones were suggesting that were good. Can you give me the ref numbers so I can check them? It is a BLP so all the profile refs will need to come out. They are very low quality. scope_creepTalk 12:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figured. I must have misinterpreted your earlier comment. It seemed a little off when you said not much was required. I would have never accepted it if I hadn't seen your comment. I guess you were trying to say that the references needed to be replaced (which I agree with). Anyway, it has been moved back into the draftspace. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256:, Aye, somebody will delete it, in the state its in. The guy is notable, but I think the originating editor needs to put several to a half a dozen secondary sources as the first 6 refs, in, to prove he's notable. Either that, or get one or two decent refs and cut the whole article right down, stubify it, until an experienced editor can come in a research some decent sources. There is bound to be stuff out there. Thanks for moving it back. I will try and find some some sources for it, over the next few weeks. I'll add it to my todo list, so I don't forget it. scope_creepTalk 12:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could do it myself (I have written about living people before), but it is hard for me to search through non-English sources. I typically use books and news sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256: You could give me a hand or vice versa, if you want to make a start I'll join you later. I know what you mean. It takes a lot of work to translate stuff. DeepL is pretty good to translate blocks of text. Google Translate is good for full websites. Bing Translate used to be good, or is good around gender translations, e.g. French but they reduced the size of the text block you can translate, making it less useful. I would start by getting rid of all the bare mention refs and the profiles, and then go from there. scope_creepTalk 13:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August Editathons with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bays of Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bute.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sergei_Ipatov[edit]

Dear Scope creep. Sorry, only yesterday I paid attention to your suggestion made about 2 months ago. As it was suggested by you, I deleted the references 18 – 22. You mentioned 18-21, but as I understand, the reference 22 is similar to the above references. In the sentence “Four of these asteroids got names” four was changed by five. In half an hour after submission of the new version, Z1720‬ wrote: “Please cite your sources using footnotes. There should be a reference at the end of every paragraph, minimum, since this is a WP:BLP.” Today I transferred the external links to footnotes. Now there are no external links. Some references to the published biography were duplicated to a few places, and now there are references in all paragraphs, and also at the end of these paragraphs.

Hi @Si14360: I'll take a look at it. Remember to sign your comments with the four tildes, ~~~~ which will be converted into your signature. scope_creepTalk 19:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Si14360: It is a WP:BLP, so the career section needs a reference per sentence. Stating something like He is an author[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] isn't a good idea. It is much better to put his 2 or 3 papers, e.g. the one he wrote that won him the prize in the bibliography section. And removed at the references 12-16 as it is a case of WP:CITEKILL. The Main scientific interests and achievements is really decent. Take this out There are Wikipedia pages devoted to Sergei Ipatov in Russian, German, French, Italian, and Esperanto. Put this The biography of S.I. Ipatov has been published in several biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias, e.g. by Marquis Who's Who[3][7][18] and by Russians editions[4][19][20][21][22]. in the biliography section and 19-22 can be used to populate the career section with refs with additional refs added. It looks a lot better. Give me a shout when its done. Hope that helps. I think the guy is notable with the award. scope_creepTalk 20:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sergei_Ipatov[edit]

Dear Scope creep. Thank you for your comments. I deleted the sentence about Wikipedia pages in other languages and former references 10, 12-14, 16 for list of publications (only two were left). You suggested to remove the references 12-16. Z1720 suggested to remove references 10, 11, and 12 (different references). Former references 19-22 we used to populate other sentences. Most sentences in early life and career now have references. May be it is not needed to put a citation to every similar sentence? For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Boss there are no citations in career section. Former ref 8 (to Wiki data) was removed. I hope that editing of the sections, other than achievements, are close to the end. May be it is possible not to delete the Section “Main scientific interests and achievements”? I suppose that achievements are much more important and interesting for inclusion in Wikipedia than the list of institutions were a person worked. For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Walter_Elst , the main attention is paid to his discoveries, not to his career. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Stern information about scientific results of Alan Stern is much greater than the information about his career. I suppose that small information about scientific results for some scientists may be only caused by that their biographers did not write about them. As to me, I prefer to read biographies with detailed achievements, but not those short biographies that sometimes can be found in wikipedia. Z1720 wrote about secondary references and noted that there are only primary references to Ipatov’s publications. May be the awards, the inclusion of the biography in dictionaries and encyclopedias, the published papers in Web of Science and Scopus journals can be considered as independent secondary sources? In the first draft of the Ipatov’s bio there were no references to his papers (only text about his achievements), but then there were remarks that all text must be supported by citations. So the citations of Ipatov’s papers have been added. Such citations can be deleted, but probably it will not make the text better. In order to add secondary references to Ipatov’s achievements, the following sentence have been added just now to the beginning of the section “Main scientific interests and achievements”: Information about Ipatov’s main scientific interests and achievements is presented on [8, 9]. Information for you (not for the draft): These websites include similar Russian text about achievements, but without references to Ipatov’s papers. It is possible to add links to the papers which cited Ipatov’s papers, but I do not think that it is good. Si14360 (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Information icon Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to article. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BartlebytheScrivener: It is deeply uncool to try to put an American copyedit bent on the article, e.g. chaging section names. It is a British English. scope_creepTalk 01:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mildred Fish-Harnack never lived in England or any British-speaking area. She was born in the United States and lived more than half her life there. Ergo, American standards apply to her article. Forcing your Britishisms on the article is abusive and a violation of Wikipedia's policy of collaboration.BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:BartlebytheScrivener. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Disagreeing with an edit does not warrant calling the other editor unconstructive. BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BartlebytheScrivener: I understand what your trying to do and its fair enough. But its uncool to change section names, even during a good copyedit, its not done. Your putting in a American mannerism, when the article wasn't written that way. The policy is to you preserve the structure. You can copyedit it, but preserve the structure. Send it to GA if you want. But that is the third time that somebody had tried to completly change it and take WP:OWN, because it is American article. Three times I heard same phrase. If you want, I'll all have the history revdel done on it and all my content removed from it and then you write an American English article. scope_creepTalk 01:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Wroblewitz[edit]

Hello. Help added IPA for the article. Thank you. 116.102.58.175 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Please Help. 116.102.58.175 (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@116.102.58.175: I'm sorry I don't think she is particularly notable. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Harassment[edit]

Would be great if you could stop engaging in harassment. Read the Talk:Alexander Repenning pages. Is this the new Wikipedia practice: shoot first, ask questions later? You are making Wikipedia a really unwelcoming place. It makes no sense to provide reference for each sentence. This is not how Wikipedia works. If you find information that is wrong or misleading feel free to point that out. Deleting without knowing something is wrong or misleading is harassment. Please stop!

I declined your request for page protection for Alexander Repenning because a single IP is involved who seems to be a sock of Block based programmer, blocked by Orange Mike in April. I have referred the matter to the blocking admin. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of this have to do with the fact that you are harassing me? I asked for constructive support. You did not provide reasonable suggestions. How would somebody who received a Purple Hart provide "references?" If every sentence needs to have a reference then 90% of the Wikipedia needs to be deleted. Must feel great to just delete stuff and block people. What have you contributed to society that gives you the right to engage in harassment? What suddenly urged you to delete content that you cannot show to be wrong or misleading and that was there for many years? What is your angle other than harassment? 147.86.223.240 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for that. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@147.86.223.240: It is not harassment. It is following policy. It is a WP:BLP and every sentence needs a reference and BLP's should have no promotional nor puffy content. Your trying to add that back in. Now if you can't accept that, bail out. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Orangemike: I notice that editor has two IP address. One is a IPv6 address, the 2nd one is IPv4 address. I just noticed it now at Talk:Alexander Repenning scope_creepTalk 13:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely harassment. Of course you think your actions are fine. But, harassment is not about what the harasser perceives it to be. It is, and that is all it is, about the perception of the harassed. I asked you for help. You did not provide it. Just deleting is not helping. Yes, you suggested that "every sentence needs a reference." Other BLPs, by and large, don't do that for the simple reason that many recognitions have no official form of reference. Why did you not provide an example or make a helpful suggestion? You are justifying your harassment by interpreting vague policies. How do you "reference" if somebody can present his/her work in the White House? This is not a paper. And why are you paying attention to this page and content that has been up for many years? How is this content promotional and how is it puffy? If you are not offering concrete advise and engage in deleting you are harassing.

What is happening to Wikpedia? Why is it getting so hostile towards academic content? Are you only reading the delete-stuff policies? Did you ever read the how to welcome academic content Wikpedia guidelines? They suggest an approach to engage in dialog. Is Wikipedia paying you? Who is your boss? 2A02:AA14:4581:6B00:DC1F:FAB7:19E2:FEA7 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kleff[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you deleted something in the Mario Kleff article. Was there something wrong? If the reason was the writing style, I'd like to improve this to a better and more valued version. Please advise. Thank you Meow2021 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Meow2021:, I completed a copyedit on the article that had sections that were full of WP:PEACOCK terms which are unacceptable for WP:BLP. This is an example: Mario Kleff creates buildings with an extension of his personality and lives an uncompromised lifestyle determined by his interest in exotic wildlife and automotive design It is junk. It needs to be encyclopaedic and balanced. I also removed the supposed fact he is an artist. He is not artist and there is no evidence he is an artist. scope_creepTalk 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response and feedback. I wrote down what I read and linked it accordingly. Apparently the criteria were not met. What do I have to consider, can I even edit this article for the better?
Of course. Anybody can edit. Remember to sign your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ scope_creepTalk 13:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Lister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ackworth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Troutman Pepper[edit]

Thanks @Scope creep for your feedback. I updated citations for more diversity and credibility and think it reads much better. Hope you can review again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Troutman_Pepper Cew3390 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News Literacy Project Wikipedia entry[edit]

Hi —

You asked that I give you a shout after I made revisions. Consider this that shout (I just figured out how to contact you directly).

cheers, Bluepencil13

Hi @Bluepencil13:, How goes it? Yip, that looks better, however, the NLP Board section has no references in it. It is is definently better looks and less and advert. It might be worth removing the past presidents. If you don't, they need to be referenced. I hope that helps. Remember to sign your posts with the four tildes ~~~~. scope_creepTalk 09:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scope Creep —

I resubmitted this (with requested revisions) several months ago and again today. Any idea when it will be checked?

Thanks, Bluepencil13 Bluepencil13 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Weebit Nano has been accepted[edit]

Weebit Nano, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

scope_creepTalk 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlowrie Castle[edit]

I am unclear why you reverted a useful link to the Thomas Hutchison aricle--Stephencdickson (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephencdickson: Finger slipped. I think I restored, did I not. I did leave a comment. scope_creepTalk 18:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Stephencdickson (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madeleine Chaumont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycée Jules-Ferry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting a wrong linkage[edit]

Requests for Myxofibrosarcoma link to the Wikipedia page Histiocytoma. The World Health Organization reclassified myxofibrosarcoma as a distinct entity, not in any way a form of the histiocytomas. I am currently making a page for Myxofibrosarcoma. Can you remove this erroneous linkage or instruct me how to do so. It may be a simple task: the View history page indicates that the myxofibrosarcoma-histiocytoma linkage was made sometime after the page was created. Thank you for your help. OK--joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 23:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: How are you today? The way it would be done, would be to make a request at WP:RFD, explaining why it needs to go. I can do that now, if you want? You will probably need to chime at some point with the evidence, of why it needs to be deleted. I will nominate it now. scope_creepTalk 15:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: It should take no more than a couple of days to remove the redirect, perhaps sooner, and then page can be recreated using the contents from your sandbox (a silly name). scope_creepTalk 15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: It appears to have been changed already. Thank you! joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 16:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: Yip, its nomination notice. Give me a shout when your ready to create the page. I have page mover rights and assuming the redirect is gone, I can move your sandbox along with its history into the new article. scope_creepTalk 16:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: What I have been doing since the previous difficulties that I caused is to write part of the page in WordPerfect or my sandbox (without ever saving in in sandbox) and transferring it a Wikipedia page that I just made. I edit if further on the newly made page. Is that OK? Thank you for helping me with all the trouble that I have caused. joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 18:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: Yes, that sounds fine. There is a lot of folk who edit outside Wikipedia and then copy/paste into an article, in exactly that manner, when they're ready. All you need to do, is create the link e.g. Myxofibrosarcoma (Assuming the redirect page has been deleted), then click on to create the empty article then copy your stuff in. Do it that ensures your not creating some off area, as the link always defaults to article namespace. scope_creepTalk 18:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Earlier today, the linkage of Myxofibrosarcoma to the Histiocytoma page was deleted: when I sought for Myxofibrosarcoma the create page came up. Now when a seek this page a strange page comes up stating "The purpose of this redirect is currently being discussed by the Wikipedia community." If I follow the instructions on this page, it looks to me that it will retitle the Histiocytoma page as Myxofibrosarcoma and give the info on Myxofibrosarcoma that I supply. Also, I have no idea where to put my info when I click on the arrow directing me to a page to do so. I do not want to remove the Histiocytoma page (I plan to later update and expand the Histiocytoma page). What do I do now? Again, thanks. joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 19:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: Is you content off-wiki ready for the Myxofibrosarcoma page? scope_creepTalk 21:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: The Histiocytoma article will stay where it. I nominated the Myxofibrosarcoma redirect page for deletion, so that it would a fresh revision history. But you can keep the page, delete the redirect information and paste your stuff in on top if it. scope_creepTalk 21:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: My myxofibrosarcoma page will be ready for publication in 1-2 days or so. I have no idea how to publish it...your instructions do not seem to work for me. When I go to the myxofibrosarcoma page now, I just do not see how to proceed. It's confusing. Again and again, thanks. joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: That is fine, it will become clear once your ready. It is very simple really. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi joflaher, I've been talking with scope creep at the redirect discussion page. The link from myxofibrosarcoma to the histiocytoma page at least explains to readers that myxofibrosarcoma has been reclassified, which (I think) is better than having no information at all, so I've argued that it should stay until your draft is ready. If you would like, once your draft is ready you can paste it into Draft:Myxofibrosarcoma, click on the red link to take you to the draft creation page. You might be warned that the article already exists, but you can ignore that, that's because of the redirect. Once it's there, scope creep can remove the redirect and replace it with your article, with the history intact. Cheers, and thanks for your contributions.
@scope creep: correct me if I'm wrong on that, I think pagemovers can overwrite redirects. If not, you can use {{db-move}} like I said, or just ping me and I'll gladly take care of it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PEIsquirrel: I'm not sure to be honest. I've not really tried it. This may be the chance to have go. scope_creepTalk 14:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: My Myxofibrosarcoma info is now a Draft:Myxofibrosarcoma page. I'm hoping that it will quickly be accepted as a regular page so that I can go forward in updating and expanding the Histiocytoma page which incorrectly included myxofibrosarcoma as a type of histiocytoma. In all events, I thank everyone who helped me on this. OK--joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 13:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: We will do it now. Can you submit it at Draft. Hit the submit button. scope_creepTalk 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: That is the redirect article gone. Can you submit the draft. I can submit if you want, if you unable to do it. scope_creepTalk 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: That is done. scope_creepTalk 19:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:52:44, 11 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Wtone1[edit]


Hi I've made the requested changes to the draft page on Howard Lipshitz. Please let me know if there's anything else you need. Thank you!

Wtone1 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I'll take a look in the morning. scope_creepTalk 00:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Milt's Stop & Eat. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ––FormalDude talk 08:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating ModR/M.

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

Would it be worth creating a template to link all these instruction set articles. Perhaps one for the original X86 set, one form simd instructions, one sse1 and so on.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 08:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating List of nobles and magnates of France in the 13th century.

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

Needs a lede and the referenced cleaned up.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 17:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Markuann Smith.

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

Sources are a bit weak for BLP. Can you add some more, please?

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 18:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LEVC VN5 and Ferrari Purosangue[edit]

Just want to let you know that I reverted content removals on LEVC VN5 since WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to the LEVC e-Camper section, as it is confirmed with a source and is not a prediction, and upcoming vehicles can have Wikipedia articles or be sections/content within. As for the latter edits, I reverted those since it is typical and almost a standard to note the starting price, trims, and basic/notable features in automobile-related articles when properly sourced.

As for Ferrari Purosangue - and all is good and I fixed it with the click of two buttons - you may have restored the wrong revision because the categories I added and typos I fixed were reverted. Nonetheless, thank you for not undoing the article and reverting it back to redirect and reverting your edit when you did. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: How goes it. They're definently notable, but can you please cut down on the advertising. Putting list price information is strictly against Wikipedia Terms of Use and it is deeply uncool. Its plain advertising and endangers Wikipedia freedom and licence. It also will likely to get you blocked in the short term for promotion and spamming. Good articles apart from that. scope_creepTalk 18:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13: If it is standard, then it is wrong and that is not the consensus. It clearly against Wikipedia Terms of Use and I will need post a advertising tag on and start trying to article removed. scope_creepTalk 18:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I will clarify that I'm not promoting the car, I've been writing and editing car articles since before I even had a Wikipedia account as an IP user. I'm a page patroller and am experienced with the vast majority of Wikipedia guidelines, and as long as content is encyclopedically stated with proper sources, it is not advertising. I've never seen anywhere that you cannot state the base price of a vehicle on Wikipedia. The great majority of car articles do state the starting price and it's how I've been writing them since day one and this is the first issue I've had with it.
On Wikipedia, advertising generally is adding unsourced or loosely-covered promotional content as or to articles. Here's the difference between encyclopedic vs. promotional:
An example of encyclopedic content: The [car] has a starting price of [value].[refs]
An example of promotional content: The [car] only costs [value], which is a very great deal. The [car] is perfect for anyone on a [value] budget.
Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what your getting at, but I think probably standard 10 years. Folk are a bit more aware of the dangers of now. Make up you mind I guess, but have real think about. scope_creepTalk 18:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating 1891 Toronto municipal election.

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

How about adding a table. WP:Table provides a tutorial.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 18:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm 101.50.250.88. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Harry Partridge. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.250.88 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@101.50.250.88: The article was reviewed as part of the WP:NPP process and there is leeway there for the editor reviewing an article to revert it back to a redirect if an article is not warranted. The references on the article were entirely junk. I intend to attend the Afd. scope_creepTalk

Kashmiri Wikipedia related[edit]

Hey Scope, Hope you are doing well. Actually I am here as you rolled back the content of Kashmiri Wikipedia. Can't we use stats.wikimedia.org website as a reference ? signed, Iflaq (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iflaq: Unfortunately not, Wikipedia is not a referable source. Can you not try the Kashmari Wikipedia site, to see if there is anything on their description of the site, that is not Wikipedia created. They're maybe some third-party reports. Apart from that I can't give you much help. The help desk at [{WP:HELP]] or somebody at the reference desk may help. scope_creepTalk 17:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021[edit]

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Scope creep,

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. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WSJZ-LD[edit]

Why do you keep reverting referenced/cited content with a redirect to another TV station? They are not the same TV station, just the same owner. Bwave (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bwave: How goes it? Well I think the redirect is a better proposition than the article at the moment. Can you not add proper references to it. Otherwise it is just a listing. scope_creepTalk 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sammi Brie t Are you willing to help to establish this article? Bwave (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is the right call, @Bwave. I even said as much last night. It should redirect to WBOC-LD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bwave I'm going to redirect the WSJZ-LD and WRUE-LD pages. I have also added a table to WRDE-LD and WBOC-LD that explains the setup, since NBC and Telemundo are on all four of the involved transmitters. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article payal radhakrishna[edit]

I am payal radhakrishna fan as a contributor i am contributing what ever i know request you not to delete the draft 70mmreels (talk)

@70mmreels: You can't be a fan, as the actor doesn't have any credits. Please make your case at Afd and don't remove the Afd tag. You will end up blocked, if you do. scope_creepTalk 19:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

actor has 3 credits her recent movie is released in famous OTT platform i have added that reference also in my article 70mmreels (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic-class ocean liner[edit]

Hello Scope creep! I've been reverted your edits to Oceanic-class ocean liner since it's a ship class, not a redirect to individual ship. See WP:SHIP for more details. Vitaium (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vitaium: Yip, I've created a few ship articles myself. The reason I reverted it, was due to the poor reference and the lack of them. It really need a couple more of better quality. scope_creepTalk 10:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already add an reference. Vitaium (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vitaium: One reference isn't sufficient. If you don't add more reference I will need to revert the article. Three is the standard. scope_creepTalk 12:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavour[edit]

If an edit lacks sources add template:More citations needed, don't just revert it. I have now added sources. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gunnar Larsson: What is this specifically for. scope_creepTalk 08:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gunnar Larsson: Thanks for that. But it is worth noting it is not 2005 now, not even 2010, where you could get away with a posting a non-sourced article. There is two areas to develop articles offline, one is sandboxes and other draft. Any one of them could be used to create it, source it and then post it. Please do so the next time. And adding bare urls just adds work for somebody else. Please take a look at WP:REFB. scope_creepTalk 08:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scope creep. I am not planning to start a long discussion, just highlighting that people (like me:-)) are more likely to get annoyed with a revert than with a template. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gunnar Larsson: You can't post an unsourced article. Create in your sandbox. All your doing in creating work for somebody else. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no argument with that at all (see https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciel:Bidrag/Gunnar_Larsson and https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Bidrag/Gunnar_Larsson for my more recent edits), you found me out on the one where I did'nt. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gunnar Larsson: Yip. Simple mistake perhaps, or perhaps too tired to fix at the time, or just missed it scope_creepTalk 11:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange behavior[edit]

Re Special:Diff/1044300947: I'm really confused.

  1. Why did you save this test instead of just previewing it?
  2. If you misclicked & accidentally saved (which is fine), why didn't you self-revert?

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tom.Reding: Got the wrong page probably. Left it and came back. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Appu N Bhattathiri[edit]

As per any WP:ANYBIO, the article is eligible for mainspace. He is the recipient of Kerala State Film Awards, the highest film award given by the Government of Kerala. Then why did you decline the submission? Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Agnihothri Sharath: The films perhaps won the Kerala State Film Awards. The references you provided are all WP:PRIMARY and you can't use primary references to establish notability. Please add WP:SECONDARY sources into the article. Currently its looks like the editor or director is a common demoninator, but until some who is not associated with him, start commenting on him, in some journal or newspapers, or he wins an award, or becomes notable in his own right. But currently being a common demonitator is likely non-notable. Find and add secondary sources and resubmit it for review. If the person is truly notable, there should plenty of coverage out there to support your case. That would be the approach I would take. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 11:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Agnihothri Sharath: I had a look at the sources again. Please references the awards and provide some additional secondary sources and resubmit. It all relies on the award and whether it is notable. scope_creepTalk

File:Praun Russian Campaign 1941-1942 Chart 9.png listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Praun Russian Campaign 1941-1942 Chart 9.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1962 United States Senate election in Kentucky[edit]

"Really duff refs"? What is this meant to mean? The articles has references to two standard textbooks, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the official Kentucky state election returns; what's so "duff" about it? FieldOfWheat (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FieldOfWheat: The other ones, all-in-all, the majority of the article is badly unsourced. scope_creepTalk 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just note now that those references were added back by someone only a month after you reverted them out. The article is perfectly well sourced. FieldOfWheat (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Carey de Bellemare[edit]

So I've took my time to add more references to this specific article that you had recently moved into draftspace and I've added more so I was wondering if you could promote or even it to mainspace again? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:55 22 September 2021 (GMT-4)

@SuperSkaterDude45: It is a lot better, but the first section is not referenced at all. You can't have a block of text like that without it being referenced. Its not 2010. Large bits of large sections are unsourced. On top of that, your first reference is to a blog. That is a WP:SPS source. You have that first ref all the way through the article. It will need to come out. Give me a shout when your finish and I will promote. Google books is a good location to find information. scope_creepTalk 09:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45: I know how difficult it is to source these soldiers articles. I've done a couple myself. The English Wikipedia sourcing requirement are higher that the French Wikipedia. I notice the article on there is largely unsourced. There is quite a lot on Gbooks on him. scope_creepTalk 09:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, most references I could find were in mention to his military service in Le Bourget and only 2 contained other info. Would the article still be acceptable enough for mainspace? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:28 23 September 2021 (GMT-4)
Hi @SuperSkaterDude45: I found a bunch of references in Google Books, mostly for the battles. I'll try and add some references. Csn you take reference 1. It is a WP:SPS and is pretty low-quality. I'm not sure where the information is coming from. If the biography section can't be vertified, take it out. It will be put back in, by a military historian at some point in the future. I found sources on Google Books, I will add in what I can find, over the next several days, and see how it looks then. scope_creepTalk 06:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It can be published with sections that are missing, but it it better to pull them out for the moment. It is not a BLP where every sentence needs a ref. The article will be develop over time and expand as its military history article. That has given me a thought. Could you post a request for help at the Military Histoy Wikiproject? They are very active. I exapnded a couple of archive references, look a bit better now. It coming on. I can post a help request up at the noticeboard, if you require it. Generally what happens in these situations, is somebody will come in an cut everything out, have a basic stub. scope_creepTalk 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the first reference back to the bibliography section and you can certainly post a help request as I personally don't know how to file one myself. Also which parts of the biography would you want me to remove as the entire text is the biography. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 09:09 24 September 2021 (GMT-4)
@SuperSkaterDude45: I'll do it now. See if I can find somedboy interested in having a look at it. scope_creepTalk 17:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45: I posted that last night, but it usually several days for everybody to eventually visit the board. If nothing comes from it, I'll spend a couple of days looking for sourcing, particularly for the early military career section. The biography section can be removed and added later, if we need to take into mainspace without improvement. Generally speaking, when you post an article, google is cognizant of it, via an strategic agreement with WMF, of its presence on Wikipedia. What google does, is reorganises its graph to support the existance of the article. Sometimes its only takes a couple of weeks, other times several months. When its completed, you tend to find many more sources are available in your search, that didn't exist beforehand, or rather they existed, but you couldn't see them, now they just there, is if by magic. It great. When I create I create a wee stub and leave it for 2-3 weeks, that its. If it can't be sourced, we can take out the first section and I'll promote with what there. We have done our best to source it. scope_creepTalk 10:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright then, thanks for your help, I really do appreciate it! SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 11:10 25 September 2021 (GMT-4)
Hi @SuperSkaterDude45: Well that is two full days now and nobody has made a dent in it. I thought somebody would have helped. I think the best thing to do, for you to submit it for review and I'll promote it back to mainspace, clean it up, as we described. Give me a shout when you finished. Best time is do it tommorrow, or tomorrow night, as I'm goosed at the moment. scope_creepTalk
Hello, I've sent it for mainspace submission recently as you said. Just thought I'd let you know about it. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:42 27 September 2021 (GMT-4)
SuperSkaterDude45, That is a back. I will keep it on my watchlist, see if it can be improved in the next couple of years. scope_creepTalk 22:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Abad,Chakri do not redirect[edit]

Please do not redirect this article Mirza Abad, Chakri . If there is an error in the article, let me know and I will correct it or remove it. Thanks.

Hi @Haseebmirza306: Your article was checked via WP:NPP, a review process. Articles on Wikipedia needs references. Your article doesn't have that. It is really important that the article is verifiable. Currently your using a third site, fallingrain.com. I'm not sure it is valid source. I would suggest adding proper references, for example governmet sources that veryify the village exist. That fallingrain.com is likely not a reliable source. Also please sign your comments with the four tildes, ~~~~, so folk can known who you are. scope_creepTalk 06:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:14:07, 24 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by AmirahBreen[edit]


Thank you for reviewing the article. I find your feedback very useful and will not attempt to publish the article before the matter is addressed. For future reference so I will know how to identify 'clickbait' please explain which references are clickbait and how do you know that they are?

Amirah talk 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AmirahBreen: Howdy. The sources on your WP:BLP article all the same, the man loves our food and speaks our language, and that its. Its known for one event article. I would suggest you try and find better sources. scope_creepTalk 10:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I do understand what you are saying. I had thought that involvement with Malay TV may also add to notability. I'll look for some better sources as you suggest. Amirah talk 10:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some of the sources which I think may be the clickbait ones you are referring to and I have also added some new sources. I have added coverage of fasting and practicing Ramadam which is additional to Malay cuisine and linguistic skills. I am also a little confused as to why you see Malay cuisine and linguistic skills as one event. Please see the essay BLP2. The article is actually quite similar to that of another expat in Malaysia Mat Dan. I am not quite sure why that article is acceptable for notability yet the Rhys William one was not. Could you help me to understand this please? Amirah talk 11:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

I searched about Khaled Koubaa and the paid editor you told in RFD in my opinion is totally wrong thing, I know about paid content for example Samuel Kwame Boadu - This must be delete! is full of paid content!!! included vents magazine can be find on fiverr for $50, mid-day for $100 and ... but for some languages it's really hard to find sources or media didn't covered them because of some policies in some countries for example Mehran Modiri is the legend of Iran cinema, but his article only have one sources! I just want tell you let's decide about the people by what they do! of course GNG is important thing but in WP not written how manny sources required. you're more experienced than me and I know that. I just tried to tell in my opinion that guy is really worked hard to get that position in technology and let's search more about him to find more sources ("خالد قوبعة"). ZEP55 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in France[edit]

The still fairly new article Antisemitism in France is a topic that's pretty much in your interest area, and I thought you might enjoy working on it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see its out of draft. I'm impressed you've managed to get it together so quick. I'll do what I can. I've got the Joseph Lister article to progress as well. scope_creepTalk 11:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes for missing citations where needed, and fixes and other additions to refs; nicely done. As for "fast", thanks but it did take from May till August to get it out of draft, and there are still a few empty sections that need doing (hint, hint ...) Good luck with Lister,

The Signpost: 26 September 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Elumelu[edit]

Hey, I have just seen you reverted my edit and work on the Tony Elumelu page and also a suggested COI & paid advocacy. This is entirely wrong as I do not receive, solicit or have any paid relationship with the subject. I did my research on the subject and wrote based on this. Please revert back to my edits Wikistarnigeria (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Regarding your blanking of Jel (singer)[edit]

His album reached #3 on the Oricon charts, which more than satisfies WP:NMUSIC. I was also able to find an article about one of his solo performances at https://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000176883. Keep in mind that sourcing articles like this is quite difficult, as I'm not fluent in Japanese; there are probably plenty of good sources that I haven't found because I don't know the proper search terms. Mlb96 (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to draft space[edit]

Stop moving stubs to draft space that are meeting WP:NSPORTS, like you for instance did with Kees Witteveen and several more I created. They are meeting the notability guidelines of WP:NCYCLING under NSPORTS. If you don’t it you should take them to AfD. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, dude. I'm not taking them to Afd. They are effectively unsourced. What I will do, is take you to Ani, and suggest all of them go through Afc like FloridaArmy. Producing BLP's with one reference is 2021 is unacceptable. Producing BLP's with one source, to a machine generated profile was unacceptable in 2008. So source them, like everybody else has to. scope_creepTalk 10:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportsOlympic: I was thinking, there must more sources out there for each one of these folks. Everyone of the them must be famous, with sources in the Guardian, Telegraph, Baltimore Sun, Japan Times and so on. Surely you can add more sources, slow down a bit, so that each sentence has a reference? One article I noticed, the references were out of order. One girl who had cancer. The references that were there, were out of order. That is not cool. scope_creepTalk 10:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi scope_creep, I don’t like your tone as you sound like you are in the attack mode. You are talking about BLP, while those people died about 100 years ago. It also looks like you are very generalizing. These are just some articles about important cyclist I created “on the go”. Sometimes I created a few stubs ad they deserve a page, and can easily be expanded. (The essence of a stub). Have you also seen other articles I created this month? Probably not.. see for instance the 60 most recent September created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/204, almost all created by me. Imagine how much time I invested to create the pages of the earliest Paralympic athletes of the Netherlands? Untill a few weeks ago their names were not even known (!!) (1964, 1968, 1972) … So please do a bit of research before taking down someone by generalization. And a question: were can I see creating a page with a database source is “unacceptable”? (And I don’t know with you mean with a girl with cancer?) SportsOlympic (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportsOlympic: No attacks. Discussion. They don't get expanded. There is simply too many articles that are stubs and not enough folk to do it. It is much better to expand them, with sufficient sources at the moment of creation, so at least you know they're valid. Essentially what your doing is duplicating on wikipedia what is aleady on the dashboard site. What is the point of that? It is easier for the reader to go to the site where the information already located than it is coming here. Readers don't look at these wee 1 and 2 lines article. That is well known. That Netherlands article is decent. Really decent. This is an example of what I really dodgy: Rie Odajima. The information that is pulled together on the article has been take from news sites. It looks like a Wikipedia article without the associated acedmic rigour of policies and procedures that are instrinsic to Wikipedia. it is low quality. scope_creepTalk 22:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:14:07, 24 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by AmirahBreen[edit]


I have removed some of the sources which I think may be the clickbait ones you are referring to and I have also added some new sources. I have added coverage of fasting and practicing Ramadam which is additional to Malay cuisine and linguistic skills. The article is actually quite similar to that of another expat in Malaysia Mat Dan. I am not quite sure why that article is acceptable for notability yet the Rhys William one was not. Could you help me to understand this please?</nowiki> Amirah talk 11:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: I've moved this down here, so I can see it properly. New entries should go at the bottom of the page, it is very hard to find it otherwise. Please read WP:TALK. I will take a look later today. scope_creepTalk 12:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't understand why you treat it is a new entry as it is part of the same conversation. Could you tell me what section of WP:TALK gives the rationale for this. Please could you also see the original conversation and answer my questions above. Amirah talk 22:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: If there has been significant gap, it is common practice to put it at the bottom the page. It take too much valuable time to search for the entry you have made above. I have to check the page version history to find your comment. scope_creepTalk 06:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I would not normally consider 4 days to be a significant gap, but I do notice your talk page is unusually busy. Please answer my questions above about why you refused the article. Amirah talk 06:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AmirahBreen: I would suggest you submit the article for review on Afc and wait for another editor to review it. I don't think the subject is particularly notable, with what is there. scope_creepTalk 07:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever post to my talk page again[edit]

At least, not until you learn to tell the difference between UPE and simply being a fan. Because guess what? If fans weren't allowed to edit Wikipedia pages, there would not be any Wikipedia pages. Jackass. Mlb96 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with your baseless accusations. Once this AfD is over, never interact with me again. Mlb96 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No accusations, just questions, dude. scope_creepTalk 22:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Many Dimensions[edit]

Hi, you just incubated a new article of mine. I've not had that experience before and so would like some guidance, please. The comment after review was "Dodgy sources. Wrong type." Was the latter phrase a comment on the type of sources? So far as the section on themes goes, there are three works cited, all by fairly respected scholars, so I don't understand how they can be described as 'dodgy'. Could it be the sources on publishing that are substandard? I'm never sure where to locate good sources for such information. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweetpool50: It was reviewed as part WP:NPP process. Ref 1 to 4 are unsuitable. 2 reviews of the work are required to prove it is notable, per WP:NBOOK. More if they are available. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Thanks for the clarification. I've now substituted what I hope are more acceptable sources for editions. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweetpool50: Looking at that again, I think it would be hard to find reviews on it. I'll see if I can see anything of worth. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Thanks. I was thinking that contemporary reviews might be hard to find, although I did discover the one in the Sewanee Review cited. But I've come across at least five scholarly works with a whole chapter - or section - devoted to the novel. Arguably, that is also a sign of notability. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it. scope_creepTalk 20:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations[edit]

There is a general consensus that railway stations are notable, regardless of whether or not they pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hin Dat railway station is an example of the feeling of other editors. Could you please restore Draft:Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi) and Draft:Zhangshu East railway station, as I believe either of them would survive AfD. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @NemesisAT: I know, but they still need to be sourced, like everything else. scope_creepTalk 11:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are sourced. There was further sourcing and information available on the Chinese Wikipedia, but I left out bits that I couldn't translate correctly or where the sources were inaccessible. You can also verify the existence of these stations with Google Earth and the Chinese Rail Map website. NemesisAT (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @NemesisAT: The first one has a raw search url and and architects/photographs that are very poor. They're must be better references than that. Is that all they need for a station to prove they exist? scope_creepTalk 11:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT:, they are notable, there no doubt about it and they are good wee articles. Slighly better refs would do it. Try your best. scope_creepTalk 19:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellmut Fleckseder moved to draftspace[edit]

Hello Scope creep, on September 16th you moved my article about Hellmut Fleckseder to my draftspace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hager_Irene#Hellmut_Fleckseder_moved_to_draftspace), stating that it is not suitable as written to remain published because it needs more citations. Could you please provide me with detailed information in which areas citations are still missing? I consider the article to have sufficient citations and it has already been reviewed and released once by user Olaf Kosinsky (on 20 August 2021, 13:44), as far as I could read as a B-calss article. Thank you for further, timely information. Hager Irene (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hager Irene: How goes it? Olaf Kosinsky was blocked for abusing the account. He managed to get into Afc and passed a whole bunch of articles that shouldn't have been in mainspaces. All of them are getting sent back to Afc when they're being independently reviwed. The article subject is only an associate professor and has only obit, instead of 2 which would be normal. I would suggest submitting the article and letting somebody look at it. It shouldn't take long. scope_creepTalk 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Scope creep: for the quick response. I'll do so! However, I am still some kind of a newbie and so I would like to ask what an obit is. Thanks again and best regards! Hager Irene (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hager Irene: An obituary. If you can find two obituaries, then the subject is likely to be automatically notable. scope_creepTalk 09:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ofer Strichman[edit]

Thanks @Scope creep: for your review of Ofer Strichman's article. Regarding the "research" section: I see your point that the sentences on the research are too close to his bio. I can rewrite them. But I'm not sure what you meant by "section shouldn't be here". Can you explain?--Adig-pt (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adig-pt: About two-thirds of it was copyvio. Copied from somewhere else. You can't copy stuff from somwhere unless it is public domain and marked as such with a tag. The NPP utility indicated it was copyvio and I tested it on earwig, that showed a good chunk of it copyvio, so it was removed. I can be put back, but rewritten in your words, not paraphrased or copied verbatim. scope_creepTalk 08:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adig-pt: Also the bit about patents, is not needed. They are not talked about on Wikipedia. And the bit about h-index, should be tag in ext links. He is either notable or he is not and he is. The selected patents sections needs to go. I actually missed. They are non-rs on Wikipedia. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 08:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Scope creep: for the fast and detailed answer. I'll work on it in the next week or so.--Adig-pt (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:22:11, 5 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bluepencil13[edit]


I've updated my News Literacy Project draft to take your suggestions into account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:News_Literacy_Project Bluepencil13 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bluepencil13 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bluepencil13: It much better, but you will need to reduce the Programs and Resources down to a single sentence. Things like Checkology is available at no charge to educators, That is close to advertising. The The Sift® I think the R sign is explicity not allowed on Wikipedia per policy. Somebody mentioned it years ago. Please remove them. It looks too much like a brochure. Wikipedia article are to inform and learn, not to sell. I can promoted to mainspace with a single sentence stating you offer virtual classrooms, a free email letter for educators and workshops. scope_creepTalk 09:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluepencil13: Keep at it. scope_creepTalk 14:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Article Abhishel Nigam[edit]

I want to make a new article about Abhishek nigam so delete the draft article Please Fan Unknown Devian Devjoshi (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fan Unknown Devian Devjoshi: Your article at draft was reviewed six times by six editors in good standing over four months, and everyone of them declined the article before I rejected. I urge you not to recreate it. Wikipedia is not a social media site, where you can create non-notable articles like this. There is a behavioural policy known as WP:NOTHERE, where editors can be blocked as they not here to build the encyclopaedia. So please, do not recreate it. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's October corner[edit]

October songs

Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I like the sentiment. I think the world really needs it at the moment. I think it would be a great spot for a wee picnic. scope_creepTalk 13:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, - and more pics if you click on songs. By chance - looking for material on Elizabeth Reiter whom I heard yesterday - I found a video (linked from my talk, look for Liz Reiter), a living room concert of the soprano from April 2020 when all opera houses were closed (and she was pregnant with twins): all love songs, and she saying that she felt just then the world needed more love. - Did you see who created the DYK article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Louis Alain. Yes. I'm assuming the editor will come back at some point. The short termist approach is killing Wikipedia. Removing these highly creative people is just destructive and disruptive. I'll take a look. Often, if you create wee seed article, Google creates a new knowledge graph for that subject and often sources that were difficult to find before, seem to be immediately available. It does take a bit of time. It does help for difficult and obscure articles. I did notice the Karl-Heinz Petzinka that is up for Dyk hasn't got a completed sentence in the lede. It just stops......... He converted historic industrial buildings, and was responsible for the scope_creepTalk 14:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last bit: when you see such a thing, please check edit history and remove the vandalism, - that's faster than copying it to here. (In this case, I did it already, two of them.) Tell me, why should LouisAlain return, to the unloving and unforgiving community a certain AN thread stands for? He now adds to the German Wikipedia. I wish him better luck there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really happy he is working there. That is a hard question to answer, probably as he was a net positive to Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia to a certain extent is run by fundamentalists who don't know or don't care about promulgating creativity and the people who are part of it. I see the most creative people removed and don't know what to do about it. I had to leave the thread because I was so angry, and would have been blocked myself. They level of stupidy exhibited on here, gets me down. Ultimately, it is question of alternatives. Years ago in corporate land, my manager told me, you can't leave because the job market was cold. It had all these cliques. It's the same here in a way. If there was alternative to Wikipedia today, I would be gone tomorrow. scope_creepTalk 15:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we do something together, perhaps, writing with the readers in mind? My plans are on my user page. Max Creutz, another translation by LouisAlain, was just approved for DYK. I'd never known about these creative people without him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be interested as you produce excellent high-quality articles. I will take a look at where I can help, where I can, but I'm still working on the Red Orchestra article that has about six months work left, at the moment and a Glagow University academic asked to get the Joseph Lister article done, which is quite big on its own. I really appreciate you asking me. Count me in. scope_creepTalk 15:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your dedication to such large projects! My planned and recent articles - mostly short - are on my user page, and just browsing for Germanisms would be helpful. Today, mostly black&white, and standing upright as Psalm 15 says. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help removing a title linkage (i.e. Ischemic fasciitis) to the Fasciitis page[edit]

Sorry to bother you again. The page Fasciitis, which merely lists the names of a few fasciitis disorders including Ischemic fasciitis, is evoked when a try to publish a new page termed Ischemic fasciitis. I tried to remove this linkage by deleting Ischemic fasciitis from the list of disorders but this did nothing to alter the linkage of Ischemic fasciitis to the Fasciitis page. Can you please help me remove this linkage so that I can publish the fasciitis page. Thank you. --joflaher (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher:, How goes it? I can assure you it is no bother at all. It is pleasure in fact. I will take a look at it now. scope_creepTalk 16:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: I'm not quite sure I understand you. Is your article called Ischemic fasciitis. If it is, then you can click on this red link Ischemic fasciitis and write into it. It will give you a blank page. scope_creepTalk 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep, when I tried to publish Ischemic fasciitis by putting in the title, I expected to get "Create page" but what I got was the Fasciitis page. I Followed you instructions and the page has been published. Again, Thank you, thank you --joflaher (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope_creep, there remains two small problems with the Ischemic fasciitis page: 1) when seeking this page, two Ischemic fasciitis choices come up, one correctly brings up Ischemic fasciitis the other brings up the Fasciitis page; and 2) the Fibroblastic and myofibroblastic tumors page's Ischemic fasciitis linkage brings up the Fasciitis page. How can I correct these two issues? Again, Thank you. --joflaher (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher There are two spellings, one with the ae diphthong and one without. The one with redirected (past tense) to the generic page. It now directs to the correct target. Visit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ischaemic_fasciitis&action=history and see how I have made that change. You will be able to do these things yourself now. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timetrent: Thank you for correcting the linkage on fibroblastic and myofibroblastic tumors. However, when I ask for the Ischemic fasciitis page, two pages come up, one to Ischemic fasciitis the other to Fasciitis. How can I correct this? --joflaher (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 review update[edit]

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:12:46, 10 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Noaghebreab[edit]



The draft submission for "Sennay Ghebreab" has been declined again. The reason this time: "H-index is not sufficiently, only two papers over a 100 citations. The entry in Aethiopica may be notable." This is mind boggling given the fact that Sennay Ghebreab is one of the few AI researchers that for over a decade have been warning that the focus on h-index to measure science impact is leading to unethical and non-inclusive AI science outcomes. In the last decade Sennay Ghebreab has been at the forfront of 1) promoting engaged AI scholarship, 2) interdisciplinary and inclusive approaches to AI technology development and education, 3) science communication and education. He has received national recognized for this by amongst other The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and has been named one of the 200 most influential persons in the Netherlands in 2020 (of which only 5 are black like Sennay). This makes the reason for declining the draft submission very questionable, certainly in light of the recent criticism toward Wikipedia for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage. Mind you that many scientist, including one of the most famous Dutch professors in science communication, have lower H-index and no papers with more than 100 citations. Yet they have a Wikipedia entry.

Noaghebreab (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Noaghebreab:. Yip, I see your point. I'm only now just back in. We are aware of it and trying to address it. I find it hard to judge if a academic is notable, usually I coun't the papers citation. Generally if they are involved or known in other areas, the notability criteria may be covered by WP:SIGCOV, not WP:NPROF and sigcov is generally easier to pass. I agree that h-index as a measure of notability is really poor. I read about it recently. I really only use it as a indication, not as an actual measure. Generally in borderline cases, or when I don't really know I ask for a second opinion; visit the talk page of User:David Eppstein, and leave a note. He is an academic and will tell you immediately if he is notable or not, from experience. scope_creepTalk 11:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Sennay Ghebreab, the publication record is too light (in a high-citation field) and the subject appears to have moved to non-research positions, so this looks like a case for WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF to me, if there is notability to be found at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reported your actions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Tips[edit]

Coming from here, I just want to offer a few tips, first of all, thank you for your work at anti spam / upe and also want to note that Phil Bridger is apt when they state that if a move is objected it shouldn’t be re-drafitified, it’s mentioned somewhere in WP:DRAFTIFY, tbh, that’s a mistake I too struggle with, having said, your works against possible undisclosed paid editing are very much appreciated. As someone who has been in your current predicament in the past, it took the advice of Beeblebrox , Ritchie333, Kudpung and a host of other editors to teach how to tackle unethical editing efficiently and with little to no confrontation. You see, regardless of what is being said at the ANI, when you optimize the {{UPE}} tag you aren’t wrong, it is in no way an accusation, it is a question & neither is it against policy if it were, it wouldn’t exist, anyone saying otherwise speaks that which is not true, on my UP I explain this with more detail, having said, if it is used frequently without a cogent concern it can be disruptive, generally speaking. To avoid the drama boards, there are other effective methods used when curbing unethical practices, for example, if it involves just one article, or perhaps two, then COIN does the trick. if you uncover a history of possible UPE by an editor who has been here for long, rather than use the UPE tag, just report them straight to WP:ANI, with relevant proof(s), honestly there isn’t any need discussing anything with them, if you have damning evidence that may lead to outing just report straight to ArbCOM. To be honest by doing the aforementioned you are skipping the drama. Infact, one of the most efficient manner of curbing upe as stated to me by Bradv some months ago is just by nominating shady looking articles out of mainspace and in due time they by themselves would quit altogether. Hang in there, insofar as your motives & intentions are clearly for the benefit of the collaborative project, you need not be fazed by drama boards. Just read what is being said, offer your explanation, answer questions directly meant for you (or when pinged) un-watch it if you have it on your watchlist and go about your business. Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Celestina007: That is unlifting. I've already taken the article off my watchlist. scope_creepTalk 23:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering both user:2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 and user:Bidoon have been blocked, the ANI case is moot. Celestina007 makes excellent points. Keep up the good work both of you so that I can rest easy in my semi-retirement and eventually not have to bother editing Wikipedia at all - the so called 'collaborative' project has become just too nasty and will remain so as long as IP editing is still allowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Borisovich Volkov[edit]

Hello. Please also pay attention to this information: «... part of the AnastasiaDate online dating chain»; «The dating.com group appears in the ICIJ offshore leaks database». The Dating Group includes not only this service, what's the point of specifying it? Regarding the second sentence, this information is insignificant in this article and raises great doubts. 2A00:1FA1:401C:72FA:D5D5:7434:8F38:901B (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially yip, but it is also a valid reference and that is the reason I left it. scope_creepTalk 14:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of this fact is absent in the article about Volkov, I mean the second sentence, which I indicated above. And regarding the indication of AnastasiaDate, there is no such information in the source. 2A00:1FA1:401C:72FA:D5D5:7434:8F38:901B (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask you to delete this information, since there are no authoritative sources for it. 2A00:1FA1:401C:72FA:D5D5:7434:8F38:901B (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translator list[edit]

Hey; thought you might be interested: WP:Translators available#French-to-English. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Excellent man. Got somebody in mind now. scope_creepTalk 22:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive[edit]

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 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Lister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archibald Primrose.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akoko[edit]

Hey Scope_creep. In the future, please don't draftify articles like you did here. If they are unsourced, you can tag them as {{unreferenced}}. That page was published since 2005, and generally you are only supposed to draftify if the page is a recent creation per WP:ATD-I. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MJL: Yip, I see it is a mainstream article, probably done in haste. I wouldn't normally move something like that, more than 5-6 months old, which is the length of the NPP queque. I found a couple of references, so it should be easily referenced. scope_creepTalk 19:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun[edit]

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Komet[edit]

Hello, I saw you have removed the references to discogs. I don't understand why, their entries most often are written based off details found within the physical CD. What source do you suggest I use instead? Obama gaming (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Obama gaming:. They are non-RS. Not a reliable source. They're are WP:SPS source and can't be used on Wikipedia. If you relying on that kind of source, essentially copied by people from one medium to another, then your really wide of the mark. scope_creepTalk 21:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rightio, cheers. Obama gaming (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt-in, but just a heads up @Obama gaming: and @Scope creep: Discogs CAN be used as a source actually; however, you have to directly link to the images of the release. And there must be something more than just artwork (credits, tracklisting, actual liner notes, etc.). Please see this discussion. Simply use the AV media template when doing so. Xanarki (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanarki:, @Obama gaming: That problem is it's ambigious and obscure, which leads to vast amount of unecessary work as most people ignore it anyway. They're is no method to determine what is the best approach, with the results that people use what they know. scope_creepTalk 17:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanarki:, @Obama gaming: It's also been flagged up by the Afc script meaning the RS folk don't want that as source. scope_creepTalk 17:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't know they had it as an automatic flag. I'll take a look around and see if anything can be done. Maybe they can add a script exception, if "/images" is in the cited Discogs URL. Or something similar to that. Since it'a technically the media itself being cited, and Discogs is just a host. Xanarki (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanarki:, @Scope creep: What do you suggest I do in order to avoid these issues in the future? Thank you for this information, it helps a lot, I am still learning. Obama gaming (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Obama gaming: This is just my opinion, but, you can source to Discogs so long as it's directly to the images that has useful content. Also, use it kind-of as a last resort. Search for another website that may have the liner notes/credits/times instead. If you really honestly can't find another source, then falling back on the pictures is okay because it'd be better than nothing at all. Xanarki (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanarki: Do you think music review websites/official website press releases are better? For example on The Perfect Cult many of the recording details were shared on an announcement on their official website, but things like graphic artist copyright were still listen on discogs. Appreciate it Obama gaming (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jillert Anema[edit]

Hello, Scope creep,

If an editor disagrees with you moving a page into Draft space, do not "move war" and move it back to Draft space a second time. Editors are allowed to disagree with draftifying and are encouraged to move articles back to main space rather than cut-and-pasting a second version of the article in main space. If you think an article is in bad shape, please nominate it at AFD or PROD the page rather than insisting that an article be in Draft space against the wishes of the page creator. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion of article Michellee Fox[edit]

Hi Scope Creep

I responded to your proposed deletion over at [[4]]. In the meantime, I will fix the stub issue. Thanks! Niente21 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Niente21: I would try over to WP:WIR. They are a good bunch and will try and save if they can. scope_creepTalk 17:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meris Šehović[edit]

I'm not sure where you're getting Restored to redirect by three independent editors.

  • It was created it in March.
  • Onel5969 BLAR'd it for referencing (not notability) issues three weeks later.
  • A different editor created a significantly different version a few weeks ago.
  • You BLAR'd it again, with your only edit summary being Redirect.

So that's one editor BLARing for referencing reasons, and one (you) restoring that redirect for unspecified reasons, not three restoring a preëxisting redirect for notability reasons.

Secondly, I don't know what about this is "completely non-notable" on its face. If you have an argument for why it's non-notable despite references to reliable sources and existing on two sister wikis, the place to make that is in your edit summary. Especially since, as noted, you appear to be the first reviewer to look at this article and conclude that it's not notable.

Furthermore, as a new pages reviewer you should know that NPRs have no special power to BLAR articles. You, a new page reviewer in good standing, made a judgment that it is not suitable as an article. I, also a new page reviewer in good standing, made a judgment that it might be, or at least that you'd provided no reason to BLAR it. Per BLAR, the appropriate next step is not to revert me (especially not with a line like "Don't revert"), but rather to discuss on talk or take the article to AfD.

I've reverted you. You are welcome to take one of those next steps if you'd like. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thanks for that, but I don't need a lesson in notability. It is always the references, in all cases for redirecting, or Afd or Prod. Always the referencing. Here they are chronically bad and the subject doesn't deserve an article. All you have done is give space to non-electable, never elected non-notable non-entity of a party member, who fails WP:NPOL, by a wide major. The Green has never been elected in their 45 year existance and top that the guy is the co-chair, meaning he is the junior member. scope_creepTalk 16:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All [I] have done is revert the unexplained and under-explained blankings of an article. I see the point you're making. It seems like a good point for an AfD to consider; it doesn't seem like strong grounds to blank and redirect. I note that the article has now been reviewed by Pichpich. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umswai Valley redirect[edit]

Why do you redirect the page?? It doesn't meet Wikipedia's format? Want to know... 117.237.249.79 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @117.237.249.79: The page can come back, if it is notable and you can prove it is notable. Each sentence needs a reference. It can't just be a block of text. It needs proper references and not something that has been written by somebody on their own. That is why I removed those references, one was a blog reference. It is was reviewed as part of WP:NPP. If you want revert the redirect and have a go at adding some valid sources. Please take a look at WP:REFB, which explains how to create them. scope_creepTalk 18:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Kildonan, Skye" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kildonan, Skye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 6#Kildonan, Skye until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URL[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you are placing the bare URL tag not appropriately, for instance here in the article of Jillert Anema; where you where you even replaced it after it was removed. Please become familiair what a bare URL is. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel B Garcia alvarez[edit]

I cannot understand why the article Manuel B Garcia Alvarez has been deleted. First, a 7-day period was set for adding new sources. It's only been 4 days and it's already been deleted, this is not serious. Secondly, the article contained sources from newspapers of worldwide importance such as: "El Pais" and "ABC" of Spain and "Izvestia" of Russia and others from newspapers of international importance such as "Diario de León" of Spain and "Komuna" of Russia. I have not had time to add more sources since they have deleted the article in breach of the 7-day deadline they had given me. Please give me an explanation of what has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morseo (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Hi @Morseo: Sorry I thought this was sent to Afd. It at draft here: Draft:Manuel B. García Álvarez. I requested it be moved to draft as it source dubious at best and don't prove he is notable. scope_creepTalk 12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that a professor of law who has written dozens of articles and books on constitutional law in Spanish, Russian, English, French and Italian, who has contributed to the creation of the Russian and Spanish institutions and has held positions in the Council of Europe and as an ombudsman is not an important subject? have you ever heard about Dialnet, the largest database of scientific articles in the Spanish language? https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=80397 https://manuelbgarciaalvarezvidaprofesional.home.blog/category/articulos-en-ingles/ have you ever heard about "Izvestia": https://iz.ru/news/343641 or "EL País"?: https://elpais.com/diario/1980/03/19/cultura/322268406_850215.html https://elpais.com/diario/1990/10/01/internacional/654735624_850215.html Do you think footballers are more important to wikipedia than scientists? Morseo (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Morseo: Don't put your name at the end of your signature. It is non-standard. I have seen several new editors doing that recently and it's likely to peeve people off. Regarding the article, I value scientists, artists, sculptures, poets, inventors, physicians, playwrights, authors much much higher than I do any sports people. I can assure you of that. The articles references doesn't accurately reflect the WP:NPROF notability guideline which is one most, if not thee most, easy notability guidelines to apply, you either meet it, or you dont. There is no halfway ground. I will help you get this article up to speed. The first thing you should do in the article, in create a bibliography section, listing the books he has written, the most important ones, and look for reviews of the books. That will help him pass WP:NAUTHOR. Do that first, give me a should. Two or better book reviews would pass him. I have not heard about dialnet. If he created it, please find a reference, put it in the article and I will check it. Find a reference for the position in the council of Europe, assuming it is established/important position, not a member or apparatchik. Any 2 or 3 book reviews combined with council of europe ref would move it out of draft today. I really hope that helps. I'm sure with the correct concomitant application of collaboration, the article will be out of draft today or tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 13:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Morseo: Are you planning to update the article? scope_creepTalk 11:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Morseo: How are you? I plan to try and fix this article next week at some point Draft:Manuel B. García Álvarez by finding two or three references to prove the man is notable. I think I'm going to work on it today, if your about and try and get it promoted today. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article, I added some new references and external links to the draft-Morseo (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) I have moved the article, I do not know if this is correct, if it is wrong, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morseo (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hogan DRV[edit]

Hi there, hope you had a good weekend and all is well. Since you helped review the Stephen Hogan page 2 months ago. Could you please comment on the DRV? Don't feel bad if you are also piling on. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insane Clown Posse[edit]

There is an interview here where they talk about being a part of hip hop. Sources discussing the group's music classify them under multiple genres, with hip hop being the most cited, followed by rap rock and a few others. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RockabillyRaccoon: Yip. I think your right. I think I was confusing the album cover with Jazmin Bean which I reviewed last night. It is the same purple colouring and body shape. I listened to the music on Spotify last night. It isn't hip hop, for sure. I don't know what is is. She was notable. scope_creepTalk 11:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian FC[edit]

Yes, I believe so. GiantSnowman 18:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

joflaher locked himself out of Wikipedia...Help, help, help me please[edit]

Scope crepe: I typically make Wikipedia edits though another computer. I am now working on my home computer in order to reach you. While editing Infantile digital fibromatosis just a bit ago, I held down some key too long, got a message, clicked on the wrong tag, and now cannot type anything into this other computer. I'm not sure what I did wrong but can you help me get back to my other computer. the email address for computer that I am now using is: 5oxoflaher@gmail.com Please rescue me...I may not be able to read you messages, but certainly can't answer them, through my normal work computer. Thank you. [User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: Have you tried turning it on an off first before we proceed to remote support. scope_creepTalk 22:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope Creep: I am away from my other computer and cannot turn it on and off. I also can't message you from that computer. I am using my other compputer to message you. What next and...thank you for all your help. User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
joflaher, trying to turn it on and off to see if that clear's the problems. Did you happen to see the message?
There could be a number of problems with it, including the disk, it could be the software itself, malware possibly, any number of things. Until you can get access to, to install remote support software, it is impossible to do anything. The best idea, is once you get access to it, try and turn it on and off and see if you see anything on the screen? How old is the computer? scope_creepTalk 22:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep; I will try turning the other (remote) computer on and off tomorrow when I am in front of it. The remote computer is a good one; not buts there. Unfortunately, I won't be able to message you from that computer unles on/off corrects the problem. Again, thank you for your help. User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 6:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Scope creep: I got someone to turn my remote on and then off. It worked. I am now typing you this through my remote computer. Thank you...What a relief.User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 6:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.11.97.87 (talk)

Caroline Henry[edit]

Hi Scope creep

Thanks for your contribution to the Caroline Henry article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Caroline_Henry

You mentioned that the material was "effectively unsourced". I felt the use of "effectively" implied some subjectivity to your view.

Can you please expand on your view? I've re-read into the sourcing of BLPs, and they seem appropriate to me?

Thanks, telephone-man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telephone man123 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Telephone man123: Just passing by on this page, so I took a quick look at the draft. IIRC a good rule of thumb is that there should be 3 references to independent, reliable, secondary sources. The best source I see is independent and reliable, but is a primary source. The Stafford community group refs may not be reliable (I'd have to check further). The rest of the refs look usable, at first glance, but wouldn't count toward notability. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Telephone man123: @Smallbones: Reference 1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7 is dead, 8 don't count towards notability in any manner. They are either primary, not about the subject i.e. website front pages, dead links or self-published sources that WP:SPS. The first block of reference should establish notability immediately. They're is simply nothing here to defines the lady as being notable. scope_creepTalk 14:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From The Signpost[edit]

SC,

I notice you were mentioned here: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2021/Contents/USA_report Is there any chance you'd like to write something for The Signpost on a related topic? Please email me here if possible.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Ran Singh Nakai.

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

Does it perhaps not need a template to pull all the articles together.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 00:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top Chef Gotit[edit]

You say this album has been very successful, so it's very notable. But there's no evidence at all of its supposed success. I don't understand your statement. Richard3120 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: How goes it? What do you not understand about it? scope_creepTalk 23:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: scope_creepTalk 23:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't understand how you can say it's been very successful when the only evidence of notability that I can find is that it made no. 14 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart. I'd actually say it's been a very unsuccessful album. Every source currently in the article only says "this album was released, and the singles were also released". Richard3120 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the European charts and the Chinese charts? I would suggest you really need to globalize internally I think. scope_creepTalk 23:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What European charts and Chinese charts? I'm all for adding non-Billboard charts, but I can't find any evidence of these charts at all, there's nothing on Billboard's website or on a Google search – that's what I'm asking for, someone to add some evidence to the article to show notability. Richard3120 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: You really need to search out and ask. I would suggest asking at the reference desk for help. You really need to build intelligence on it. Google is great in the west, but non-existant in china. My poker mate, whose Chinese, recognised him. He has been seconded here for a wee while. He recognised him right away as they were leaving. But is a one off for this band ,off the cuff, what's really needed is a coordinated approach and i'm no longer fan type. scope_creepTalk 23:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not denying Lil Gotit himself is notable, he certainly is. But I can't find any notability for this particular album of his. And really, it's up to the person claiming that this album is notable to provide the proof, per WP:BURDEN. Richard3120 (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable as well. Very much an established star type, I guess. The album is notable. Just because you can't state it is notable in Europe or China, is not a execuse to delete it. You need to find tools that can give you that type of information. It is absurd saying is doesn't seem to be notable in the United States with 4% of the worlds population, having never checked the other 97%, that a lot of artists seems to use and like it. It is non-argument. I'm a technical type, I would discover how to overcome that hurdle. I actually don't like the fact, that I can't access that info right now, but WP:AGF applies at that level. scope_creepTalk 00:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood me, because to be honest, that is a very strange answer. I know Lil Gotit is notable, I am not questioning that. But it does not mean that all his albums are notable. And your suggestion is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works - you do not assume that an album is notable and tell other editors to go and find the information, it is your responsibility to find that information to show that the other editor is wrong. But I don't want to argue about this any more... I will wait to see if anyone adds some information that shows notability for the album, and if not, I will take it to AfD. By the way, I'm not American, so I don't think the USA is the only important place in the world. Richard3120 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Yip, I understand. This was a one-off. I took a look at your user page. I'm from Scotland. I think if you took it to Afd I wouldn't vote on it. I do think we need to crack this problem of non-access to info problem. You see it all the time at WP:NPP, even in cultural and historical articles, where the references can't be checked, in sports, celebs and pop folk as well, very recently. It seems to be the case you assume AGF on them, that leaves it open to abuse. I read yesterday that China is slowing closing itself off, not just the borders, but the great firewall is being upgraded, making it more difficult to find the facts, not only there but countries that are following China's lead. scope_creepTalk 13:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you that there is a problem that music articles are very centred on artists and records from North America and Europe, and sometimes you see articles from countries like Iran, or Estonia, or Indonesia go to AfD, simply because the nominator can't read the language or doesn't know where to find reliable sources from the country. But this is a much wider issue of access, that affects all articles, and it needs to be addressed at a higher level on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. I'm hoping they are aware of it. Personally I don't any site in China. scope_creepTalk 14:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Lokayukta[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Thanks for your time in reviewing this article and sharing your feedback. It is a statutory level Parliamentary ombudsman for each state in India. Also to inform you that the article has been moved to main space after being reviewed. An article Lokayukta for National Level in India has qualified as per wiki standards and is available. Kindly guide me to take it to main space. Gardenkur (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: How goes it? What article was it, your wanting help on, exactly? scope_creepTalk 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Book ref URLs[edit]

Hi Scope creep Just so I understand the issue in relation to my own editing elsewhere can you explain the rationale behind this change, bearing in mind that they both (I think) produce the same result. Cheers. Davidships (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships: At the time I didn't understand what the citation bot did. I've reverted the changes there. scope_creepTalk 14:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sc. I believe that gobbledy-gook is invented by Google and encodes the search route and other stuff that they want for their own tracking purposes. Davidships (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Reviews[edit]

Assam Lokayukta[edit]

Hi Scope creep. I had improved article with more references and content as suggested by you to make it suitable for main space. Kindly review and guide accordingly. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gardenkur: I'll take a look at it when I can. scope_creepTalk 13:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason?[edit]

Umswai Valley article is not suitable to be in Wikipedia?? Why is it redirected?? Olphindro Malang (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Olphindro Malang: It was rejected at Afc as it was not sourced correctly and still not source correctly, I don't know, more than a month. scope_creepTalk 17:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If possible please delete Umswai Valley article[edit]

I'll try hard to find more reliable sources later. Please delete it Sobai Naphlang (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sobai Naphlang: Articles don't have any right to be in mainspace, if they're not correctly sourced. scope_creepTalk 17:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why delete it Sobai Naphlang (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar[edit]

The Islamic Barnstar Award
fer great effort in Early Caliphate navy Ahendra (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ahendra: That's grand. scope_creepTalk 22:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Krauss[edit]

@Scope creep:, what was the purpose of this edit? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lotje: They are christian symbols that the Germany Wikipedia uses quite extensively, but they are not used on here. When I do a translation I used to put them in, if they were on the German article, as they indication the person was Christian. As it was mostly German resistance fighters, who invariably were shot or hung after being caught by the Nazis, I sawit as a kind of memorial on my part. But they are definently not allowed per policy on this Wikipedia, unfortunately. Hope that helps!! scope_creepTalk 12:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lotje: What do you think of Annie Krauss yourself. She owned a huge paint supplier, yet was a clairvoyant. She used to use here powers to squeeze information out her customers. It shows you the depths that people go to, to satisfy a need. I could have wrote reams on here, as she was very interesting. scope_creepTalk 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what to think (as yet) but... thanks. Lotje (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: I had to take that image off. That is a Gestapo picture. Can't have that on there. That is her after interrogation. There is a whole load of these images take up, because they are public domain, but they can't be used. scope_creepTalk 12:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The photo came from the archives of Igor Bondarenko (Q1528007) :-) Lotje (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: That is not really a factor, I don't think. A historian I used to work with, sent me some Gestapo photographs about 2.5-3 years ago, and they shocked me to the core. I really wasn't prepared for them and had to sent them back. I think he was wanting me to know, that these were real people, it wasn't just some intellectual exercise of writing an article, and moving on. These images are either immediately taken after they were interrogated, or immediately before they were executed. In every one of them, the individual looks gubbed. It was only when I was told about it, that I noticed. They is a whole series of them and they are unsuitable for Wikipedia. I've replaced all of the Red Orchestra folks images, for example Harro Schulze-Boysen or Libertas Schulze-Boysen (still getting worked on). They are really unsuitable for inclusion. scope_creepTalk 13:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for that ill link. @Lotje:. At the bottom of the Harro Schulze-Boysen there is a template that links all the biographies. There is an article here: Leopold Trepper which is also has a template which links them. Any help there is appreciated, particularly those ill links. They are really handy. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this might be helpful... Luba Trepper was his wife Lotje (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Yip, she travelled as Sarah Orschitzer amongst other names, and as the CIA didn't have her real name, so they used here alias in [5]] p.318 as Sarah Orschitzer.There is enough for a wee article. She is mentioned in several placed in Wikipedia, so that would tie that up. She could be added to the template as well. Are you up for doing it? There is an image available as well. scope_creepTalk 16:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guess this is one of the images you mean? Cheers Lotje (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to have the names in alphabetical order by last name? I would be more then happy to do so Lotje (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that image, but I'm glad you found that one. Geez that's been there for three years, never knew. The one I was thinking about was when she presented herself as a character witness, to help her husband move from Poland to Isreal. But unfortunately it is of an archive site which charges. There will be more, when she was much younger. If not, we can use this one. It is ideal. Its great you found that. I've changed the Trepper article, to Luba and moved the Sarah Orschitzer as an alias, further up the sentence. Orschitzer may have been her family name, but not sure. Are you talk about the Template names? They are in order of importance and/or use. scope_creepTalk 16:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Good Morning. It's been two years already. It doesn't seem that long. scope_creepTalk 10:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move warring[edit]

Please do not engage in a move war when draftifying articles, as you did with 2021 Open Araba en Femenino – Singles. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, if you still believe an article should not be in mainspace, the next step is to list it at WP:AFD, not to engage in a WP:MOVEWAR. Iffy★Chat -- 10:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy: Fair enough but no. The question of why not list it at Afd is an execuse to create articles without references and that is now an unacceptable view . This is going on for 2022, not 2005 or even 2010, when it was largly acceptable. It is the view of WP:NPP that an article needs to be sourced if it is in mainspace. There is no need for half completed articles to be there when there is both offline draft and sandboxes available that can be used to complete it. Use one of them to do. If you can't references for it, then there is no need for article to be in mainspace. It can sit in draft until it is referenced correctly. scope_creepTalk 10:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification for Draft:Enock "Nox" Guni Zimbabwean Urban Grooves Artiste improvements[edit]

Good day, would like to notify you that i did some work on an article that you moved to draft, it was a disaster but i worked on it, arranged it in proper Wiki format, you can do more on it if you like.Draft:Nox Guni Gwatakwata (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gwatakwata: Yip that looks better better structured. But, please take a look at WP:REFB and provide proper full. references instead of bare urls. These urls only have 6-16 week lifespan and after a couple of year become very difficult to identify. Give me a shout when your finished and I will mainspace it. scope_creepTalk 11:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I have filled bare references, thank you.Gwatakwata (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwatakwata: You will need to resubmit it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 12:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Oh yes i submitted it, thank you.Gwatakwata (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive[edit]

The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia   
For reviewing more than 500 articles during the backlog drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 646 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Brinker[edit]

Your latest reversion does not have an explanation, despite me explaining my reasoning in the edit prior. As I don't want to violate the three-revert rule, please restore and nominate the article for deletion if you feel strongly about this. Thanks. NemesisAT (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NemesisAT: Can you stop edit warring to restore that redirect. There was a prod on the article and it was deleted and nobody contested it. You also seem to be following me around, while not illegal it is unethical and dodgy to the extreme. Removing prods all the time, without a good reason and not even leaving a rationale isn't cool. Your severely peeving me off. There is only really one outcome of these strong inclusionist tendencies you seem have, and that is visit to AN. There is strong consensus up there, Arbcom has a good understanding of the problem now as well. Dude, if had left a proper rationale on the article and explained it, but they are ISP's. They are one of the most common companies in the world. The Victory Brinker article was already prodded. You didn't even check that. Anybody who suggests to me to take it to Afd, after removing the prod on a crap article is going to AN. scope_creepTalk 14:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Victory Brinker, another editor PRODed it on 21 September 2021 and I subsequently contested it. Today the article was redirected by Onel5969. This showed up in my watchlist and I challenged the revert. You then came in after and reverted me twice, the first time claiming the PROD wasn't contested (it was, by me), and the second time without an explanation). I don't feel I'm edit warring here.
Concerning me "following you around", I'm not. I use User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. Today, between 13:50 and 14:04 I contested four PRODs, two of them placed by yourself and two by other users. Following that, you reverted my edit to Victory Brinker at 14:03, nominated Interlake Maritime Services (which you had never edited before) for deletion at 14:05, got involved at Talk:Edinburgh at 14:12 and moved an article I created to draft at 14:15. This evidence speaks for itself, I contested two PRODS during a routine review of a log, and you made four retaliatory edits against me within 15 minutes.
Removing prods all the time, without a good reason and not even leaving a rationale isn't cool. I generally do leave a rationale when contesting a PROD, though note that per WP:PROD, I am not required to do so.
Dude, if had left a proper rationale on the article and explained it, but they are ISP's. They are one of the most common companies in the world. This sentence doesn't make sense sorry I think you've made a typo.
There is only really one outcome of these strong inclusionist tendencies you seem have, and that is visit to AN. There is strong consensus up there, Arbcom has a good understanding of the problem now as well. Empty threats aren't cool either. I'm still confused as to what I've done wrong. Anybody who suggested to me to take it to Afd after removing the prod on a crap article is going to AN. Why? That's the whole point of PROD. Easy to PROD, easy to remove a PROD. Another vague threat, but I don't believe contesting a PROD is breaking any rule. NemesisAT (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Why are you deprodding articles in the first place? scope_creepTalk 15:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I feel they already pass guidelines, or could pass them with some improvement. Sometimes its an old article with a lot of content or a lot of contributions, and I feel it should go through the deletions process so more eyes are on it and there is more time for people to find sources. Now could you please address the contents of my message above? NemesisAT (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: You are not a reviewer in NPP or APC, you don't write large articles that are well referenced, and your judgement doesnt seem to be particularly sound when your deprodding these articles that have been reviewed by experienced NPP/AFC editors, who found them to be junk. So why are you doing it? Why are you using a script to find articles to deprod, which itself is breaking the consensus for the design of the guidelines. You don't even leave a rationale. scope_creepTalk 15:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Please try and up your judgement, as the way it is going at the moment I am going to report you.I will see what happen's after Christmas. scope_creepTalk 15:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I left a summary on all three of my edits to Victory Brinker. Your first summary, Restore. prod wasn't contested, was false, and the second, Restore., did not provide any reasoning at all.
If you're going to take this to WP:AN then please do so, otherwise please stop making accusations. Especially as you never addressed my comment above. NemesisAT (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: What was your comment? scope_creepTalk 15:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The one that reads "Regarding Victory Brinker, another editor..." NemesisAT (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Simply put, that editor is a page reviewer and writes large articles over a sustained period, so has a excellent judgement on what constitutes notability. They have been reviewing for donkey's. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an adequate answer to be honest. Regardless, if you're not going to raise this at WP:AN could you please repeat here what you were going to write? You've accused me of various things so I'd like a specific answer on what I'm doing wrong and what rules I'm breaking. Thanks. NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Your not breaking any rules, but that doesn't make it right. The prod mechanism was created about 2006-2007 and it has been updated continuosly but it's mostly the same. It has made very easy to remove the tag, but the other side of the coin, you have some idea of what your doing and a rationale behind it. You don't seem to be. Articles with a lot of content or a lot of contribtions are really nothing to do with it. It is the quality of the references that count and whether they indicate that it is notable. Structure only comes into when it is well referenced and is notable. You get lots of article that are paid that have 10's of editor to 100's of editor putting their wee bit in. I really don't trust your judgement, or think you know what your talking about. unless it is celebrity stuff or the companues, which I guess it is the reason you went for these prods, and the reason I'm trying to delete them. Victory Brinker doesn't have existance outside the show, no coverage. scope_creepTalk 16:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like my reasoning or rationales, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR, you should not have redirected the article again. You should have discussed, or nominated for deletion. You threatened to take me to AN because I asked you to take something to AfD, yet that's literally one of the options WP:BLAR says to pursue. NemesisAT (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the guidelines, but that is also the same line from that inclusionist group WP:ARS members used to take, that was up at AN, several weeks ago and that you voted on first. I wouldn't mind your reasoning if was balanced and rational but is not. scope_creepTalk 16:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read those guidelines, why didn't you follow them? Instead, you reverted my edit without explanation. And now you're questioning my reasoning? NemesisAT (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to argue any more. Just please stop making accusations against me and don't threaten me with ANI or arbcom. NemesisAT (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't told me yet why you think those are notable? Tell me that. scope_creepTalk 17:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Since this insn't an Afd, please tell me why you think they are notable enough not to be prodded, as there is no assumption they should automatically go Afd, since I may be wrong. Why do you think they are notable enough not to be prodded. scope_creepTalk 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote in the history "add ref, decline PROD. Has had more than one appearance on different programs, so I feel she may be notable". I'm sorry, I don't need to provide any more reasoning than that. What "line" where you referring to in your comment at 16:51? NemesisAT (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I thought. From now, don't post any more comments to this talk page, ever. scope_creepTalk 19:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NemesisAT (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyment of this project[edit]

Hello Scope Creep, You do so much great work for this encyclopedia. Thank you.

It is sad to see the frustration in some of your writings recently, so it seems like some folks are getting you down. I don't have any specific advice to offer (you would have a much better idea than me of what to do), but I just hope that you can spend your time here doing things that give you satisfaction.

All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Thanks very much. That is heartwarning. I'm going to concentrate on the two articles series i'm working on and get away from these folk. scope_creepTalk 16:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. I'm so glad to hear that you're planning to focus on a happier part of the project. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JK Llamera ‎[edit]

Can you please not just randomly strike comments as you did there. WP:SOCKSTRIKE only applies if the author is a sock, which I am rather obviously not, the fact that the originating IP is an open proxy is irrelevant as per policy: While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. Yes due to the app I'm using my IP is currently hopping randomly all over eastern europe, yes some of those probably are proxies, I have absolutely no control over this but I never cast more than 1 !vote, and my style is painfully obvious. Bottom line this app is fast, it's free, and I don't feel like taking 15-30 minutes to test out a few dozen other ones to find one that's better. Granted there's nothing stopping LTAs from also using the app, but english monoglots will be completely unable to use it and it may well not even be available in the countries that have the majority of editors. Don't get me wrong it's not like eastern europe has any shortage of LTAs some of whom do not like me, but the density is lower. And given that like me they would have almost a hundred other apps to choose from the odds are against any issues occurring.

Incidentally I'm still not seeing any WP:DMFD reason to delete, as Liz pointed out there's about two to three dozen unsourced blps dumped into draftspace on any given day, mostly self-promo junk, but g13 handles that without wasting everyone's time. MFD is actually terrible idea in these cases because the draft will get more views in those 7 days than it would otherwise get in 6 months (cf. Streissand effect); further we allow unsourced blps to go 7 days in mainspace where they are actually indexed and can be found through searches. To the extent unsourced bios are a probelem, and I'm not convinced that self-promo autobios that 1 edit users place in drafts or on their userpage really are, community efforts should be focused on Category:All BLP articles lacking sources which as of this writing includes over 90,000 articles with a backlog going back years, those are indexed and can potentially do real harm. If the bio is unsourced and negative speedy it as a g10, if not, we can safely ignore it along with all the other draftspace junk.

If you're really insistent I can actually ping an SPI clerk here who is familiar with my MO, and will confirm my statements, obviously I can't stop you from filing an SPI but there's still enough people around who recognise me that there's a fair chance you'll be laughed out of the room. And no I am not creating an account regardless of how many problems it would solve, meatball:LoginsAreEvil. Regards, 188.232.146.110 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but why not create an account, like any other normal person if you have access to the page? Regarding that LoginAreEvil page, it is total bullshit of the lowest kind, for a number of reasons. It makes zero sense. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your still seen as blocked on the Mfd and the closing admin will ignore your statement. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't happen super often, but it does happen, the mfd regulars have probably seen it often enough where they will shrug and move on, it's all about strength of argument anyway, and I try to ground my !votes thoroughly in the PAGs as !votes from IPs tend to be ignored otherwise anyway. I disagree the page is BS, but hey you can change it, meatball is also a wiki, just don't be surprised if you get reverted by the community members there. If you want some other reasons stored locally, WP:WNCAA while tagged humourous has a solid arguement, User:69.145.123.171/registering is also worth reading even all these years later. Regards, 188.232.146.110 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unsourced BLP and seems to be worthless as an article and will be deleted, in due course. I will not be editing anything that called Meatball, humorous or otherwise. You haven't answered my question, why not create and account? scope_creepTalk 16:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We both agree it is worthless and will never become an article, but WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity and WP:RAGPICKING is a waste of time. The difference is I prefer these be quietly deleted through g13, and supporting deletion in those mfds only encourages more of them while dramatically increasing the number of pageviews the drafts will receive over their lifetime. The additionally 20-40 daily draft mfds would also overwhelm mfd. If the someone is really dead set against these, and it is a tricky issue because draftspace is supposed to be a place to safely develop topics away from the normal notability standards (in theory anyway, in practice it's mostly a holding area for junk until g13 automatically cleans it away, but it reduces the time that would otherwise be needed to afd/prod/csd the stuff in mainspace, see also WP:DUD) then they should go to WT:CSD and get consensus for a new one to enable quiet deletion to take place without taking up any community time the way mfds do.
In fact essentially everything that is brought to mfd is going to be deleted eventually, it's just preferable that g13 be used so mfd can focus on the rare cases outlined in WP:NMFD where a discussion is actually necessary rather then being flooded with crap that could just as easily have been ignored and deleted per g13. The silliest noms are the ones that take place less than a week prior to when the draft would've otherwise been g13 eligible, no matter what deletion ends up delayed.
I think it's best if we just agree to disagree on registering for now. At present I really only have time to edit between some other tasks, and I should really commit to a wikibreak anyway, maybe in a few months when I'm less busy a random IP will pop back onto your talk page to explore the issue in further detail. Regards, 188.232.146.110 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, yip, that seems sensible. I've heard folk complain to Mfd about using it that way. It seems to be the way for some reason, for some articles. If you are coming back, create an account will you. That way, folk can see you, you can become part of the firmament and we can send you thanks and whatnot. You seem to know the guidelines backwards, so your an definently an asset to Wikipedia, unless there is a specific reason your not doing it, of course. scope_creepTalk 17:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Claure[edit]

Hi, I wanted to ask the reason behind reverting some of the edits made to Marcelo Claure, as these edits have been agreed on the article's talk page, and you ignored my proposal of discussing this issue there. Thanks, AtomsRavelAz talk 17:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a BLP, not a company article. scope_creepTalk 17:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AtomsRavelAz: Your name has come up at Coin and the article seems to be expanding and expanding with more business information. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Thanks for letting me know, could you please provide me with the link. I did state on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard that I was paid for some of my contributions, but not for the majority of them. Frankly, like I said before, I kept postponing it because I assumed it would be a very time consuming matter which I somewhat dreaded, but now that the issue has finally caught up with me I'm more than willing to defend myself if necessary, and act in accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. AtomsRavelAz talk 18:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AtomsRavelAz: I see it is controversies section your looking to add. So your being paid? Where is your paid disclosure on the your user page. I notice there is 13 mention of the word Britghtstar in a relatively short BLP article, that worries somewhat re: the NLP crowd. If you are paid, you should make a edit request per WP:EDITREQ, which is the standard way a coi edit's an article, on the talk, not by 6k to 30k article. The article being relatively short for successful businessman, doesn't mean that more than 80% of the content needs descriptions of the companies. A person's life is more than his work, obviously. So it needs to be slimmed, by quite a bit. The brightstar stuff is covered in its own article. It doesn't need any extraneous information on it, if it has its own article. Make a declaration will you, otherwise I will need to try and get you blocked, for breaking Wikipedia Terms of Use. scope_creepTalk 18:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Ok, thanks a lot. I'll make all the necessary arrangements. I'm not looking to cause trouble for anyone, I'd really appreciate if you could comment on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paid work discovery, where someone pointed out my paid contributions. Like I said, I hadn't gotten to it because I believed it would be a time consuming matter which was going to stress me out. Let me know if there is anything else I should do, I'm willing to collaborate 100%. Thanks, AtomsRavelAz talk 18:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @AtomsRavelAz: I found out this morning that your weren't informed of your entry up at Coin. That was a bit crass by the posting editor. It is not normal practice. Sorry about springing it on you. scope_creepTalk 12:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Yes, the whole thing seemed kind of odd, I really want to assume good faith and move on, but there's a paranoid side of me that thinks there was some sort of agenda pushing against my person, especially if you take into consideration that that user has no previous contributions, no talk page, no user page, and then all of a sudden they go on an editing frenzy of all of the articles I declared being paid for, he added this template that says "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view" when even himself said at COIN that "your articles are well-written and neutral so no action required", so if they are well written and neutral why is he still adding the template to all of them?, especially when you consider that Wikipedia:CONFLICT states that "There are three venues to do this" and not that all three venues are mandatory, and I had already disclosed my paid contributions on my user page. His account was created on December 17 of this year, how is he so familiarized with Wikipedia's jargon and technicalities in such a short time?, either he is remarkably savvy or there is something else going on of which I have not been informed. AtomsRavelAz talk 13:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Scope creep![edit]

Jujiang (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@Jujiang: Merry Christmas. scope_creepTalk 10:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luckin Coffee on COIN[edit]

The discussion got hostile very quickly, so I am checking out. Do you think it warrants an SPI? Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: They are two UPE's and the IP is probably related to one of them. Yip. That got ugly quickly. Smoke and mirrors, what they used to called FUD, trying to get fear, uncetainty and doubt going to obfuscate the issue. scope_creepTalk 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of them claimed to be the IP and actually very early in the responses. Since my post to your talk page, there was rev-del for copyright. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: Yip, I noticed that. They are UPE's. I've no doubt about it. Just need to convince an coin admin to block them. It is clear as day, and all obsfucation is just part of the playbook. scope_creepTalk 17:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Everlasting Fireworks looped
Everlasting Fireworks looped
 Bring on the cheer!

Hi Scope creep, May you have a bright and beautiful holiday season. Thank you for all your work on the encyclopedia.
Have a happy and healthy 2022!

Netherzone (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you too. @Netherzone: scope_creepTalk 21:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your contribution to ANI[edit]

Thankyou for your contribution to ANI. I have been doing these edits to try and bring article leads into compliance with the Wikipedia manual of style guidelines that says use William Henry Gates not William Henry "Bill" Gates. I thought I was making sure that I was not stepping into religious figure ones when I came across them. I can think of at least 2 religious figures that I saw similar issues with and made sure to move on. With articles that have a religious figure title in parentheses, I only click on them because of wanting the whole birth year category to go from blue to purple so I can easily tell I have gone through all articles, and click back off before I even see anything. I guess I was so focused on making the changes in these cases that I got careless and did not check to make sure they were in no way a religious leader, broadly construed. I am very sorry about this. I was not at all trying to evade the topic ban. The other 2 were the fact that if we have a name given as say J. Edgar Hoover we in the opening say John Edgar Hoover and do not further than that explain the common name form. That was the issue involved in the second edit, if you look at J. Edgar Hoover] you will see we just give his name, and do not bother further saying in the lead he was commonly known as J. Edgar Hoover, because it is the article title. That is the issue involved in the second case, and it had no relevance to who the person was, so I unwisely and rashly did not even both trying to figure out, which I am sincerely sorry for. In the last case it is standard practice to put (1915-1996) or whatever exact years someone lived in parentheses after the name. In that case I saw that the person was a state legislator, and I knew their birth date because of the category, and quickly saw the death date in the categories as well. I probably quickly glanced through the article to ensure that the birth and death years were in the article, but I failed to read it in detail because the lead only said they were a member of the a state legislature and all the categories identified them as a politician, or were bare bio facts categories, there were no categories that at all related to religion. In the imposing of the topic ban in part it said 'There was some concern that such a topic ban would be over-reaching, which was addressed with one comment "This should be apparent from categories, and if John finds out a topic he thought had no religious involvement is not religiously involved, he could play it very safe and revert his edits."' All 3 of these were rushed edits focused on very specific things. I am very sorry that I did them, and will try my hardest to not do them in the future. The only one that involved ever looking beyond the very opening name, into any actual content was the state legislator, and that is what is emphasized both by categories and by the lead. Well, I should say that is all about the person that is included in categories or the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you think posting this full explantion to ANI will help, maybe only going to before the sentence stanrting "In the imposing of the"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it that people can use a word like "abuser" with impunity to describe my actions in this case?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Johnpacklambert: I'm not sure, but I think if you keep on the same editing pattern, you are likely to get permanently blocked. They folk at AN will lose patience, eventually. scope_creepTalk 21:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello Scope creep: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas Scope creep

Hi Scope creep, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and healthy New Year,
Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,
   –Davey2010Talk 17:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Share similar holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Davey2010/MerryChristmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

Manuel B. García Álvarez[edit]

Sorry for the inconvenience. The message was about the article on Manuel B Garcia Alvarez. I updated the article, I added some new references and external links to the draft-Morseo (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) I have moved the article, I do not know if this is correct, if it is wrong, please let me know and i will erase it. Merry Christmas! Morseo (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC) @Morseo: Merry Christmas. I hope you have a great New Year. scope_creepTalk 11:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pfizer and the British Medical Journal[edit]

Are you saying that the BMJ is junk? @Klimt.1980: No the BMJ isn't junk, it speaks truth and is a high-end academic source, but the site your quoting is putting a spin on it, which is incorrect and asserts a Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. That site is absolute junk. Also, that article is read by millions of people, and dumping a bare url in the wrong area isn't cool. I will post a welcome message, so you can learn to edit correctly but don't post that link again, please. Also please don't write on the user page. Only talk page please. scope_creepTalk 12:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about article[edit]

Hi User:Scope creep

I hope you're doing well! I wrote a Wikipedia article about Tony Coles in the past and it was nominated for deletion, and soon later, deleted because it failed “WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.”

It seems that based off what you had taught me in that experience about WP:SIGCOV and WP:MOS, this article on Vladimir Torchilin has some similar issues. Can you take a look at the article and tell me your thoughts on it? I feel like this article is lacking in WP:BIO and WP:NOTE, as well as WP:SIGCOV and WP:MOS; and based off what you had explained to me in our previous experience, should potentially be nominated deletion (or if possible, completely rewritten with secondary sources). --RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RealPharmer3: How goes it. It is a slightly different case. Completely rewritten with secondary sources. Looking at Google Scholar [6], he passes WP:NPROF. He is a very intelligent and sucessful academic. It is very hard to find Russian sources, due to the language and translation problems. I see what you mean by lack of sources and it sure needs rewritten. It will be very hard going. I think that is reason the way it looks. Its been taken directly off the CV, as its the easiest way. I will put it on my todo list. Any help on it is appreciated. I will try and get the Russian Wikiproject going on it, if there is one. There is one. Cool. That will make it easier. Thanks for posting it up. Merry Christmas. I hope you have a great 2022. scope_creepTalk 11:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep: Oh alright, sounds good to me. I'm happy to get involved in rewriting it! Just getting a hold of some good sources would be beneficial. Let's stay in touch, and we can make some solid strides with the article! Have a wonderful holiday! --RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the morning to you[edit]

I don't know if you celebrate Christmas, but I have a gift for you. If you liked Luckin Coffee you will probably love Deluxe Corporation. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: No way. Another one. Merry Christmas. scope_creepTalk 11:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Hi Scope Creep. Merry Christmas to you and your family also. Best regards - Neils51 (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reproductive History of Black Women (December 26)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Scope creep! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022 Women in Red[edit]

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFA 2021 Completed[edit]

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year!
Hello Scope creep:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
@CAPTAIN RAJU: I didn't. Thanks. Happy New Year!! scope_creepTalk 13:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Scope creep![edit]

Happy New Year!

Scope creep,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Abishe: I hope you have great new year in 2022. scope_creepTalk 13:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Low-priority) Update related to Raviv Zoller AfD[edit]

Howdy! I updated your AfD nom with this diff [7] to change from the red-linked WP:BLPRIMARY to WP:BLPPRIMARY. I just figured I'd give you a message explaining the change. All the best. Happy new years! snood1205 15:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Snood1205: I hope you have a great year in 2022. scope_creepTalk 16:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

Please add the article to the discussion page, it would not be correct to delete the article without discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rza_Talibov --37.26.33.244 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all happy new year Scope creep. Secondly, feel free to ignore the IP editor, they are 99.9% the paid sockpuppet abuser who created the article in the first place. - Kevo327 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kevo327: Yip, they have been blocked, so need to worry. scope_creepTalk 00:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Scope creep![edit]

Happy New Year!

Scope creep,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010Talk 00:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year @Davey2010:. I hope its much better than 2021. scope_creepTalk 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jofish Kaye[edit]

Thanks for your feedback. Errors fixed as per request, and pinging you here, also as per request. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jofish_Kaye

Dunoon[edit]

Hello! Thank you for your message about Dunoon. It's nice to chat and collaborate with Wikipedia editors for the public good! I believe your edit is incorrect - your version reads: Dunoon is covered and operates under two separate central governments, the devolved Scottish Parliament and UK Government.

It mentions 'Government' and then links to Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is not a Government.

It then continues and UK Government. Again, UK Parliament constituencies and the UK Government are two different things. The UK Government derives its authority from the UK Parliament (which is made up its constituencies naturally). But again the Parliament is very different to the Government. So the link says it is one thing, and then links you to a completely different article.

Whereas the original version, "Dunoon is covered and operates under two separate central governments, the devolved Scottish Government and British Government" says Dunoon has two Governments and then links you to the Wiki articles about the two Governments, not the two Parliaments. That is correct and essentially why that version is more accurate and informative.

Perhaps you would prefer it to read "Dunoon is covered and operates under two separate central Parliaments, the devolved Scottish Parliament and British Parliament"? That would also be correct. But the version you prefer is at the end of the day not accurate because a Parliament and a Government are two different institutions.

I hope I have put my case clearly and logically. The British Parliament's website explains the distinction between the two institutions better than I can here: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-government/

I hope I have summarised fairly and logically why your edit is incorrect and I am going to revert the edit.

Warm wishes,

Fionn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionn12 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Let's chat this over on the Dunoon talk page and I'm sure we can resolve it.

Gaetano Ciancio Article[edit]

Thank you for your help the article got approved, however now it has the following comment: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". I thought you said you were going to remove this tagMedkatz (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021[edit]

Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021
On behalf of WP:WPWW, with appreciation for the women writer biographies you created during first quarter 2021. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

iMerit[edit]

On a side note, I smell meat and socks in that discussion in case you haven't already. Just FYI I am sure this is one that will get some IP votes and Newbies jumping in on the last day. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41: What one was that? I've been away a few days with work. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMerit. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CNMall41:. I missed that. If it happens again, get a salmon out the freezer and whack me across the face with it. I could witdraw it, if you want? scope_creepTalk 16:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NEVER. I hate fish!! In fact, I don't have any issue with the nomination. I have made mistakes in the past and likely will in the future so you are just keeping the flow of Wikipedia alive. I guess I came here to mention that some of the !votes smell a little meaty to me in case you haven't seen it already. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, no need for withdraw. Let the community make the decision. No harm, no foul. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, very much so re: meaty smell, very much so. scope_creepTalk 10:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested page move[edit]

Hi. I think we should move the page Fiona Lazareff to Fiona Scott Lazareff because most of the reliable sources who mention her list her as Fiona Scott lazareff. I note that other pages have been created under this namespace in the past but deleted due to their lack of notability. I think we should move the page.92.40.194.157 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2.40.194.157: Well if that is what she is known as, I can do it for you. Are you absolutely sure? scope_creepTalk 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats it. scope_creepTalk 14:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure.92.40.185.117 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request To Review Draft:Aaron Duncan[edit]

Hello @Mr.Creep when you get a chance I would like you to review Draft:Aaron Duncan please if no-one has looked at it as yet. I submitted it for review. I've been working to get it reviewed. Thanks In Advance. --Akim Ernest (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stauber[edit]

Hey! I've recently re-submitted this article, and I know you denied it last time. I have removed the bad refs and added in some better ones. If you could check it out, that would be great :) SupernaturalAcee (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn or not?[edit]

Hi, I've seen that you appeared to withdraw at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gbagbo Junior Magbi (2nd nomination) but then reverted Nehme's closing of the discussion. I've closed it as it looks like unanimous keep with nominator then withdrawing. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted your comment as the AfD template will need to be restored to the article as well (something that was subsequently removed). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Thanks. scope_creepTalk 21:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan E. Cober Help[edit]

I've gone through and removed the one external link on the biography for Alan E. Cober and additionally added some additional citations where they could be found. Mind checking it out and removing that embedded links template, or should I do that? Cober has been deceased for over 20 years.Rezimmerman (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezimmerman: You have improved the quality of it quite heavily. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 15:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Draft: Chris Buzelli[edit]

Hello Scope creep, hope everything is okay in your world.

In your notes on the Chris Buzelli page which you moved into draft, you request that the following citation be removed or replaced:

49 Illustrators 54 Medal Winners which refers directly to the original source of the award being mentioned: a post by the Society of Illustrators, and very reputable as a reference by any standard imaginable I would think. They are the society that gave him the award, and the article is simply cited as such. There are multiple other citations that you request to be removed that are from both very respected organizations and publishers and very similar to the one I've mentioned. Should I list them all for you?

What's an editor to do? And hang in there! The world is a bit nuts I think!Rezimmerman (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok as a ref. The other references, 18,21, 23,24,26,27,28, 35,36,37, 44 have to come out. They are self-published and not worth a sot. Please remove them. scope_creepTalk 08:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on this Scope creep! I improved all the citations you suggested. put some eyes on it as time allows and if it needs more medical attention, I'll be on it like white on rice. Cheers and hang in there!Rezimmerman (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cricketers[edit]

Please self-revert these moves to draftspace. They are part of an expansion of team lists by the cricket project in order to facilitate compromise/consensus solutions for articles on cricketers where finding significant coverage is a problem, without having to send them all to AFD. The reference provided in each article is sufficient for verification, especially when combined with the references contained in each of the linked articles. Thanks, wjematherplease leave a message... 11:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: They are not referenced. I was planning to put more in but ran out of time. Add a whole bunch of references to each of them, and I'm sure they will pass WP:AFC. scope_creepTalk 12:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather: For months I've been looking at reams of the cricket stubs that are blp's up at WP:NPP and , with a single profile references or some dodgy sports site. Not addressing is a form of systematic bias that is being organically maintained and it needs to stop. It is wrong for Wikipedia and wrong for people who are supposed to read these rank wee articles. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are plainly not unreferenced. Each article contains a reference to a reliable source (paywalled, admittedly). That is sufficient for the purpose of these lists – indeed the ones you moved are essentially indexes of the corresponding categories. Your argument is not helped by painting ESPN Cricinfo and Cricket Archive as "dodgy sports site"s. I suggest you open a centralised discussion before causing further disruption. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything Wjemather has said, these lists are needed WP:ATDs used as compromise for cricket articles where finding GNG coverage has proved difficult. They are referenced. They are also certainly not "dodgy sports sites" given that CricketArchive is provided by the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians and CricInfo is provided by ESPN. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then they shouldn't be on Wikipedia if coverage can't be found for them. The core problem here is the 2-state system that is been going on for ages. In one side is sports editors creating the crummiest of BLP article you have ever seen, single line entries, in the thousands, and linking to machine-generated profiles on cricket and other sports site, because they see other sports editors doing the same, with no encyclopedic content, and the other side, is people doing BLP's, have to follow a whole load of policy with a big chunk of genuine reference that satisfy WP:SECONDARY and WP:V. Is that fair? scope_creepTalk 15:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is why these lists have been created, so these articles where sourcing only exists in databases or statistical profiles can be redirected to list articles when it is clear and obvious that there is no sourcing, so they don't have to go through the AfD process. There is no guideline currently that you cant create list articles that only have sourcing from these databases or statistical profiles as these articles have all been created under the presumption they pass NCRIC, the cricket SNG. Currently because this SNG is considered weak there's been a large drive to delete/redirect a number of articles that pass the SNG but not GNG as GNG is needed even if an article passes an SNG, and the SNG is in the process of being improved. In these discussions it was decided that list articles are a good alternative to stub article and so some have been created as seen here, although these ones are basic and in need of improving. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penderel Moon[edit]

Hi. Please stop your massive draftification drive. Even when people disagree you're reverting it as you have done at Penderel Moon. You're clearly not assuming good faith. If you did this again, I will bring it to WP:ANI. Störm (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: The ONDB is sometimes wrong. Where is the other references, it is not 2008 anymore. scope_creepTalk 15:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added additional refs. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Articles[edit]

I noticed a comment you made elsewhere on the above topic. Article Rescue Squadron (I call them Project ARSehole) are dedicated to preserving even the most crap of articles, and canvas others to their cause, and each other to discussion. They routinely remove Speedy and Prod tags without justification and are incredibly arrogant when they do this as there is nothing in the P&G to stop that miserable behaviour.

I note that on one of the deletion pages that are current there are at least two senior members of that group enjoying themselves. IMHO theirs is most definitely not WP:AGF good faith editing. Just wanted you to know that you are not the only one to note this sort of thing. It is my sincere hope that sooner or later, that sort of behaviour becomes unacceptable. Best, -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, Your not kidding. I can't understand why it is being done. Where is the value? If it is a good article, well done, but this is about the fourth article I've seen in this series, and they are all crap. scope_creepTalk 18:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing to do is keep complaining. It has been going on for ages, and we have some terrible articles that the ARSeholes are responsible for. I once threatened to take the train down to London to attend a wikimeet that one of them attended. I wanted to give them a piece of my mind. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked them to close AFD[edit]

This article Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan is an AFD that is in it's third relist after 7 days. I did so since I think that three times is the maximum that it can be listed for deletion. Also I have add a reference section to your talkpage as well to keep things separate. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Why hasn't it been deleted if the decision is to delete at Afd? That is weird. Also, you posted this to my user page. I moved it to here. scope_creepTalk 07:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right here it says it was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan. I don't understand it either. Sorry about putting the message on the wrong page. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did want the article kept didn't you? I have kept a copy of it and it's subpages for future use. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Davidgoodheart: Thanks, but no. I thought that one of them might be notable. scope_creepTalk 13:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for letting me know this. Here is an AFD Disappearance of Maya Millete that I though that I would let you know about. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thank you for the request for references on the Mike Omer article[edit]

Hi there! You are 100% right about the references, I'm still working on it. I slistened to a few interviews with him and all the info is jumbled up in my head. I'll make sure to source everything. Please keep letting me know your thoughts! אמנות או נמות (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion[edit]

Hi! I have a couple of questions about what you said here. I'm always trying to improve as an editor so it'd be great if I understood your reasoning more. Am I not right in saying that what should be included in articles is material based on reliable sources, whether or not Wikipedians believe it to be true or not? If so, why would a belief that only health and taxes motivate people to vote rather than public figures motivating people to vote be a good reason for deleting the article if the material was cited to reliable sources saying that public figures motivated people to vote? For example, a survey was cited for the 2020 election, so it cannot be said that it is impossible to know that figures motivate voters or that it is very rare. Also, why would material about music cited to Rolling Stone, one of the most notable music publications, be considered inappropriate for the article? Even if one thinks these sources are too American-centric and thinks that, say, Asian sources should be used more because the American sources don't know what they're talking about (despite the fact that material quoted was cited to a source from India), why would that be a valid reason to discredit the sources if they're reliable? Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bgkc4444: How goes it? The sources were not strong to support the assertions you were making and effectively the type of sources were the wrong type. When you creating an article that examines the ethnographic effect of a person within a particular culture, then it needs to be an academic article, with academic sources, that provides a balanced view, that is backed by research. When the Rolling Stone editor says that Beyonce has created or revived a particular type of video production, that is a subjective statement. It is an opinion from a fan. He is writing for fans, from one fan to another. He hasn't done the research to prove it, so it is subjective. More so, from an ethnographic viewpoint, he is inside his own knowledge domain, which is specific to fans, and the knowledge that is associated with the domain, may not be amenable to drawing the types of conclusions of the type you're looking for, as may not be rigorous enough to support any particular. So when you're writing an article on these types of cultures, you need academics who tell you want is going on, and will provide research to show that it is true. It a complex subject. Surveys are a strange thing. They are a moment in time when certain conditions exist and after that moment passes, they will not exist again, in that same state. Any number of things can change a person mind. It is so quick, by the time the person (the surveyor) is finished talking to another person (the surveyed) they can change their mind. So it can't be used as a reference. It is Non-RS. When you say they are reliable sources, they are reliable sources, the organisation is reliable, but the sources aren't reliable, they're subjective because they aren't in the domain of cultural ethnography. It is effective fan fiction. Only cultural anthropologists and ethnographers who do the research can say for sure, that something is true, in that domain, unless it is a source, that is so common to everybody that is true. For example, You say could Germans lost the 2nd world war, and it's true, but you also say that a huge number of people believe in QAnon, which is false. It is disinformation. So to be sure that your facts are correct, look at the research. Go back and write the article again. Find researchers, that look at fan culture, and how it behaves in the context of Beyonce. It might not as big an article, but it will absolutely true, it will be an academic article and nobody will be able to say it is not true. Hope that helps! scope_creepTalk 20:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American research produces a titanic amount of excellent research. scope_creepTalk 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks so much for taking the time to detail your reasoning - I appreciate it :) Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lister[edit]

  • Scope, thank you for your note-- as for a reference that King Edward's appendectomy was in June rather than August 1902, there are many that are reliable and verifiable, but this is one example [8]. By August 24, his coronation and his surgery were but a memory. I'll see what I can find about a source about Lister getting the Knight's Grand Cross. Mandsford 17:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mandsford: Well done for catching that. External editors seem the ones that are picking up the errors at the moment. It was pretty clear from Gbook references, that it was true. I left that reference in. I think it just covers the statement that that King made explicitly to Lister, thanking him and not for the appendix part. I will need to check it at some point. I don't think it is an academic source, and couldn't immediately see a way of verifying it. If you can find anything on the KCVO, it would be ideal. I would have thought he would have been awarded it as a surgeon to royalty, but for some reason, Godlee, his initial biographers, doesn't mention it. There may be some other reason. scope_creepTalk 17:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further, there's no mention of the Knight Commander of the Victorian Order in Lister's obituary in The Guardian of February 12, 1912. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76833273/death-of-dr-joseph-lister/ The King of Denmark made him a Knight of the Grand Cross of the Order of the Dannebrog according to a 1918 biography, but I don't see him on lists of the KCVO conferred by Queen Victoria or King Edward VII or George V during his lifetime. Mandsford 17:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good reference, and more or less reflects the awards currently in the article. I wonder why the editor added it in? Possibly it is something to do with the Order of Merit being arranged. That question is definitely answered now. scope_creepTalk 17:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rafael Delorme (May 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CommanderWaterford were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi there. You said here that Lyanbox782 is a paid editor, right? Since I’m the one who got him blocked for general crazy and disruptive behavior, I was just wondering what proof you have for that and why it isn’t tagged on his talk page because it should be especially if he ever makes the mistake of appealing the block. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 19:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Smuckola: Just by his behaviour. Most editors now are paid. More than 80% of the new articles that come in are paid for. That I think as well as the work on Yahoo articles. It is immensely boring updating the logo on several dozen articles, all for Yahoo. scope_creepTalk 20:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of business people[edit]

Hi, I don't normally get involved in business related notability discussions, is there any guidance that I should be aware of that means the sources I found for Benjamin Smith are insufficient? I don't want to clutter the deletion discussion unnecessarily. WP:GNG doesn't go into much detail, but I think the sources I have found should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which is stricter than WP:NBIO. The Financial Times is a national newspaper with a wider audience than a trade paper like Aviation News. TSventon (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Not really. If they're from a reliable source and they are in-depth, they're comprehensive, not just profiles, or summaries of available information. Company articles are subject to NCorp, sources on those types of articles are subject to WP:SIRS. I think that article is close to being kept. I think if you found another decent ref, combined with what is there, it would probably be enough to satisfy WP:THREE. There should be more as KLM flies everywhere. scope_creepTalk 20:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My current conclusion is that WP:NBIO intentionally leaves room for editor opinion. I think that Benjamin Smith's 700 word profile in Les Echos contributes to WP:THREE, while you don't. Finding in depth sources on line is difficult as the publishers quite reasonably want to be paid for them, e.g. de Telegraaf lists 22 articles "about" him and all but one are paywalled. I also think that the main problem with the article isn't insufficient sources, it is that few or no editors without a COI are interested in contributing to it. TSventon (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avalanche (Consensus Protocol)[edit]

Hello, Scope_Creep! Thank you for your insight on the draft I’m trying to improve. I re-submitted the draft after making additional corrections.

Per your advice, I removed references 4,9 and 13 and replaced them with more scientific sources found on Google Scholar. Here are the references removed:

Here are the new sources I added from Google Scholar Publications: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=avalanche+protocol&oq=Avalanche+proto

(Source: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

(Source: Cornell University)

Regarding the reference #18 now, can you explain the rationale behind removal of it? You mentioned it was written by the contributor, so I double checked it and found at the bottom of the article that the author is actually a staff writer. I don’t mind to remove it if you still think it is not a good source: Gregory Barber is a staff writer at WIRED who writes about blockchain, AI, and tech policy. He graduated from Columbia University with a bachelor’s degree in computer science and English literature and now lives in San Francisco. STAFF WRITER

Lennoxhill (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lennoxhill: It looks decent. That is a cracking article. scope_creepTalk 13:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on edits, not editors[edit]

The comment in this diff ("Please do not post up anywhere again. It is meaningless pap.") seems rather unnecessary, regardless of whether you are correct. I am not trying to single you out here, but I'd be quite happy if stuff like this didn't happen at AfD. jp×g 06:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: The statement he made, made no sense. It designed to fudge the whole thing, and the usual kind of stuff that you get from the WP:ARS editors. The problem with Afd is it no longer working. It is entirely broken as it favours a specific subgroup at the expense of everybody else. This is supposed to be a global encyclopædia, but at the moment it is not acting like it. scope_creepTalk 10:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:28:52, 15 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SanJuanHouston[edit]


All done revising Ryan Abbott(lawyer) as requested!

SanJuanHouston (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SanJuanHouston: How goes it? How about fixing the references next. Currently, they are bare URLs are really not worth anything, as web pages change ever 6 weeks. Take a look at WP:REFB which will give you a small tutorial on how in-line citations are correctly formatted. This reference, https://www.surrey.ac.uk/people/ryan-abbott once it is expanded out to a full cite, doesn't need to be used individually all over the article. In that instance, you would use ref tag. Here is an example:

as well as a solicitor advocate in England and Wales.<ref name="sur">{{cite web....</ref> He is a registered patent attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and a member of the California and New York State Bars.<ref name="sur"/> It shouldn't take too look to fix the citations. The article is looking better already. Please give me a shout when your finished and I will pass it to mainspace. scope_creepTalk 11:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symeon Shimin[edit]

I'd appreciate help, not sure why if there is some standard layout there isn't like a form, I did try. if you need ref's please let me know. there was one section I tried to reference but the information got tagged as self-promotion because it leads back to his book, or website about his book that was authored by his daughter.

@MaddAnna: Look at other biographies of artists to see how they are structured. Take a look at WP:MOS. I need references. The ones from the book are ok for a very limited number, but not all of them. I need three other sources. Remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. Large chunks of the article will need to be removed if there is no refs. scope_creepTalk 00:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:15:58, 18 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ltsqrd[edit]


Please give some advice on how to improve this draft in order to get the page approved for publish. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Ltsqrd (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltsqrd: Try and find some good WP:SECONDARY sources that validate why he is notable, from newspapers ideally. Not PR-generated content. Hopefully, that helps. Try and take out some Youtube references. Newspaper and magazine sources, e.g. reviews from websites that show the program is notable. Half the amount of Youtube video you have at least. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 11:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artist[edit]

Katie Gately[edit]

Hello,

Do you mean I should remove all the hyperlinks or the sources i.e [1]?

@Cheynoel: You need to sign your comments, so people know who you are. And provide to the article so I don't search for it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm new to Wikipedia the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Katie_Gately Cheynoel (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheynoel: Start with Blue Tapes url link and remove and do the rest. scope_creepTalk 18:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cheynoel: That is a good start. The lassie is definently notable. I think I can probably promote it to mainspace now. scope_creepTalk 13:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jean-Philippe Bonardi[edit]

Dear Scope creep, thank you very much for the insightful comments and suggestions. I have amended them and I was wondering whether to resubmit the page? Any additional suggestions and advices are welcomed. Thank you for your time. Appologies for not signing my comment. (Jpbonardi (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Jpbonardi: You need to sign your comments so folk knows who you are. Use the ~~~~. I'll take a look. scope_creepTalk 17:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That guy is a tank. No doubt about it. Can you resubmit please. I think you will need to add some more secondary sources to it, once it is promoted. Most of the first block of sources, are article by him. The article wont get nominated for deletion, but it needs secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY, to flesh out it a bit, otheriwse I'll need to put a tag on it. Resubmit it and I'll promote it now. scope_creepTalk 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Thank you, he is really fascinating person. Do you have any idea where to plug the additional secondary sources? Or maybe preference for them. Additionally, I wanted to ask you whether I have a time limit for adding them? Thank you again for your help. Jpbonardi (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpbonardi: No, there is no time limit, but it would be nice if they were there. Put them anywhere I suppose, wheres suitable. I don't know if you planning to write a new article, or want to expand this one. Every new article goes into the WP:NPP queue, where it is reviewed and as there are very few secondary sources, it may be sent back to draft, to get some more work on it. It does happen. All you need is three, that maybe discuss his work, per WP:THREE. scope_creepTalk 18:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Of course, I was asking because I was wondering if I need to rush for it or I can do proper analysis. I will be expanding this one for now to make sure it reaches satisfactory quality, I am a scientist so I will try to contribute more and more with new articles as time goes on. I appriciate all your help, thank you. Jpbonardi (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:50:15, 20 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Darasmithpr[edit]


Hi, my draft was declined because they said there was only mentioned press but I included full features from the highest regarded fashion news outlets more than once. How can I fix this? I have plenty of more reference to add but WWD is a news outlet that should be considered a legitimate news source. And isn’t Forbes as well as Elle?

Darasmithpr (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darasmithpr: That article reads like an advertisement as you well know, with a link to the shop, and forbes is not a reliable source. It is junk. Most of the references are PR, read like PR because they are paid advertising. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how it reads like an advertisement? I followed the same format as every other fashion designers page. Nothing was promotional but fact stating. None of the references are paid advertising, that’s not how articles like that work. I removed the website for her brand, although when I look at every other fashion designers pages their website is listed under external. I’m confused as I followed the same format and verbiage as other fashion designers. Darasmithpr (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just passing by, I notice such sentences as "Sadoughi's accessories are favored by many celebrities including..." and "Lele Sadoughi has also collaborated with many fashion brands including" ... DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment on the PS draft submission[edit]

Thank you, Scope creep for your recent comment. Since last 5 months we have been trying to get input from experienced Wikipedia editors such as yourself. We kept changing the scope of the article until there is not much left besides the ones which can be cited. Also changed the resources and eliminated primary ones. So there is work being done and followed up. For such a short article we have 12 citations but we are happy to hear where do you think we can add more. Please keep in mind this product is being developed as we speak and articles are being written about it as it ages and gains prominence. We are on the lookout for new ones to update the article all the time.

HTRDC (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)HTRDC[reply]

Draft:Peter Mostovoy[edit]

Hi, thanks for your help. I made some changes. I hope now it's enough to be published. Thank youFigelvigel (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Soviet shortwave radio transmitter.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Soviet shortwave radio transmitter.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peter Mostovoy[edit]

Hi, I made the changes. Can you check the article ? Thank youFigelvigel (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Figelvigel: There are still sections that don't have in-line citations. scope_creepTalk 21:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TO Scope_Creep Hello Scope_Creep Thanks for your message I'm work in ICICB Group and my manager asked me to create a page for our company like atari and another company. Let me know what I can do to accept the company on Wikipedia.


Draft:Wolfang Heindel[edit]

Hi Scope_Creep, thanks for your help and critique. I tried to implement all your suggested changes. Would you be so kind and help me out again. I'm quite new to Wikipedia and I'm sure I made loads of mistakes :D Cheers mate :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wolfgang_Heindel Tobias Geller (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tobias Geller: It is not really my purview, but I will take a look at it in today. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Anything helps :D Tobias Geller (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added in the websites Names :D thanks again for your help. I just realized, I misspelled your Name in my edits. I'm very sorry for that but I have no clue how to correct it. Please don't take offence.Tobias Geller (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peter Mostovoy[edit]

Dear Scope creep, I added more inline citations, could not be more I guess. Please, can you publish this article, it's very important for the hero of article 83 years old. Thank youFigelvigel (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Figelvigel: I have fixed those refs in the article. You will need to add at least 3 or 4 others. I removed several which would stopped it passing. Hope that helps. Look for the Citation Needed and put an in-line citation in. scope_creepTalk 21:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope I made changes you expect.Figelvigel (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Figelvigel: You have just put the same stuff back, that I took out. Ref 2,3,5, 12 aren't suitable for various reasons. Change to something better. scope_creepTalk 23:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

o.k. the new last changes are better? believe me, there are no better refs. let's finish this article, please.thank you2A00:A040:184:DAF:E4AD:8BA5:B550:A398 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you, Scope creep.2A00:A040:184:DAF:E4AD:8BA5:B550:A398 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Große Berliner Kunstausstellung
added links pointing to Alfred Agache, Max Stern, Theodor Hagen and Ludwig Hoffmann

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:49:05, 31 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bmxrules1[edit]


Dear Scope creep, thank you for reviewing the article. We've been waiting for 6+ months already for the article to be published.

Actually I was using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emelie_Forsberg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kílian_Jornet_Burgada as templates. This is standard infobox for sportspersons (please see more links )

Other athletes' pages look much the same 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sportsperson_infobox_templates 2. please check Skyrunning World Championships winners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Skyrunning_World_Championships_winners 3. or Russian athlete example https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ризаев,_Ирек_Евгеньевич

Infobox results are not repeated in the body of the article. I have left only selected most important results in the infobox excluding them from the body of the article.

So asking you to accept the article and finally publish it.

Please let me know on my further steps - should I resubmit the article now?

Bmxrules1 (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: would be really grateful if you have a second look at the article please Bmxrules1
@Bmxrules1: You will need to resubmit it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I have just resubmitted. Thank you. Bmxrules1

Request on 11:34:00, 4 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Si14360[edit]


Dear Scope creep. Thank you for your suggestions to improve the text of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sergei_Ipatov. I finished to make corrections of the draft. There were small corrections of the text (e.g., two sentences have been moved in a revised form from “Awards” to the end of “Career”). The references have been changed considerably. Former references 14 and 15 have been removed. The reference 1 was changed to the website of the Russian Academy. Only 6 references were left in external links. Some former external links have been deleted, but most of them were transferred to in-line citations. Some in-line citations (mainly to publications) have been added. Now there are in-line citations in different parts of the text. If needed, the in-line citations can be added to the text that you will mention, but now already there are many in-line citations. The reference 42 is the same as 2, and the reference 43 is the same as 1, but I do not know how to combine the references. Si14360 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Si14360 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Si14360: Yip, that looks better. Please take out refs 18,19,20,21 which become links by mediawiki software. They don't go in the article. Give me a shout. scope_creepTalk 14:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Große Berliner Kunstausstellung, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Romney, Fritz Friedrichs and Louis Lejeune.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Draft:Network Entropy[edit]

Hi Scope creep. What is the "Can you please remove ref 3. It is borderline reliable." issue? When removing it, do you suggest to remove the "There are several formulations in which to measure the network entropy and, as a rule, they all require a particular property of the graph to be focused, such as the adjacency matrix, degree sequence, degree distribution or number of bifurcations, what might lead to values of entropy that aren't invariant to the chosen network description." sentence from the first paragraph, as well? Regards, --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 06:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gryllida: Do you think it is a decent paper? There is not a lot hinging on it, so if you can change it, all the better. It is suggested papers from EGU are a better source. The RS folk are not keen on mdpi.com as it often fails higher sourcing requirements, e.g. if the article is updated in the future. It is borderline, so if you can it is probably better. scope_creepTalk 09:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Would moving it out of lead, and adding attribution -- like this -- perhaps work? --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 00:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Holl_(writer)[edit]

Thank you for your guidance on the article I'm working on. I've added book reviews as suggested. If you could please confirm I've provided what you requested I would appreciate it. I'm still working on your guidance "There is a lot and lots of profile page. Find WP:THREE refs which are WP:SECONDARY and add them in as the first three." TimHitchings (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TimHitchings: He is definently my kind of man. scope_creepTalk 14:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand the comment "my kind of man". Unless you're a fan of craft beer as I am. Can you provide clarification of the WP:SECONDARY and the "add as the first three" please. This (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-holl-craft-beer-problems-20180903-story.html) is in the publications area and is an article that contains the author's own thinking. Is this an example of what I need to find more articles that are similar? Thank you TimHitchings (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TimHitchings: Yip, That fact he is into his beer. I'm definitely a fan of craft beer!! For the last decade, it has been a really big thing here in the UK. 20 years ago there used to be only maybe a couple of dozen makes of beers. Now there are hundreds, and the selection is big enough that you can get a different beer every month. Its great. Secondary means people talking to people about the suject who are not related or connected to the subject. I've moved several good sources to the lede and the top of the article. The LA times articles are a good example of him being a writer to pass WP:NAUTHOR. The podcast stuff I would probably take out, as it seems to be all profile references as opposed to newspapers, eg. like the LA Times. More of that would be ideal, but if you can find more of those types. I moved the reviews up to the top as well. I think there is probably sufficient to pass now. More refs like LA Times to strengthen it, make it an easier pass. scope_creepTalk 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I note that you have revised the article. Is there other things that I can do to try to get this article passed? Thanks. TimHitchings (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TimHitchings: I've done quite a lot of work on it, more than half that article. I think it is probably better if somebody else reviews it. Can you resubmit it, to get the process started. scope_creepTalk 19:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've resubmitted as requested ,TimHitchings (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really have hopes up this time. Hate to be crushed again. TimHitchings (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TimHitchings: It's not the done thing to promote an article you have worked so heavily on. scope_creepTalk 22:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Of course. My pardon if you thought that was what I was asking. While waiting for another review, if you have time, could you please provide some of your expertise so that if I work on more articles I may do a better job in the future? I note that your early ask was for me to add references such as the LA time articles. I know I added a couple with quotes and then it appears they weren't of quality so they were removed. I'm reading thru your edits on the view history which contains your notes on why the edits were done which is helpful. I'm kind of surprised that podcasts were not helpful as they appear to be very popular these days. Again, my thanks for you doing so many edits. TimHitchings (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jeremy Schwartz[edit]

Thanks for watching this article. I have added quality sources as per your recommendation. For example, The Independent Evening Standard The Guardian. Please tell me, my article is worthy of publication an i can Resubmit. Thanks for the help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeremy_Schwartz

Hi @Schwartz Jeremy: I checked the Evening Standard and the Independent. One of them in the Evening Standard, as an interview is poor to middling, but there is no WP:SECONDARY sources as such. As a BLP you would need at WP:THREE of these. Also I see your editing your own article. I know you have a WP:COI declaration, but usually, the prescribed method is to use WP:EDITREQ to create it, if your on here anyway. Editing it directly is usually verbotten. Hope that helps!! scope_creepTalk 09:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible then to remove the article in order for another author to publish it? Or is it breaking the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwartz Jeremy (talk • contribs) 13:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt De Luis[edit]

This had three sources, and I imagine these were missed, so can you please fix the page history for the page that you accidentally moved to draft.Fleets (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fleets: I never edited that article on Kurt De Luis? scope_creepTalk 08:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Kurt De Luis says otherwise, so it sounds like your account has been hacked.Fleets (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request To Review Draft:Winning Jah[edit]

Dear Scope creep, thank you for reviewing the article. I have re-submitted the draft you declined on the 1st of June. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winning_Jah NOTICE501 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for cleaning up and accepting the biography of Bob Boote. Hopefully others will see it and add more detail.

Again, thanks Mredwin (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mredwin: Thanks very much. scope_creepTalk 21:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:31:04, 17 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jopogigio[edit]


Hi Scope Creep, thanks for your feedback on the Luke McGarry article. I think I've incorporated all the changes you suggested and tried to remove any "spam" links I came across. I'm still a little unclear as to your WP:SECONDARY direction, though... I believe that at least 2 or 3 of the articles referenced would appear to meet the requirements (for example, references 31 and 73), but if they don't, any further suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks again for your input. Jopogigio (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Jopogigio (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jopogigio: Yip, That is a lot better. The article still has embedded links, however. Remove these. They are not supported by policy. Remove and give me a shout. I have left a comment. scope_creepTalk 13:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Ahh, that makes perfect sense! I've gone through and removed any external links I could find. If you wouldn't mind taking another look, I think we might be good? Thanks! Jopogigio (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jopogigio: That's it in mainspace. The lede is a bit small, you could do with expanding and it needs cats. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSX Altenheim Subdivision[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Can I ask you about your AfC acceptance of CSX Altenheim Subdivision? I have had this draft on my watchlist for some time, and I was surprised it was accepted. Ignoring the fact that the author is an indef-blocked sockpuppet with a history of unsourced hoaxes, I would not have accepted the article in its current state. Of the three sources, two are dead links to fan sites. The last one is a primary source, which directly contradicts much of the article's contents - the route diagram on page 9 of [9] is completely different from the information in the article. While I have no doubt an article could be written about the Altenheim subdivision, this one is not it, IMHO. Thoughts? Laplorfill (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Laplorfill: How goes it? I did notice it was created by a sock. Certainly, at some point, the railway fan guys will come up and update it and keep it in good order. I didn't think it was not something that would be sent to Afd, so was an easy promotion, even without decent refs as it was a historical article and it was a reasonably decent shape for the type but it not a really important article in the scheme of things, i.e. not that contentious, that I needed to worry about. If you think it needs to be moved back to draft, go ahead. I am not too worried about that. I'm sure it will be recreated by somebody else, at some point. The draft needs to be flagged somehow. Perhaps you nominate it for deletion. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Laplorfill: Do you want me to move it back to draft? scope_creepTalk 16:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you could. I've tagged the redirect to be deleted, as I don't have the ability move it back to draft space with the redirect in place. I think draftifying it again is the best next step. Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'll do it now. scope_creepTalk 16:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox deleted the article just after I pinged you. I don't think there's anything more to do here. Thanks again, Laplorfill (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Laplorfill: which I think is a good outcome. It won't go back to Afc. Good work. scope_creepTalk 16:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William B. Jensen[edit]

Thank you for reviewing this AfC. I really didn't expect it to pass, as I noted on a talk page.

It came about because there is a wlink from Robert Hooke to his bio article on de.wikipedia (and, I notice, from quite a few other articles on en.wikipedia) and I felt I should try to rectify by creating an en.wp version. He seems to get cited quite a bit but that seems to be as far as it goes, nothing that I could find about him personally. I had hoped that others might be provoked to contribute but nothing. The de.wp article has only the same personal resumé (CV) as its only source. I have no plans to pursue it further. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: I will try and find a couple of references then. The guy is notable. I wouldn't have posted the message if he wasn't. He is writing for Encyclopaedia Britannica, so I suspect there is coverage. scope_creepTalk 20:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Please stop moving to draft space[edit]

I saw you moved again an article to the draft space. In Ragnhild Andresen is everything referenced and via external links you find secondary newspaper articles about here. So not needed to move to the draft space; like you did with many other articles. If you don’t like it, you can use the maintenance templates or nominate for AfD. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsOlympic: All you do as add some proper reference for BLP. Not two profile pages that is generated by a machine. Proper BLP refs. scope_creepTalk 18:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See articles where I linked to. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
scope creep, can you back off on moving SportsOlympic's articles to Draft space? It seems to have resulted in move wars with pages going back and forth. Let another editor take action rather than focusing so much of your attention on SportsOlympic since your efforts are clearly unwanted (though you seem to have made peace in the discussion below this one). It's SportsOlympic's right to move articles back to main space if they object to the move and if you feel strongly about it, you can PROD an article or nominate it for AFD. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I am not focusing soley on SportsOlympic, I was reviewing the page one at at a time, one by one in sorted womens list at NPP. I started at the top of the list and my my way down the bottom. There wasn't any focus on any person. Following the process is what you get. The editor just happens to have a load of non-sourced BLP's that naturally need to be draft for futher work. I'm suprised your telling me to this, particularly when that is the process. All that is doing is leaving work for some other editor that they should be doing himself. Lastly external links aren't references. It is just lazy way of doing it, again leaving it to somebody else. scope_creepTalk 09:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I don't look at who wrote the article I'm reviewing on NPP. The fact that they all went to draft is because they are rank. scope_creepTalk 09:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Himpel[edit]

Thanks for uploading the file File:Helmut Himpel.jpg. Is see the photographer is unknown, it is published over 70 years ago in the European Union. If that is the case, the image can be uploaded to Commons under Commons:Template: PD-EU-no author disclosure. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SportsOlympic: Your a gent. scope_creepTalk 19:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Helmut Himpel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teutonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Paul Eberhard[edit]

Scope creep, I think I have addressed all your concerns. Can you please review and let me know? I took out the Career section because most of the content couldn't be cited. I updated the citations; I think correctly? You were the first editor to mention the citations, so please forgive me if they still need work. I updated some of the content to make sure that Eberhard was the subject of most of the sentences per recommendation from the Libera Chat folks. Baeber (tadlk) 19:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Baeber[reply]

Hi @Baeber: The article has barely any biographical information on the guy, and need some information, perhaps 5k to say who he is. Ref 5 and 6 are pretty useless as sources and ref 11 and 12 are promotional as they are linked to a shop. These should be proper book cites. Remove the url to amazon. Lastly the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA), if it is notable it should probably be in its own article. scope_creepTalk 11:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:. I put back in some biographical information and a career section. I took out the YouTube references and the Amazon URLs. ANFA does have a Wikipedia page; I just hadn't put the reference in correctly.
@Baeber: That is much better looking and you can tell for sure that the guy is notable. That is much better. You provide references for those bits that are unref'd. I have created a education section for the article as education doesn't go in the lede. Career section, add more refs and one being a sloane fellow. scope_creepTalk 15:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Great! I added a couple of AIARC references. Enough? Baeber (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)baeber[reply]
@Scope creep: And some papers from the NAS Baeber (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)baeber[reply]
@Baeber: resubmit it and give me a shout. scope_creepTalk 18:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Done. And a thank you from me. I didn't know about the testimony before Congress. That was a fascinating find. Baeber (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Baeber[reply]
@Baeber: It might be worth putting in where he was born and died including a couple of references for it. That's it now in mainspace. scope_creepTalk 18:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I can certainly add that information. Thank you! Baeber (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)baeber[reply]
@Baeber: Can you add in some more refs where I posted the citation needed template. Don't copy or take anything more from: [10] If I'd have seen that copyvio I wouldn't have promoted it. The main career section needs rewritten, not copied directly from the other article. scope_creepTalk 19:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I'm not sure about the copyright issue since I'm the one who wrote the obit that all the others used, including the ANFA obit. But I have rewritten the language. I'm also not sure how to provide citations for work that was done long before the internet existed and didn't publish anything. For example, for Creative Buildings, I found an obit from someone who worked for Creative Buildings, which would show the company existed, but not that Dad founded it. Would that work? Or do you have another suggestion for where to find information about companies/organizations from the '50s and '60s? Baeber (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Baeber[reply]
Hi @Baeber: That is better. The copyvio score is down to the mid 30% indicating it is only the names of building and places that it is picking up as being the same. Good work. scope_creepTalk 23:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Update: Richard Owens (poet)[edit]

I have edited the entry "Richard Owens (poet)" as indicated (some content removed and references updated, formatted, and removed as needed). Please, when you have a moment, have a look and, if suitable, pass on to mainspace as mentioned. And thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnthecaesars (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your outstanding contribution to the Wikipedia community. Can you review that article, if you will be able to? It just stalled all my work. I would highly appreciate this. Thanks!

A small note. The past reviewer said that the article has no relevance, but I disagree, since the concept of "Handicraft production" was highly important within the framework of Soviet ideology, which led to industrialization and collectivization. This is written in the article. Links are fine too. MarcusTraianus (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcusTraianus: Thanks for that, but I think its yersel that's got the maximum effeciency of any editor on Wikipedia. Can you expand the first few refs to full cites and give me a shout. There is not one thing wrong with that article, apart from that. scope_creepTalk 18:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: If you meant that I should change the first links using cite web template, then I did it. MarcusTraianus (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranu Mukherjee[edit]

Howdy. Just a heads up that I made an attempt at rescuing Draft:Ranu Mukherjee. I think I was successful and have moved it to article space. I improved the secondary sourcing. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 03:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Possibly: I liked her work. Good Work. I was pretty poor at the time but much better now. scope_creepTalk 11:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hi - I've just moved a thread that another editor raised, which concerns your editing, from AN to ANI. Please take a look at WP:ANI#Political_reverts_disguised_as_Neutral_Point_Of_View. Best Girth Summit (blether) 14:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:18:23, 6 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Maxsantoro[edit]


Made changes to the Thousand Below draft according to your comment

Maxsantoro (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello Scope creep:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

Recovering article[edit]

Hey Scope Creep, please let me know how to recover deleted Wikipedia article.I'm waiting for your response. ThankYou --203.81.240.232 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @203.81.240.232: You would have to go and see an admin. I'm not one. User:DGG would be your best bet. He is fair. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 15:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I cannot tell what the article is. 203.81.240.232, you have not made an account to identify yourself, and under your current i.p. address I see no deleted articles; you or your phone service provider must have been using some other i.p at the time. If you can tell. me on my user talk page the exact title of the article (and it would help if you can figure out when it was deleted), I can take a look at the article or draft and advise your further. I became an admin to do exactly this sort of thing, but I need some information. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG. scope_creepTalk 15:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Mentee[edit]

Hello Scope creep. I hope you remember me. I am Ken. We met at WT:NPP/R on 22th on June this year. You were ready to be my mentor for teaching me more about AfC, as I had some flaws in some of my reviews. While we were going on, you said you were going on a vacation and give me a shout after two weeks. So, I'm here for that. Will you continue to teach me as you did till 26th of June? You can have any decision of whether to resume or to stop. Eagerly waiting for your reply. Regards. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 13:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ken Tony:, I was back from holiday yesterday, although I did a lot of work on the Joseph Lister article in the interim, as I took my laptop with me. Yip, we can do a couple more. I saw that comment by DGG. Really good editor. Good advice. If you need an admin, he is ideal. How about starting tommorrow, then. If you can find some more drafts. Those others are perhaps done by now, if they are not, we can take a look at them. scope_creepTalk 13:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes mate. We can resume from tomorrow. I'll also try to find some more drafts for reference. Thank you. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 14:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Symeon Shimin[edit]

Hello. You left a note on this article saying you were interested in seeing it published. I took a run at cleaning up the most egregious problems. I haven't moved it to article space as it needs a bit more work. I'm also not entirely convinced on the notability side. There's the Justice building mural, a study for the same mural held in the Smithsonian, the fact he illustrated many children's books, and finally the movie posters and murals. I guess together those all add up to notable, but I'm not sure. Anyway, just a heads up. --- Possibly ☎ 02:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Possibly: Coolio!! He is a major film artist of the mid 20th century. Those big backdrops he did, some were instantly recognisable. I hoping to update it with help with the draft editor but she dissapeared. Thanks for that Possibly. That is a lot better. Please promote it, if you can. Well done and thanks for that. scope_creepTalk 08:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Symeon Shimin. --- Possibly ☎ 08:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Gruber[edit]

I went ahead and accepted the AFC article for Marc Gruber, an article you previously declined. I was wondering if you could check and see if the references added are sufficient. At least one of them was good, but two were not. Thank you for your time. You asked the author to ping you when they improved the article, but they did not. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scorpions13256: The references on it are terrible. You will need to go back to draft. They are all WP:PRIMARY and you can't establish notability with primary refs. Which ones were suggesting that were good. Can you give me the ref numbers so I can check them? It is a BLP so all the profile refs will need to come out. They are very low quality. scope_creepTalk 12:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figured. I must have misinterpreted your earlier comment. It seemed a little off when you said not much was required. I would have never accepted it if I hadn't seen your comment. I guess you were trying to say that the references needed to be replaced (which I agree with). Anyway, it has been moved back into the draftspace. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256:, Aye, somebody will delete it, in the state its in. The guy is notable, but I think the originating editor needs to put several to a half a dozen secondary sources as the first 6 refs, in, to prove he's notable. Either that, or get one or two decent refs and cut the whole article right down, stubify it, until an experienced editor can come in a research some decent sources. There is bound to be stuff out there. Thanks for moving it back. I will try and find some some sources for it, over the next few weeks. I'll add it to my todo list, so I don't forget it. scope_creepTalk 12:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could do it myself (I have written about living people before), but it is hard for me to search through non-English sources. I typically use books and news sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256: You could give me a hand or vice versa, if you want to make a start I'll join you later. I know what you mean. It takes a lot of work to translate stuff. DeepL is pretty good to translate blocks of text. Google Translate is good for full websites. Bing Translate used to be good, or is good around gender translations, e.g. French but they reduced the size of the text block you can translate, making it less useful. I would start by getting rid of all the bare mention refs and the profiles, and then go from there. scope_creepTalk 13:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August Editathons with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bays of Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bute.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sergei_Ipatov[edit]

Dear Scope creep. Sorry, only yesterday I paid attention to your suggestion made about 2 months ago. As it was suggested by you, I deleted the references 18 – 22. You mentioned 18-21, but as I understand, the reference 22 is similar to the above references. In the sentence “Four of these asteroids got names” four was changed by five. In half an hour after submission of the new version, Z1720‬ wrote: “Please cite your sources using footnotes. There should be a reference at the end of every paragraph, minimum, since this is a WP:BLP.” Today I transferred the external links to footnotes. Now there are no external links. Some references to the published biography were duplicated to a few places, and now there are references in all paragraphs, and also at the end of these paragraphs.

Hi @Si14360: I'll take a look at it. Remember to sign your comments with the four tildes, ~~~~ which will be converted into your signature. scope_creepTalk 19:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Si14360: It is a WP:BLP, so the career section needs a reference per sentence. Stating something like He is an author[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] isn't a good idea. It is much better to put his 2 or 3 papers, e.g. the one he wrote that won him the prize in the bibliography section. And removed at the references 12-16 as it is a case of WP:CITEKILL. The Main scientific interests and achievements is really decent. Take this out There are Wikipedia pages devoted to Sergei Ipatov in Russian, German, French, Italian, and Esperanto. Put this The biography of S.I. Ipatov has been published in several biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias, e.g. by Marquis Who's Who[3][7][18] and by Russians editions[4][19][20][21][22]. in the biliography section and 19-22 can be used to populate the career section with refs with additional refs added. It looks a lot better. Give me a shout when its done. Hope that helps. I think the guy is notable with the award. scope_creepTalk 20:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sergei_Ipatov[edit]

Dear Scope creep. Thank you for your comments. I deleted the sentence about Wikipedia pages in other languages and former references 10, 12-14, 16 for list of publications (only two were left). You suggested to remove the references 12-16. Z1720 suggested to remove references 10, 11, and 12 (different references). Former references 19-22 we used to populate other sentences. Most sentences in early life and career now have references. May be it is not needed to put a citation to every similar sentence? For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Boss there are no citations in career section. Former ref 8 (to Wiki data) was removed. I hope that editing of the sections, other than achievements, are close to the end. May be it is possible not to delete the Section “Main scientific interests and achievements”? I suppose that achievements are much more important and interesting for inclusion in Wikipedia than the list of institutions were a person worked. For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Walter_Elst , the main attention is paid to his discoveries, not to his career. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Stern information about scientific results of Alan Stern is much greater than the information about his career. I suppose that small information about scientific results for some scientists may be only caused by that their biographers did not write about them. As to me, I prefer to read biographies with detailed achievements, but not those short biographies that sometimes can be found in wikipedia. Z1720 wrote about secondary references and noted that there are only primary references to Ipatov’s publications. May be the awards, the inclusion of the biography in dictionaries and encyclopedias, the published papers in Web of Science and Scopus journals can be considered as independent secondary sources? In the first draft of the Ipatov’s bio there were no references to his papers (only text about his achievements), but then there were remarks that all text must be supported by citations. So the citations of Ipatov’s papers have been added. Such citations can be deleted, but probably it will not make the text better. In order to add secondary references to Ipatov’s achievements, the following sentence have been added just now to the beginning of the section “Main scientific interests and achievements”: Information about Ipatov’s main scientific interests and achievements is presented on [8, 9]. Information for you (not for the draft): These websites include similar Russian text about achievements, but without references to Ipatov’s papers. It is possible to add links to the papers which cited Ipatov’s papers, but I do not think that it is good. Si14360 (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Information icon Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to article. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BartlebytheScrivener: It is deeply uncool to try to put an American copyedit bent on the article, e.g. chaging section names. It is a British English. scope_creepTalk 01:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mildred Fish-Harnack never lived in England or any British-speaking area. She was born in the United States and lived more than half her life there. Ergo, American standards apply to her article. Forcing your Britishisms on the article is abusive and a violation of Wikipedia's policy of collaboration.BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:BartlebytheScrivener. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Disagreeing with an edit does not warrant calling the other editor unconstructive. BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BartlebytheScrivener: I understand what your trying to do and its fair enough. But its uncool to change section names, even during a good copyedit, its not done. Your putting in a American mannerism, when the article wasn't written that way. The policy is to you preserve the structure. You can copyedit it, but preserve the structure. Send it to GA if you want. But that is the third time that somebody had tried to completly change it and take WP:OWN, because it is American article. Three times I heard same phrase. If you want, I'll all have the history revdel done on it and all my content removed from it and then you write an American English article. scope_creepTalk 01:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Wroblewitz[edit]

Hello. Help added IPA for the article. Thank you. 116.102.58.175 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Please Help. 116.102.58.175 (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@116.102.58.175: I'm sorry I don't think she is particularly notable. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Harassment[edit]

Would be great if you could stop engaging in harassment. Read the Talk:Alexander Repenning pages. Is this the new Wikipedia practice: shoot first, ask questions later? You are making Wikipedia a really unwelcoming place. It makes no sense to provide reference for each sentence. This is not how Wikipedia works. If you find information that is wrong or misleading feel free to point that out. Deleting without knowing something is wrong or misleading is harassment. Please stop!

I declined your request for page protection for Alexander Repenning because a single IP is involved who seems to be a sock of Block based programmer, blocked by Orange Mike in April. I have referred the matter to the blocking admin. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of this have to do with the fact that you are harassing me? I asked for constructive support. You did not provide reasonable suggestions. How would somebody who received a Purple Hart provide "references?" If every sentence needs to have a reference then 90% of the Wikipedia needs to be deleted. Must feel great to just delete stuff and block people. What have you contributed to society that gives you the right to engage in harassment? What suddenly urged you to delete content that you cannot show to be wrong or misleading and that was there for many years? What is your angle other than harassment? 147.86.223.240 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for that. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@147.86.223.240: It is not harassment. It is following policy. It is a WP:BLP and every sentence needs a reference and BLP's should have no promotional nor puffy content. Your trying to add that back in. Now if you can't accept that, bail out. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Orangemike: I notice that editor has two IP address. One is a IPv6 address, the 2nd one is IPv4 address. I just noticed it now at Talk:Alexander Repenning scope_creepTalk 13:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely harassment. Of course you think your actions are fine. But, harassment is not about what the harasser perceives it to be. It is, and that is all it is, about the perception of the harassed. I asked you for help. You did not provide it. Just deleting is not helping. Yes, you suggested that "every sentence needs a reference." Other BLPs, by and large, don't do that for the simple reason that many recognitions have no official form of reference. Why did you not provide an example or make a helpful suggestion? You are justifying your harassment by interpreting vague policies. How do you "reference" if somebody can present his/her work in the White House? This is not a paper. And why are you paying attention to this page and content that has been up for many years? How is this content promotional and how is it puffy? If you are not offering concrete advise and engage in deleting you are harassing.

What is happening to Wikpedia? Why is it getting so hostile towards academic content? Are you only reading the delete-stuff policies? Did you ever read the how to welcome academic content Wikpedia guidelines? They suggest an approach to engage in dialog. Is Wikipedia paying you? Who is your boss? 2A02:AA14:4581:6B00:DC1F:FAB7:19E2:FEA7 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kleff[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you deleted something in the Mario Kleff article. Was there something wrong? If the reason was the writing style, I'd like to improve this to a better and more valued version. Please advise. Thank you Meow2021 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Meow2021:, I completed a copyedit on the article that had sections that were full of WP:PEACOCK terms which are unacceptable for WP:BLP. This is an example: Mario Kleff creates buildings with an extension of his personality and lives an uncompromised lifestyle determined by his interest in exotic wildlife and automotive design It is junk. It needs to be encyclopaedic and balanced. I also removed the supposed fact he is an artist. He is not artist and there is no evidence he is an artist. scope_creepTalk 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response and feedback. I wrote down what I read and linked it accordingly. Apparently the criteria were not met. What do I have to consider, can I even edit this article for the better?
Of course. Anybody can edit. Remember to sign your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ scope_creepTalk 13:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Lister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ackworth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Troutman Pepper[edit]

Thanks @Scope creep for your feedback. I updated citations for more diversity and credibility and think it reads much better. Hope you can review again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Troutman_Pepper Cew3390 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News Literacy Project Wikipedia entry[edit]

Hi —

You asked that I give you a shout after I made revisions. Consider this that shout (I just figured out how to contact you directly).

cheers, Bluepencil13

Hi @Bluepencil13:, How goes it? Yip, that looks better, however, the NLP Board section has no references in it. It is is definently better looks and less and advert. It might be worth removing the past presidents. If you don't, they need to be referenced. I hope that helps. Remember to sign your posts with the four tildes ~~~~. scope_creepTalk 09:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Weebit Nano has been accepted[edit]

Weebit Nano, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

scope_creepTalk 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlowrie Castle[edit]

I am unclear why you reverted a useful link to the Thomas Hutchison aricle--Stephencdickson (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephencdickson: Finger slipped. I think I restored, did I not. I did leave a comment. scope_creepTalk 18:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Stephencdickson (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madeleine Chaumont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycée Jules-Ferry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting a wrong linkage[edit]

Requests for Myxofibrosarcoma link to the Wikipedia page Histiocytoma. The World Health Organization reclassified myxofibrosarcoma as a distinct entity, not in any way a form of the histiocytomas. I am currently making a page for Myxofibrosarcoma. Can you remove this erroneous linkage or instruct me how to do so. It may be a simple task: the View history page indicates that the myxofibrosarcoma-histiocytoma linkage was made sometime after the page was created. Thank you for your help. OK--joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 23:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: How are you today? The way it would be done, would be to make a request at WP:RFD, explaining why it needs to go. I can do that now, if you want? You will probably need to chime at some point with the evidence, of why it needs to be deleted. I will nominate it now. scope_creepTalk 15:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: It should take no more than a couple of days to remove the redirect, perhaps sooner, and then page can be recreated using the contents from your sandbox (a silly name). scope_creepTalk 15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: It appears to have been changed already. Thank you! joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 16:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: Yip, its nomination notice. Give me a shout when your ready to create the page. I have page mover rights and assuming the redirect is gone, I can move your sandbox along with its history into the new article. scope_creepTalk 16:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: What I have been doing since the previous difficulties that I caused is to write part of the page in WordPerfect or my sandbox (without ever saving in in sandbox) and transferring it a Wikipedia page that I just made. I edit if further on the newly made page. Is that OK? Thank you for helping me with all the trouble that I have caused. joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 18:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: Yes, that sounds fine. There is a lot of folk who edit outside Wikipedia and then copy/paste into an article, in exactly that manner, when they're ready. All you need to do, is create the link e.g. Myxofibrosarcoma (Assuming the redirect page has been deleted), then click on to create the empty article then copy your stuff in. Do it that ensures your not creating some off area, as the link always defaults to article namespace. scope_creepTalk 18:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Earlier today, the linkage of Myxofibrosarcoma to the Histiocytoma page was deleted: when I sought for Myxofibrosarcoma the create page came up. Now when a seek this page a strange page comes up stating "The purpose of this redirect is currently being discussed by the Wikipedia community." If I follow the instructions on this page, it looks to me that it will retitle the Histiocytoma page as Myxofibrosarcoma and give the info on Myxofibrosarcoma that I supply. Also, I have no idea where to put my info when I click on the arrow directing me to a page to do so. I do not want to remove the Histiocytoma page (I plan to later update and expand the Histiocytoma page). What do I do now? Again, thanks. joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 19:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: Is you content off-wiki ready for the Myxofibrosarcoma page? scope_creepTalk 21:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: The Histiocytoma article will stay where it. I nominated the Myxofibrosarcoma redirect page for deletion, so that it would a fresh revision history. But you can keep the page, delete the redirect information and paste your stuff in on top if it. scope_creepTalk 21:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: My myxofibrosarcoma page will be ready for publication in 1-2 days or so. I have no idea how to publish it...your instructions do not seem to work for me. When I go to the myxofibrosarcoma page now, I just do not see how to proceed. It's confusing. Again and again, thanks. joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: That is fine, it will become clear once your ready. It is very simple really. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi joflaher, I've been talking with scope creep at the redirect discussion page. The link from myxofibrosarcoma to the histiocytoma page at least explains to readers that myxofibrosarcoma has been reclassified, which (I think) is better than having no information at all, so I've argued that it should stay until your draft is ready. If you would like, once your draft is ready you can paste it into Draft:Myxofibrosarcoma, click on the red link to take you to the draft creation page. You might be warned that the article already exists, but you can ignore that, that's because of the redirect. Once it's there, scope creep can remove the redirect and replace it with your article, with the history intact. Cheers, and thanks for your contributions.
@scope creep: correct me if I'm wrong on that, I think pagemovers can overwrite redirects. If not, you can use {{db-move}} like I said, or just ping me and I'll gladly take care of it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PEIsquirrel: I'm not sure to be honest. I've not really tried it. This may be the chance to have go. scope_creepTalk 14:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: My Myxofibrosarcoma info is now a Draft:Myxofibrosarcoma page. I'm hoping that it will quickly be accepted as a regular page so that I can go forward in updating and expanding the Histiocytoma page which incorrectly included myxofibrosarcoma as a type of histiocytoma. In all events, I thank everyone who helped me on this. OK--joflaher (User talk:joflaher) 13:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: We will do it now. Can you submit it at Draft. Hit the submit button. scope_creepTalk 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: That is the redirect article gone. Can you submit the draft. I can submit if you want, if you unable to do it. scope_creepTalk 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: That is done. scope_creepTalk 19:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:52:44, 11 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Wtone1[edit]


Hi I've made the requested changes to the draft page on Howard Lipshitz. Please let me know if there's anything else you need. Thank you!

Wtone1 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I'll take a look in the morning. scope_creepTalk 00:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Milt's Stop & Eat. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ––FormalDude talk 08:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating ModR/M.

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

Would it be worth creating a template to link all these instruction set articles. Perhaps one for the original X86 set, one form simd instructions, one sse1 and so on.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 08:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating List of nobles and magnates of France in the 13th century.

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

Needs a lede and the referenced cleaned up.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 17:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Markuann Smith.

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

Sources are a bit weak for BLP. Can you add some more, please?

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 18:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LEVC VN5 and Ferrari Purosangue[edit]

Just want to let you know that I reverted content removals on LEVC VN5 since WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to the LEVC e-Camper section, as it is confirmed with a source and is not a prediction, and upcoming vehicles can have Wikipedia articles or be sections/content within. As for the latter edits, I reverted those since it is typical and almost a standard to note the starting price, trims, and basic/notable features in automobile-related articles when properly sourced.

As for Ferrari Purosangue - and all is good and I fixed it with the click of two buttons - you may have restored the wrong revision because the categories I added and typos I fixed were reverted. Nonetheless, thank you for not undoing the article and reverting it back to redirect and reverting your edit when you did. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: How goes it. They're definently notable, but can you please cut down on the advertising. Putting list price information is strictly against Wikipedia Terms of Use and it is deeply uncool. Its plain advertising and endangers Wikipedia freedom and licence. It also will likely to get you blocked in the short term for promotion and spamming. Good articles apart from that. scope_creepTalk 18:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13: If it is standard, then it is wrong and that is not the consensus. It clearly against Wikipedia Terms of Use and I will need post a advertising tag on and start trying to article removed. scope_creepTalk 18:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I will clarify that I'm not promoting the car, I've been writing and editing car articles since before I even had a Wikipedia account as an IP user. I'm a page patroller and am experienced with the vast majority of Wikipedia guidelines, and as long as content is encyclopedically stated with proper sources, it is not advertising. I've never seen anywhere that you cannot state the base price of a vehicle on Wikipedia. The great majority of car articles do state the starting price and it's how I've been writing them since day one and this is the first issue I've had with it.
On Wikipedia, advertising generally is adding unsourced or loosely-covered promotional content as or to articles. Here's the difference between encyclopedic vs. promotional:
An example of encyclopedic content: The [car] has a starting price of [value].[refs]
An example of promotional content: The [car] only costs [value], which is a very great deal. The [car] is perfect for anyone on a [value] budget.
Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what your getting at, but I think probably standard 10 years. Folk are a bit more aware of the dangers of now. Make up you mind I guess, but have real think about. scope_creepTalk 18:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating 1891 Toronto municipal election.

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

How about adding a table. WP:Table provides a tutorial.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 18:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm 101.50.250.88. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Harry Partridge. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.250.88 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@101.50.250.88: The article was reviewed as part of the WP:NPP process and there is leeway there for the editor reviewing an article to revert it back to a redirect if an article is not warranted. The references on the article were entirely junk. I intend to attend the Afd. scope_creepTalk

Kashmiri Wikipedia related[edit]

Hey Scope, Hope you are doing well. Actually I am here as you rolled back the content of Kashmiri Wikipedia. Can't we use stats.wikimedia.org website as a reference ? signed, Iflaq (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iflaq: Unfortunately not, Wikipedia is not a referable source. Can you not try the Kashmari Wikipedia site, to see if there is anything on their description of the site, that is not Wikipedia created. They're maybe some third-party reports. Apart from that I can't give you much help. The help desk at [{WP:HELP]] or somebody at the reference desk may help. scope_creepTalk 17:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021[edit]

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Scope creep,

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. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WSJZ-LD[edit]

Why do you keep reverting referenced/cited content with a redirect to another TV station? They are not the same TV station, just the same owner. Bwave (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bwave: How goes it? Well I think the redirect is a better proposition than the article at the moment. Can you not add proper references to it. Otherwise it is just a listing. scope_creepTalk 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sammi Brie t Are you willing to help to establish this article? Bwave (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is the right call, @Bwave. I even said as much last night. It should redirect to WBOC-LD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bwave I'm going to redirect the WSJZ-LD and WRUE-LD pages. I have also added a table to WRDE-LD and WBOC-LD that explains the setup, since NBC and Telemundo are on all four of the involved transmitters. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article payal radhakrishna[edit]

I am payal radhakrishna fan as a contributor i am contributing what ever i know request you not to delete the draft 70mmreels (talk)

@70mmreels: You can't be a fan, as the actor doesn't have any credits. Please make your case at Afd and don't remove the Afd tag. You will end up blocked, if you do. scope_creepTalk 19:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

actor has 3 credits her recent movie is released in famous OTT platform i have added that reference also in my article 70mmreels (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic-class ocean liner[edit]

Hello Scope creep! I've been reverted your edits to Oceanic-class ocean liner since it's a ship class, not a redirect to individual ship. See WP:SHIP for more details. Vitaium (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vitaium: Yip, I've created a few ship articles myself. The reason I reverted it, was due to the poor reference and the lack of them. It really need a couple more of better quality. scope_creepTalk 10:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already add an reference. Vitaium (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vitaium: One reference isn't sufficient. If you don't add more reference I will need to revert the article. Three is the standard. scope_creepTalk 12:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavour[edit]

If an edit lacks sources add template:More citations needed, don't just revert it. I have now added sources. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gunnar Larsson: What is this specifically for. scope_creepTalk 08:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gunnar Larsson: Thanks for that. But it is worth noting it is not 2005 now, not even 2010, where you could get away with a posting a non-sourced article. There is two areas to develop articles offline, one is sandboxes and other draft. Any one of them could be used to create it, source it and then post it. Please do so the next time. And adding bare urls just adds work for somebody else. Please take a look at WP:REFB. scope_creepTalk 08:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scope creep. I am not planning to start a long discussion, just highlighting that people (like me:-)) are more likely to get annoyed with a revert than with a template. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gunnar Larsson: You can't post an unsourced article. Create in your sandbox. All your doing in creating work for somebody else. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no argument with that at all (see https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciel:Bidrag/Gunnar_Larsson and https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Bidrag/Gunnar_Larsson for my more recent edits), you found me out on the one where I did'nt. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gunnar Larsson: Yip. Simple mistake perhaps, or perhaps too tired to fix at the time, or just missed it scope_creepTalk 11:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange behavior[edit]

Re Special:Diff/1044300947: I'm really confused.

  1. Why did you save this test instead of just previewing it?
  2. If you misclicked & accidentally saved (which is fine), why didn't you self-revert?

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tom.Reding: Got the wrong page probably. Left it and came back. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Appu N Bhattathiri[edit]

As per any WP:ANYBIO, the article is eligible for mainspace. He is the recipient of Kerala State Film Awards, the highest film award given by the Government of Kerala. Then why did you decline the submission? Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Agnihothri Sharath: The films perhaps won the Kerala State Film Awards. The references you provided are all WP:PRIMARY and you can't use primary references to establish notability. Please add WP:SECONDARY sources into the article. Currently its looks like the editor or director is a common demoninator, but until some who is not associated with him, start commenting on him, in some journal or newspapers, or he wins an award, or becomes notable in his own right. But currently being a common demonitator is likely non-notable. Find and add secondary sources and resubmit it for review. If the person is truly notable, there should plenty of coverage out there to support your case. That would be the approach I would take. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 11:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Agnihothri Sharath: I had a look at the sources again. Please references the awards and provide some additional secondary sources and resubmit. It all relies on the award and whether it is notable. scope_creepTalk

File:Praun Russian Campaign 1941-1942 Chart 9.png listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Praun Russian Campaign 1941-1942 Chart 9.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1962 United States Senate election in Kentucky[edit]

"Really duff refs"? What is this meant to mean? The articles has references to two standard textbooks, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the official Kentucky state election returns; what's so "duff" about it? FieldOfWheat (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FieldOfWheat: The other ones, all-in-all, the majority of the article is badly unsourced. scope_creepTalk 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Carey de Bellemare[edit]

So I've took my time to add more references to this specific article that you had recently moved into draftspace and I've added more so I was wondering if you could promote or even it to mainspace again? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:55 22 September 2021 (GMT-4)

@SuperSkaterDude45: It is a lot better, but the first section is not referenced at all. You can't have a block of text like that without it being referenced. Its not 2010. Large bits of large sections are unsourced. On top of that, your first reference is to a blog. That is a WP:SPS source. You have that first ref all the way through the article. It will need to come out. Give me a shout when your finish and I will promote. Google books is a good location to find information. scope_creepTalk 09:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45: I know how difficult it is to source these soldiers articles. I've done a couple myself. The English Wikipedia sourcing requirement are higher that the French Wikipedia. I notice the article on there is largely unsourced. There is quite a lot on Gbooks on him. scope_creepTalk 09:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, most references I could find were in mention to his military service in Le Bourget and only 2 contained other info. Would the article still be acceptable enough for mainspace? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:28 23 September 2021 (GMT-4)
Hi @SuperSkaterDude45: I found a bunch of references in Google Books, mostly for the battles. I'll try and add some references. Csn you take reference 1. It is a WP:SPS and is pretty low-quality. I'm not sure where the information is coming from. If the biography section can't be vertified, take it out. It will be put back in, by a military historian at some point in the future. I found sources on Google Books, I will add in what I can find, over the next several days, and see how it looks then. scope_creepTalk 06:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It can be published with sections that are missing, but it it better to pull them out for the moment. It is not a BLP where every sentence needs a ref. The article will be develop over time and expand as its military history article. That has given me a thought. Could you post a request for help at the Military Histoy Wikiproject? They are very active. I exapnded a couple of archive references, look a bit better now. It coming on. I can post a help request up at the noticeboard, if you require it. Generally what happens in these situations, is somebody will come in an cut everything out, have a basic stub. scope_creepTalk 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the first reference back to the bibliography section and you can certainly post a help request as I personally don't know how to file one myself. Also which parts of the biography would you want me to remove as the entire text is the biography. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 09:09 24 September 2021 (GMT-4)
@SuperSkaterDude45: I'll do it now. See if I can find somedboy interested in having a look at it. scope_creepTalk 17:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45: I posted that last night, but it usually several days for everybody to eventually visit the board. If nothing comes from it, I'll spend a couple of days looking for sourcing, particularly for the early military career section. The biography section can be removed and added later, if we need to take into mainspace without improvement. Generally speaking, when you post an article, google is cognizant of it, via an strategic agreement with WMF, of its presence on Wikipedia. What google does, is reorganises its graph to support the existance of the article. Sometimes its only takes a couple of weeks, other times several months. When its completed, you tend to find many more sources are available in your search, that didn't exist beforehand, or rather they existed, but you couldn't see them, now they just there, is if by magic. It great. When I create I create a wee stub and leave it for 2-3 weeks, that its. If it can't be sourced, we can take out the first section and I'll promote with what there. We have done our best to source it. scope_creepTalk 10:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright then, thanks for your help, I really do appreciate it! SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 11:10 25 September 2021 (GMT-4)
Hi @SuperSkaterDude45: Well that is two full days now and nobody has made a dent in it. I thought somebody would have helped. I think the best thing to do, for you to submit it for review and I'll promote it back to mainspace, clean it up, as we described. Give me a shout when you finished. Best time is do it tommorrow, or tomorrow night, as I'm goosed at the moment. scope_creepTalk
Hello, I've sent it for mainspace submission recently as you said. Just thought I'd let you know about it. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:42 27 September 2021 (GMT-4)
SuperSkaterDude45, That is a back. I will keep it on my watchlist, see if it can be improved in the next couple of years. scope_creepTalk 22:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Abad,Chakri do not redirect[edit]

Please do not redirect this article Mirza Abad, Chakri . If there is an error in the article, let me know and I will correct it or remove it. Thanks.

Hi @Haseebmirza306: Your article was checked via WP:NPP, a review process. Articles on Wikipedia needs references. Your article doesn't have that. It is really important that the article is verifiable. Currently your using a third site, fallingrain.com. I'm not sure it is valid source. I would suggest adding proper references, for example governmet sources that veryify the village exist. That fallingrain.com is likely not a reliable source. Also please sign your comments with the four tildes, ~~~~, so folk can known who you are. scope_creepTalk 06:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:14:07, 24 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by AmirahBreen[edit]


Thank you for reviewing the article. I find your feedback very useful and will not attempt to publish the article before the matter is addressed. For future reference so I will know how to identify 'clickbait' please explain which references are clickbait and how do you know that they are?

Amirah talk 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AmirahBreen: Howdy. The sources on your WP:BLP article all the same, the man loves our food and speaks our language, and that its. Its known for one event article. I would suggest you try and find better sources. scope_creepTalk 10:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I do understand what you are saying. I had thought that involvement with Malay TV may also add to notability. I'll look for some better sources as you suggest. Amirah talk 10:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some of the sources which I think may be the clickbait ones you are referring to and I have also added some new sources. I have added coverage of fasting and practicing Ramadam which is additional to Malay cuisine and linguistic skills. I am also a little confused as to why you see Malay cuisine and linguistic skills as one event. Please see the essay BLP2. The article is actually quite similar to that of another expat in Malaysia Mat Dan. I am not quite sure why that article is acceptable for notability yet the Rhys William one was not. Could you help me to understand this please? Amirah talk 11:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

I searched about Khaled Koubaa and the paid editor you told in RFD in my opinion is totally wrong thing, I know about paid content for example Samuel Kwame Boadu - This must be delete! is full of paid content!!! included vents magazine can be find on fiverr for $50, mid-day for $100 and ... but for some languages it's really hard to find sources or media didn't covered them because of some policies in some countries for example Mehran Modiri is the legend of Iran cinema, but his article only have one sources! I just want tell you let's decide about the people by what they do! of course GNG is important thing but in WP not written how manny sources required. you're more experienced than me and I know that. I just tried to tell in my opinion that guy is really worked hard to get that position in technology and let's search more about him to find more sources ("خالد قوبعة"). ZEP55 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in France[edit]

The still fairly new article Antisemitism in France is a topic that's pretty much in your interest area, and I thought you might enjoy working on it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see its out of draft. I'm impressed you've managed to get it together so quick. I'll do what I can. I've got the Joseph Lister article to progress as well. scope_creepTalk 11:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes for missing citations where needed, and fixes and other additions to refs; nicely done. As for "fast", thanks but it did take from May till August to get it out of draft, and there are still a few empty sections that need doing (hint, hint ...) Good luck with Lister,

The Signpost: 26 September 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Elumelu[edit]

Hey, I have just seen you reverted my edit and work on the Tony Elumelu page and also a suggested COI & paid advocacy. This is entirely wrong as I do not receive, solicit or have any paid relationship with the subject. I did my research on the subject and wrote based on this. Please revert back to my edits Wikistarnigeria (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Regarding your blanking of Jel (singer)[edit]

His album reached #3 on the Oricon charts, which more than satisfies WP:NMUSIC. I was also able to find an article about one of his solo performances at https://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000176883. Keep in mind that sourcing articles like this is quite difficult, as I'm not fluent in Japanese; there are probably plenty of good sources that I haven't found because I don't know the proper search terms. Mlb96 (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to draft space[edit]

Stop moving stubs to draft space that are meeting WP:NSPORTS, like you for instance did with Kees Witteveen and several more I created. They are meeting the notability guidelines of WP:NCYCLING under NSPORTS. If you don’t it you should take them to AfD. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, dude. I'm not taking them to Afd. They are effectively unsourced. What I will do, is take you to Ani, and suggest all of them go through Afc like FloridaArmy. Producing BLP's with one reference is 2021 is unacceptable. Producing BLP's with one source, to a machine generated profile was unacceptable in 2008. So source them, like everybody else has to. scope_creepTalk 10:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportsOlympic: I was thinking, there must more sources out there for each one of these folks. Everyone of the them must be famous, with sources in the Guardian, Telegraph, Baltimore Sun, Japan Times and so on. Surely you can add more sources, slow down a bit, so that each sentence has a reference? One article I noticed, the references were out of order. One girl who had cancer. The references that were there, were out of order. That is not cool. scope_creepTalk 10:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi scope_creep, I don’t like your tone as you sound like you are in the attack mode. You are talking about BLP, while those people died about 100 years ago. It also looks like you are very generalizing. These are just some articles about important cyclist I created “on the go”. Sometimes I created a few stubs ad they deserve a page, and can easily be expanded. (The essence of a stub). Have you also seen other articles I created this month? Probably not.. see for instance the 60 most recent September created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/204, almost all created by me. Imagine how much time I invested to create the pages of the earliest Paralympic athletes of the Netherlands? Untill a few weeks ago their names were not even known (!!) (1964, 1968, 1972) … So please do a bit of research before taking down someone by generalization. And a question: were can I see creating a page with a database source is “unacceptable”? (And I don’t know with you mean with a girl with cancer?) SportsOlympic (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportsOlympic: No attacks. Discussion. They don't get expanded. There is simply too many articles that are stubs and not enough folk to do it. It is much better to expand them, with sufficient sources at the moment of creation, so at least you know they're valid. Essentially what your doing is duplicating on wikipedia what is aleady on the dashboard site. What is the point of that? It is easier for the reader to go to the site where the information already located than it is coming here. Readers don't look at these wee 1 and 2 lines article. That is well known. That Netherlands article is decent. Really decent. This is an example of what I really dodgy: Rie Odajima. The information that is pulled together on the article has been take from news sites. It looks like a Wikipedia article without the associated acedmic rigour of policies and procedures that are instrinsic to Wikipedia. it is low quality. scope_creepTalk 22:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:14:07, 24 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by AmirahBreen[edit]


I have removed some of the sources which I think may be the clickbait ones you are referring to and I have also added some new sources. I have added coverage of fasting and practicing Ramadam which is additional to Malay cuisine and linguistic skills. The article is actually quite similar to that of another expat in Malaysia Mat Dan. I am not quite sure why that article is acceptable for notability yet the Rhys William one was not. Could you help me to understand this please?</nowiki> Amirah talk 11:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: I've moved this down here, so I can see it properly. New entries should go at the bottom of the page, it is very hard to find it otherwise. Please read WP:TALK. I will take a look later today. scope_creepTalk 12:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't understand why you treat it is a new entry as it is part of the same conversation. Could you tell me what section of WP:TALK gives the rationale for this. Please could you also see the original conversation and answer my questions above. Amirah talk 22:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: If there has been significant gap, it is common practice to put it at the bottom the page. It take too much valuable time to search for the entry you have made above. I have to check the page version history to find your comment. scope_creepTalk 06:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I would not normally consider 4 days to be a significant gap, but I do notice your talk page is unusually busy. Please answer my questions above about why you refused the article. Amirah talk 06:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AmirahBreen: I would suggest you submit the article for review on Afc and wait for another editor to review it. I don't think the subject is particularly notable, with what is there. scope_creepTalk 07:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever post to my talk page again[edit]

At least, not until you learn to tell the difference between UPE and simply being a fan. Because guess what? If fans weren't allowed to edit Wikipedia pages, there would not be any Wikipedia pages. Jackass. Mlb96 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with your baseless accusations. Once this AfD is over, never interact with me again. Mlb96 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No accusations, just questions, dude. scope_creepTalk 22:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Many Dimensions[edit]

Hi, you just incubated a new article of mine. I've not had that experience before and so would like some guidance, please. The comment after review was "Dodgy sources. Wrong type." Was the latter phrase a comment on the type of sources? So far as the section on themes goes, there are three works cited, all by fairly respected scholars, so I don't understand how they can be described as 'dodgy'. Could it be the sources on publishing that are substandard? I'm never sure where to locate good sources for such information. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweetpool50: It was reviewed as part WP:NPP process. Ref 1 to 4 are unsuitable. 2 reviews of the work are required to prove it is notable, per WP:NBOOK. More if they are available. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Thanks for the clarification. I've now substituted what I hope are more acceptable sources for editions. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweetpool50: Looking at that again, I think it would be hard to find reviews on it. I'll see if I can see anything of worth. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Thanks. I was thinking that contemporary reviews might be hard to find, although I did discover the one in the Sewanee Review cited. But I've come across at least five scholarly works with a whole chapter - or section - devoted to the novel. Arguably, that is also a sign of notability. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it. scope_creepTalk 20:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations[edit]

There is a general consensus that railway stations are notable, regardless of whether or not they pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hin Dat railway station is an example of the feeling of other editors. Could you please restore Draft:Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi) and Draft:Zhangshu East railway station, as I believe either of them would survive AfD. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @NemesisAT: I know, but they still need to be sourced, like everything else. scope_creepTalk 11:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are sourced. There was further sourcing and information available on the Chinese Wikipedia, but I left out bits that I couldn't translate correctly or where the sources were inaccessible. You can also verify the existence of these stations with Google Earth and the Chinese Rail Map website. NemesisAT (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @NemesisAT: The first one has a raw search url and and architects/photographs that are very poor. They're must be better references than that. Is that all they need for a station to prove they exist? scope_creepTalk 11:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT:, they are notable, there no doubt about it and they are good wee articles. Slighly better refs would do it. Try your best. scope_creepTalk 19:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellmut Fleckseder moved to draftspace[edit]

Hello Scope creep, on September 16th you moved my article about Hellmut Fleckseder to my draftspace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hager_Irene#Hellmut_Fleckseder_moved_to_draftspace), stating that it is not suitable as written to remain published because it needs more citations. Could you please provide me with detailed information in which areas citations are still missing? I consider the article to have sufficient citations and it has already been reviewed and released once by user Olaf Kosinsky (on 20 August 2021, 13:44), as far as I could read as a B-calss article. Thank you for further, timely information. Hager Irene (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hager Irene: How goes it? Olaf Kosinsky was blocked for abusing the account. He managed to get into Afc and passed a whole bunch of articles that shouldn't have been in mainspaces. All of them are getting sent back to Afc when they're being independently reviwed. The article subject is only an associate professor and has only obit, instead of 2 which would be normal. I would suggest submitting the article and letting somebody look at it. It shouldn't take long. scope_creepTalk 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Scope creep: for the quick response. I'll do so! However, I am still some kind of a newbie and so I would like to ask what an obit is. Thanks again and best regards! Hager Irene (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hager Irene: An obituary. If you can find two obituaries, then the subject is likely to be automatically notable. scope_creepTalk 09:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ofer Strichman[edit]

Thanks @Scope creep: for your review of Ofer Strichman's article. Regarding the "research" section: I see your point that the sentences on the research are too close to his bio. I can rewrite them. But I'm not sure what you meant by "section shouldn't be here". Can you explain?--Adig-pt (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adig-pt: About two-thirds of it was copyvio. Copied from somewhere else. You can't copy stuff from somwhere unless it is public domain and marked as such with a tag. The NPP utility indicated it was copyvio and I tested it on earwig, that showed a good chunk of it copyvio, so it was removed. I can be put back, but rewritten in your words, not paraphrased or copied verbatim. scope_creepTalk 08:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adig-pt: Also the bit about patents, is not needed. They are not talked about on Wikipedia. And the bit about h-index, should be tag in ext links. He is either notable or he is not and he is. The selected patents sections needs to go. I actually missed. They are non-rs on Wikipedia. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 08:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Scope creep: for the fast and detailed answer. I'll work on it in the next week or so.--Adig-pt (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:22:11, 5 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bluepencil13[edit]


I've updated my News Literacy Project draft to take your suggestions into account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:News_Literacy_Project Bluepencil13 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bluepencil13 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bluepencil13: It much better, but you will need to reduce the Programs and Resources down to a single sentence. Things like Checkology is available at no charge to educators, That is close to advertising. The The Sift® I think the R sign is explicity not allowed on Wikipedia per policy. Somebody mentioned it years ago. Please remove them. It looks too much like a brochure. Wikipedia article are to inform and learn, not to sell. I can promoted to mainspace with a single sentence stating you offer virtual classrooms, a free email letter for educators and workshops. scope_creepTalk 09:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluepencil13: Keep at it. scope_creepTalk 14:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Article Abhishel Nigam[edit]

I want to make a new article about Abhishek nigam so delete the draft article Please Fan Unknown Devian Devjoshi (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fan Unknown Devian Devjoshi: Your article at draft was reviewed six times by six editors in good standing over four months, and everyone of them declined the article before I rejected. I urge you not to recreate it. Wikipedia is not a social media site, where you can create non-notable articles like this. There is a behavioural policy known as WP:NOTHERE, where editors can be blocked as they not here to build the encyclopaedia. So please, do not recreate it. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's October corner[edit]

October songs

Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I like the sentiment. I think the world really needs it at the moment. I think it would be a great spot for a wee picnic. scope_creepTalk 13:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, - and more pics if you click on songs. By chance - looking for material on Elizabeth Reiter whom I heard yesterday - I found a video (linked from my talk, look for Liz Reiter), a living room concert of the soprano from April 2020 when all opera houses were closed (and she was pregnant with twins): all love songs, and she saying that she felt just then the world needed more love. - Did you see who created the DYK article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Louis Alain. Yes. I'm assuming the editor will come back at some point. The short termist approach is killing Wikipedia. Removing these highly creative people is just destructive and disruptive. I'll take a look. Often, if you create wee seed article, Google creates a new knowledge graph for that subject and often sources that were difficult to find before, seem to be immediately available. It does take a bit of time. It does help for difficult and obscure articles. I did notice the Karl-Heinz Petzinka that is up for Dyk hasn't got a completed sentence in the lede. It just stops......... He converted historic industrial buildings, and was responsible for the scope_creepTalk 14:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last bit: when you see such a thing, please check edit history and remove the vandalism, - that's faster than copying it to here. (In this case, I did it already, two of them.) Tell me, why should LouisAlain return, to the unloving and unforgiving community a certain AN thread stands for? He now adds to the German Wikipedia. I wish him better luck there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really happy he is working there. That is a hard question to answer, probably as he was a net positive to Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia to a certain extent is run by fundamentalists who don't know or don't care about promulgating creativity and the people who are part of it. I see the most creative people removed and don't know what to do about it. I had to leave the thread because I was so angry, and would have been blocked myself. They level of stupidy exhibited on here, gets me down. Ultimately, it is question of alternatives. Years ago in corporate land, my manager told me, you can't leave because the job market was cold. It had all these cliques. It's the same here in a way. If there was alternative to Wikipedia today, I would be gone tomorrow. scope_creepTalk 15:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we do something together, perhaps, writing with the readers in mind? My plans are on my user page. Max Creutz, another translation by LouisAlain, was just approved for DYK. I'd never known about these creative people without him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be interested as you produce excellent high-quality articles. I will take a look at where I can help, where I can, but I'm still working on the Red Orchestra article that has about six months work left, at the moment and a Glagow University academic asked to get the Joseph Lister article done, which is quite big on its own. I really appreciate you asking me. Count me in. scope_creepTalk 15:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your dedication to such large projects! My planned and recent articles - mostly short - are on my user page, and just browsing for Germanisms would be helpful. Today, mostly black&white, and standing upright as Psalm 15 says. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help removing a title linkage (i.e. Ischemic fasciitis) to the Fasciitis page[edit]

Sorry to bother you again. The page Fasciitis, which merely lists the names of a few fasciitis disorders including Ischemic fasciitis, is evoked when a try to publish a new page termed Ischemic fasciitis. I tried to remove this linkage by deleting Ischemic fasciitis from the list of disorders but this did nothing to alter the linkage of Ischemic fasciitis to the Fasciitis page. Can you please help me remove this linkage so that I can publish the fasciitis page. Thank you. --joflaher (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher:, How goes it? I can assure you it is no bother at all. It is pleasure in fact. I will take a look at it now. scope_creepTalk 16:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: I'm not quite sure I understand you. Is your article called Ischemic fasciitis. If it is, then you can click on this red link Ischemic fasciitis and write into it. It will give you a blank page. scope_creepTalk 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep, when I tried to publish Ischemic fasciitis by putting in the title, I expected to get "Create page" but what I got was the Fasciitis page. I Followed you instructions and the page has been published. Again, Thank you, thank you --joflaher (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope_creep, there remains two small problems with the Ischemic fasciitis page: 1) when seeking this page, two Ischemic fasciitis choices come up, one correctly brings up Ischemic fasciitis the other brings up the Fasciitis page; and 2) the Fibroblastic and myofibroblastic tumors page's Ischemic fasciitis linkage brings up the Fasciitis page. How can I correct these two issues? Again, Thank you. --joflaher (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher There are two spellings, one with the ae diphthong and one without. The one with redirected (past tense) to the generic page. It now directs to the correct target. Visit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ischaemic_fasciitis&action=history and see how I have made that change. You will be able to do these things yourself now. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timetrent: Thank you for correcting the linkage on fibroblastic and myofibroblastic tumors. However, when I ask for the Ischemic fasciitis page, two pages come up, one to Ischemic fasciitis the other to Fasciitis. How can I correct this? --joflaher (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 review update[edit]

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:12:46, 10 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Noaghebreab[edit]



The draft submission for "Sennay Ghebreab" has been declined again. The reason this time: "H-index is not sufficiently, only two papers over a 100 citations. The entry in Aethiopica may be notable." This is mind boggling given the fact that Sennay Ghebreab is one of the few AI researchers that for over a decade have been warning that the focus on h-index to measure science impact is leading to unethical and non-inclusive AI science outcomes. In the last decade Sennay Ghebreab has been at the forfront of 1) promoting engaged AI scholarship, 2) interdisciplinary and inclusive approaches to AI technology development and education, 3) science communication and education. He has received national recognized for this by amongst other The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and has been named one of the 200 most influential persons in the Netherlands in 2020 (of which only 5 are black like Sennay). This makes the reason for declining the draft submission very questionable, certainly in light of the recent criticism toward Wikipedia for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage. Mind you that many scientist, including one of the most famous Dutch professors in science communication, have lower H-index and no papers with more than 100 citations. Yet they have a Wikipedia entry.

Noaghebreab (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Noaghebreab:. Yip, I see your point. I'm only now just back in. We are aware of it and trying to address it. I find it hard to judge if a academic is notable, usually I coun't the papers citation. Generally if they are involved or known in other areas, the notability criteria may be covered by WP:SIGCOV, not WP:NPROF and sigcov is generally easier to pass. I agree that h-index as a measure of notability is really poor. I read about it recently. I really only use it as a indication, not as an actual measure. Generally in borderline cases, or when I don't really know I ask for a second opinion; visit the talk page of User:David Eppstein, and leave a note. He is an academic and will tell you immediately if he is notable or not, from experience. scope_creepTalk 11:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Sennay Ghebreab, the publication record is too light (in a high-citation field) and the subject appears to have moved to non-research positions, so this looks like a case for WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF to me, if there is notability to be found at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reported your actions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Tips[edit]

Coming from here, I just want to offer a few tips, first of all, thank you for your work at anti spam / upe and also want to note that Phil Bridger is apt when they state that if a move is objected it shouldn’t be re-drafitified, it’s mentioned somewhere in WP:DRAFTIFY, tbh, that’s a mistake I too struggle with, having said, your works against possible undisclosed paid editing are very much appreciated. As someone who has been in your current predicament in the past, it took the advice of Beeblebrox , Ritchie333, Kudpung and a host of other editors to teach how to tackle unethical editing efficiently and with little to no confrontation. You see, regardless of what is being said at the ANI, when you optimize the {{UPE}} tag you aren’t wrong, it is in no way an accusation, it is a question & neither is it against policy if it were, it wouldn’t exist, anyone saying otherwise speaks that which is not true, on my UP I explain this with more detail, having said, if it is used frequently without a cogent concern it can be disruptive, generally speaking. To avoid the drama boards, there are other effective methods used when curbing unethical practices, for example, if it involves just one article, or perhaps two, then COIN does the trick. if you uncover a history of possible UPE by an editor who has been here for long, rather than use the UPE tag, just report them straight to WP:ANI, with relevant proof(s), honestly there isn’t any need discussing anything with them, if you have damning evidence that may lead to outing just report straight to ArbCOM. To be honest by doing the aforementioned you are skipping the drama. Infact, one of the most efficient manner of curbing upe as stated to me by Bradv some months ago is just by nominating shady looking articles out of mainspace and in due time they by themselves would quit altogether. Hang in there, insofar as your motives & intentions are clearly for the benefit of the collaborative project, you need not be fazed by drama boards. Just read what is being said, offer your explanation, answer questions directly meant for you (or when pinged) un-watch it if you have it on your watchlist and go about your business. Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Celestina007: That is unlifting. I've already taken the article off my watchlist. scope_creepTalk 23:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering both user:2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 and user:Bidoon have been blocked, the ANI case is moot. Celestina007 makes excellent points. Keep up the good work both of you so that I can rest easy in my semi-retirement and eventually not have to bother editing Wikipedia at all - the so called 'collaborative' project has become just too nasty and will remain so as long as IP editing is still allowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Borisovich Volkov[edit]

Hello. Please also pay attention to this information: «... part of the AnastasiaDate online dating chain»; «The dating.com group appears in the ICIJ offshore leaks database». The Dating Group includes not only this service, what's the point of specifying it? Regarding the second sentence, this information is insignificant in this article and raises great doubts. 2A00:1FA1:401C:72FA:D5D5:7434:8F38:901B (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially yip, but it is also a valid reference and that is the reason I left it. scope_creepTalk 14:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of this fact is absent in the article about Volkov, I mean the second sentence, which I indicated above. And regarding the indication of AnastasiaDate, there is no such information in the source. 2A00:1FA1:401C:72FA:D5D5:7434:8F38:901B (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask you to delete this information, since there are no authoritative sources for it. 2A00:1FA1:401C:72FA:D5D5:7434:8F38:901B (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translator list[edit]

Hey; thought you might be interested: WP:Translators available#French-to-English. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Excellent man. Got somebody in mind now. scope_creepTalk 22:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive[edit]

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 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Lister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archibald Primrose.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akoko[edit]

Hey Scope_creep. In the future, please don't draftify articles like you did here. If they are unsourced, you can tag them as {{unreferenced}}. That page was published since 2005, and generally you are only supposed to draftify if the page is a recent creation per WP:ATD-I. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MJL: Yip, I see it is a mainstream article, probably done in haste. I wouldn't normally move something like that, more than 5-6 months old, which is the length of the NPP queque. I found a couple of references, so it should be easily referenced. scope_creepTalk 19:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun[edit]

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Komet[edit]

Hello, I saw you have removed the references to discogs. I don't understand why, their entries most often are written based off details found within the physical CD. What source do you suggest I use instead? Obama gaming (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Obama gaming:. They are non-RS. Not a reliable source. They're are WP:SPS source and can't be used on Wikipedia. If you relying on that kind of source, essentially copied by people from one medium to another, then your really wide of the mark. scope_creepTalk 21:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rightio, cheers. Obama gaming (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt-in, but just a heads up @Obama gaming: and @Scope creep: Discogs CAN be used as a source actually; however, you have to directly link to the images of the release. And there must be something more than just artwork (credits, tracklisting, actual liner notes, etc.). Please see this discussion. Simply use the AV media template when doing so. Xanarki (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanarki:, @Obama gaming: That problem is it's ambigious and obscure, which leads to vast amount of unecessary work as most people ignore it anyway. They're is no method to determine what is the best approach, with the results that people use what they know. scope_creepTalk 17:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanarki:, @Obama gaming: It's also been flagged up by the Afc script meaning the RS folk don't want that as source. scope_creepTalk 17:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't know they had it as an automatic flag. I'll take a look around and see if anything can be done. Maybe they can add a script exception, if "/images" is in the cited Discogs URL. Or something similar to that. Since it'a technically the media itself being cited, and Discogs is just a host. Xanarki (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanarki:, @Scope creep: What do you suggest I do in order to avoid these issues in the future? Thank you for this information, it helps a lot, I am still learning. Obama gaming (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Obama gaming: This is just my opinion, but, you can source to Discogs so long as it's directly to the images that has useful content. Also, use it kind-of as a last resort. Search for another website that may have the liner notes/credits/times instead. If you really honestly can't find another source, then falling back on the pictures is okay because it'd be better than nothing at all. Xanarki (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanarki: Do you think music review websites/official website press releases are better? For example on The Perfect Cult many of the recording details were shared on an announcement on their official website, but things like graphic artist copyright were still listen on discogs. Appreciate it Obama gaming (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jillert Anema[edit]

Hello, Scope creep,

If an editor disagrees with you moving a page into Draft space, do not "move war" and move it back to Draft space a second time. Editors are allowed to disagree with draftifying and are encouraged to move articles back to main space rather than cut-and-pasting a second version of the article in main space. If you think an article is in bad shape, please nominate it at AFD or PROD the page rather than insisting that an article be in Draft space against the wishes of the page creator. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion of article Michellee Fox[edit]

Hi Scope Creep

I responded to your proposed deletion over at [[11]]. In the meantime, I will fix the stub issue. Thanks! Niente21 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Niente21: I would try over to WP:WIR. They are a good bunch and will try and save if they can. scope_creepTalk 17:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meris Šehović[edit]

I'm not sure where you're getting Restored to redirect by three independent editors.

  • It was created it in March.
  • Onel5969 BLAR'd it for referencing (not notability) issues three weeks later.
  • A different editor created a significantly different version a few weeks ago.
  • You BLAR'd it again, with your only edit summary being Redirect.

So that's one editor BLARing for referencing reasons, and one (you) restoring that redirect for unspecified reasons, not three restoring a preëxisting redirect for notability reasons.

Secondly, I don't know what about this is "completely non-notable" on its face. If you have an argument for why it's non-notable despite references to reliable sources and existing on two sister wikis, the place to make that is in your edit summary. Especially since, as noted, you appear to be the first reviewer to look at this article and conclude that it's not notable.

Furthermore, as a new pages reviewer you should know that NPRs have no special power to BLAR articles. You, a new page reviewer in good standing, made a judgment that it is not suitable as an article. I, also a new page reviewer in good standing, made a judgment that it might be, or at least that you'd provided no reason to BLAR it. Per BLAR, the appropriate next step is not to revert me (especially not with a line like "Don't revert"), but rather to discuss on talk or take the article to AfD.

I've reverted you. You are welcome to take one of those next steps if you'd like. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thanks for that, but I don't need a lesson in notability. It is always the references, in all cases for redirecting, or Afd or Prod. Always the referencing. Here they are chronically bad and the subject doesn't deserve an article. All you have done is give space to non-electable, never elected non-notable non-entity of a party member, who fails WP:NPOL, by a wide major. The Green has never been elected in their 45 year existance and top that the guy is the co-chair, meaning he is the junior member. scope_creepTalk 16:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All [I] have done is revert the unexplained and under-explained blankings of an article. I see the point you're making. It seems like a good point for an AfD to consider; it doesn't seem like strong grounds to blank and redirect. I note that the article has now been reviewed by Pichpich. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umswai Valley redirect[edit]

Why do you redirect the page?? It doesn't meet Wikipedia's format? Want to know... 117.237.249.79 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @117.237.249.79: The page can come back, if it is notable and you can prove it is notable. Each sentence needs a reference. It can't just be a block of text. It needs proper references and not something that has been written by somebody on their own. That is why I removed those references, one was a blog reference. It is was reviewed as part of WP:NPP. If you want revert the redirect and have a go at adding some valid sources. Please take a look at WP:REFB, which explains how to create them. scope_creepTalk 18:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Kildonan, Skye" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kildonan, Skye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 6#Kildonan, Skye until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URL[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you are placing the bare URL tag not appropriately, for instance here in the article of Jillert Anema; where you where you even replaced it after it was removed. Please become familiair what a bare URL is. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel B Garcia alvarez[edit]

I cannot understand why the article Manuel B Garcia Alvarez has been deleted. First, a 7-day period was set for adding new sources. It's only been 4 days and it's already been deleted, this is not serious. Secondly, the article contained sources from newspapers of worldwide importance such as: "El Pais" and "ABC" of Spain and "Izvestia" of Russia and others from newspapers of international importance such as "Diario de León" of Spain and "Komuna" of Russia. I have not had time to add more sources since they have deleted the article in breach of the 7-day deadline they had given me. Please give me an explanation of what has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morseo (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Hi @Morseo: Sorry I thought this was sent to Afd. It at draft here: Draft:Manuel B. García Álvarez. I requested it be moved to draft as it source dubious at best and don't prove he is notable. scope_creepTalk 12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that a professor of law who has written dozens of articles and books on constitutional law in Spanish, Russian, English, French and Italian, who has contributed to the creation of the Russian and Spanish institutions and has held positions in the Council of Europe and as an ombudsman is not an important subject? have you ever heard about Dialnet, the largest database of scientific articles in the Spanish language? https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=80397 https://manuelbgarciaalvarezvidaprofesional.home.blog/category/articulos-en-ingles/ have you ever heard about "Izvestia": https://iz.ru/news/343641 or "EL País"?: https://elpais.com/diario/1980/03/19/cultura/322268406_850215.html https://elpais.com/diario/1990/10/01/internacional/654735624_850215.html Do you think footballers are more important to wikipedia than scientists? Morseo (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Morseo: Don't put your name at the end of your signature. It is non-standard. I have seen several new editors doing that recently and it's likely to peeve people off. Regarding the article, I value scientists, artists, sculptures, poets, inventors, physicians, playwrights, authors much much higher than I do any sports people. I can assure you of that. The articles references doesn't accurately reflect the WP:NPROF notability guideline which is one most, if not thee most, easy notability guidelines to apply, you either meet it, or you dont. There is no halfway ground. I will help you get this article up to speed. The first thing you should do in the article, in create a bibliography section, listing the books he has written, the most important ones, and look for reviews of the books. That will help him pass WP:NAUTHOR. Do that first, give me a should. Two or better book reviews would pass him. I have not heard about dialnet. If he created it, please find a reference, put it in the article and I will check it. Find a reference for the position in the council of Europe, assuming it is established/important position, not a member or apparatchik. Any 2 or 3 book reviews combined with council of europe ref would move it out of draft today. I really hope that helps. I'm sure with the correct concomitant application of collaboration, the article will be out of draft today or tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 13:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Morseo: Are you planning to update the article? scope_creepTalk 11:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Morseo: How are you? I plan to try and fix this article next week at some point Draft:Manuel B. García Álvarez by finding two or three references to prove the man is notable. I think I'm going to work on it today, if your about and try and get it promoted today. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article, I added some new references and external links to the draft-Morseo (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) I have moved the article, I do not know if this is correct, if it is wrong, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morseo (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hogan DRV[edit]

Hi there, hope you had a good weekend and all is well. Since you helped review the Stephen Hogan page 2 months ago. Could you please comment on the DRV? Don't feel bad if you are also piling on. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insane Clown Posse[edit]

There is an interview here where they talk about being a part of hip hop. Sources discussing the group's music classify them under multiple genres, with hip hop being the most cited, followed by rap rock and a few others. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RockabillyRaccoon: Yip. I think your right. I think I was confusing the album cover with Jazmin Bean which I reviewed last night. It is the same purple colouring and body shape. I listened to the music on Spotify last night. It isn't hip hop, for sure. I don't know what is is. She was notable. scope_creepTalk 11:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian FC[edit]

Yes, I believe so. GiantSnowman 18:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

joflaher locked himself out of Wikipedia...Help, help, help me please[edit]

Scope crepe: I typically make Wikipedia edits though another computer. I am now working on my home computer in order to reach you. While editing Infantile digital fibromatosis just a bit ago, I held down some key too long, got a message, clicked on the wrong tag, and now cannot type anything into this other computer. I'm not sure what I did wrong but can you help me get back to my other computer. the email address for computer that I am now using is: 5oxoflaher@gmail.com Please rescue me...I may not be able to read you messages, but certainly can't answer them, through my normal work computer. Thank you. [User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: Have you tried turning it on an off first before we proceed to remote support. scope_creepTalk 22:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope Creep: I am away from my other computer and cannot turn it on and off. I also can't message you from that computer. I am using my other compputer to message you. What next and...thank you for all your help. User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
joflaher, trying to turn it on and off to see if that clear's the problems. Did you happen to see the message?
There could be a number of problems with it, including the disk, it could be the software itself, malware possibly, any number of things. Until you can get access to, to install remote support software, it is impossible to do anything. The best idea, is once you get access to it, try and turn it on and off and see if you see anything on the screen? How old is the computer? scope_creepTalk 22:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep; I will try turning the other (remote) computer on and off tomorrow when I am in front of it. The remote computer is a good one; not buts there. Unfortunately, I won't be able to message you from that computer unles on/off corrects the problem. Again, thank you for your help. User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 6:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Scope creep: I got someone to turn my remote on and then off. It worked. I am now typing you this through my remote computer. Thank you...What a relief.User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 6:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.11.97.87 (talk)

Caroline Henry[edit]

Hi Scope creep

Thanks for your contribution to the Caroline Henry article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Caroline_Henry

You mentioned that the material was "effectively unsourced". I felt the use of "effectively" implied some subjectivity to your view.

Can you please expand on your view? I've re-read into the sourcing of BLPs, and they seem appropriate to me?

Thanks, telephone-man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telephone man123 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Telephone man123: Just passing by on this page, so I took a quick look at the draft. IIRC a good rule of thumb is that there should be 3 references to independent, reliable, secondary sources. The best source I see is independent and reliable, but is a primary source. The Stafford community group refs may not be reliable (I'd have to check further). The rest of the refs look usable, at first glance, but wouldn't count toward notability. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Telephone man123: @Smallbones: Reference 1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7 is dead, 8 don't count towards notability in any manner. They are either primary, not about the subject i.e. website front pages, dead links or self-published sources that WP:SPS. The first block of reference should establish notability immediately. They're is simply nothing here to defines the lady as being notable. scope_creepTalk 14:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From The Signpost[edit]

SC,

I notice you were mentioned here: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/September_2021/Contents/USA_report Is there any chance you'd like to write something for The Signpost on a related topic? Please email me here if possible.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Ran Singh Nakai.

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

Does it perhaps not need a template to pull all the articles together.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 00:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top Chef Gotit[edit]

You say this album has been very successful, so it's very notable. But there's no evidence at all of its supposed success. I don't understand your statement. Richard3120 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: How goes it? What do you not understand about it? scope_creepTalk 23:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: scope_creepTalk 23:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't understand how you can say it's been very successful when the only evidence of notability that I can find is that it made no. 14 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart. I'd actually say it's been a very unsuccessful album. Every source currently in the article only says "this album was released, and the singles were also released". Richard3120 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the European charts and the Chinese charts? I would suggest you really need to globalize internally I think. scope_creepTalk 23:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What European charts and Chinese charts? I'm all for adding non-Billboard charts, but I can't find any evidence of these charts at all, there's nothing on Billboard's website or on a Google search – that's what I'm asking for, someone to add some evidence to the article to show notability. Richard3120 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: You really need to search out and ask. I would suggest asking at the reference desk for help. You really need to build intelligence on it. Google is great in the west, but non-existant in china. My poker mate, whose Chinese, recognised him. He has been seconded here for a wee while. He recognised him right away as they were leaving. But is a one off for this band ,off the cuff, what's really needed is a coordinated approach and i'm no longer fan type. scope_creepTalk 23:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not denying Lil Gotit himself is notable, he certainly is. But I can't find any notability for this particular album of his. And really, it's up to the person claiming that this album is notable to provide the proof, per WP:BURDEN. Richard3120 (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable as well. Very much an established star type, I guess. The album is notable. Just because you can't state it is notable in Europe or China, is not a execuse to delete it. You need to find tools that can give you that type of information. It is absurd saying is doesn't seem to be notable in the United States with 4% of the worlds population, having never checked the other 97%, that a lot of artists seems to use and like it. It is non-argument. I'm a technical type, I would discover how to overcome that hurdle. I actually don't like the fact, that I can't access that info right now, but WP:AGF applies at that level. scope_creepTalk 00:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood me, because to be honest, that is a very strange answer. I know Lil Gotit is notable, I am not questioning that. But it does not mean that all his albums are notable. And your suggestion is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works - you do not assume that an album is notable and tell other editors to go and find the information, it is your responsibility to find that information to show that the other editor is wrong. But I don't want to argue about this any more... I will wait to see if anyone adds some information that shows notability for the album, and if not, I will take it to AfD. By the way, I'm not American, so I don't think the USA is the only important place in the world. Richard3120 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Yip, I understand. This was a one-off. I took a look at your user page. I'm from Scotland. I think if you took it to Afd I wouldn't vote on it. I do think we need to crack this problem of non-access to info problem. You see it all the time at WP:NPP, even in cultural and historical articles, where the references can't be checked, in sports, celebs and pop folk as well, very recently. It seems to be the case you assume AGF on them, that leaves it open to abuse. I read yesterday that China is slowing closing itself off, not just the borders, but the great firewall is being upgraded, making it more difficult to find the facts, not only there but countries that are following China's lead. scope_creepTalk 13:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you that there is a problem that music articles are very centred on artists and records from North America and Europe, and sometimes you see articles from countries like Iran, or Estonia, or Indonesia go to AfD, simply because the nominator can't read the language or doesn't know where to find reliable sources from the country. But this is a much wider issue of access, that affects all articles, and it needs to be addressed at a higher level on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. I'm hoping they are aware of it. Personally I don't any site in China. scope_creepTalk 14:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Lokayukta[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Thanks for your time in reviewing this article and sharing your feedback. It is a statutory level Parliamentary ombudsman for each state in India. Also to inform you that the article has been moved to main space after being reviewed. An article Lokayukta for National Level in India has qualified as per wiki standards and is available. Kindly guide me to take it to main space. Gardenkur (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: How goes it? What article was it, your wanting help on, exactly? scope_creepTalk 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Book ref URLs[edit]

Hi Scope creep Just so I understand the issue in relation to my own editing elsewhere can you explain the rationale behind this change, bearing in mind that they both (I think) produce the same result. Cheers. Davidships (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships: At the time I didn't understand what the citation bot did. I've reverted the changes there. scope_creepTalk 14:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sc. I believe that gobbledy-gook is invented by Google and encodes the search route and other stuff that they want for their own tracking purposes. Davidships (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Reviews[edit]

Assam Lokayukta[edit]

Hi Scope creep. I had improved article with more references and content as suggested by you to make it suitable for main space. Kindly review and guide accordingly. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gardenkur: I'll take a look at it when I can. scope_creepTalk 13:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason?[edit]

Umswai Valley article is not suitable to be in Wikipedia?? Why is it redirected?? Olphindro Malang (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Olphindro Malang: It was rejected at Afc as it was not sourced correctly and still not source correctly, I don't know, more than a month. scope_creepTalk 17:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If possible please delete Umswai Valley article[edit]

I'll try hard to find more reliable sources later. Please delete it Sobai Naphlang (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sobai Naphlang: Articles don't have any right to be in mainspace, if they're not correctly sourced. scope_creepTalk 17:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why delete it Sobai Naphlang (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar[edit]

The Islamic Barnstar Award
fer great effort in Early Caliphate navy Ahendra (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ahendra: That's grand. scope_creepTalk 22:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Krauss[edit]

@Scope creep:, what was the purpose of this edit? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lotje: They are christian symbols that the Germany Wikipedia uses quite extensively, but they are not used on here. When I do a translation I used to put them in, if they were on the German article, as they indication the person was Christian. As it was mostly German resistance fighters, who invariably were shot or hung after being caught by the Nazis, I sawit as a kind of memorial on my part. But they are definently not allowed per policy on this Wikipedia, unfortunately. Hope that helps!! scope_creepTalk 12:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lotje: What do you think of Annie Krauss yourself. She owned a huge paint supplier, yet was a clairvoyant. She used to use here powers to squeeze information out her customers. It shows you the depths that people go to, to satisfy a need. I could have wrote reams on here, as she was very interesting. scope_creepTalk 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what to think (as yet) but... thanks. Lotje (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: I had to take that image off. That is a Gestapo picture. Can't have that on there. That is her after interrogation. There is a whole load of these images take up, because they are public domain, but they can't be used. scope_creepTalk 12:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The photo came from the archives of Igor Bondarenko (Q1528007) :-) Lotje (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: That is not really a factor, I don't think. A historian I used to work with, sent me some Gestapo photographs about 2.5-3 years ago, and they shocked me to the core. I really wasn't prepared for them and had to sent them back. I think he was wanting me to know, that these were real people, it wasn't just some intellectual exercise of writing an article, and moving on. These images are either immediately taken after they were interrogated, or immediately before they were executed. In every one of them, the individual looks gubbed. It was only when I was told about it, that I noticed. They is a whole series of them and they are unsuitable for Wikipedia. I've replaced all of the Red Orchestra folks images, for example Harro Schulze-Boysen or Libertas Schulze-Boysen (still getting worked on). They are really unsuitable for inclusion. scope_creepTalk 13:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for that ill link. @Lotje:. At the bottom of the Harro Schulze-Boysen there is a template that links all the biographies. There is an article here: Leopold Trepper which is also has a template which links them. Any help there is appreciated, particularly those ill links. They are really handy. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this might be helpful... Luba Trepper was his wife Lotje (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Yip, she travelled as Sarah Orschitzer amongst other names, and as the CIA didn't have her real name, so they used here alias in [12]] p.318 as Sarah Orschitzer.There is enough for a wee article. She is mentioned in several placed in Wikipedia, so that would tie that up. She could be added to the template as well. Are you up for doing it? There is an image available as well. scope_creepTalk 16:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guess this is one of the images you mean? Cheers Lotje (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to have the names in alphabetical order by last name? I would be more then happy to do so Lotje (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that image, but I'm glad you found that one. Geez that's been there for three years, never knew. The one I was thinking about was when she presented herself as a character witness, to help her husband move from Poland to Isreal. But unfortunately it is of an archive site which charges. There will be more, when she was much younger. If not, we can use this one. It is ideal. Its great you found that. I've changed the Trepper article, to Luba and moved the Sarah Orschitzer as an alias, further up the sentence. Orschitzer may have been her family name, but not sure. Are you talk about the Template names? They are in order of importance and/or use. scope_creepTalk 16:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Good Morning. It's been two years already. It doesn't seem that long. scope_creepTalk 10:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move warring[edit]

Please do not engage in a move war when draftifying articles, as you did with 2021 Open Araba en Femenino – Singles. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, if you still believe an article should not be in mainspace, the next step is to list it at WP:AFD, not to engage in a WP:MOVEWAR. Iffy★Chat -- 10:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy: Fair enough but no. The question of why not list it at Afd is an execuse to create articles without references and that is now an unacceptable view . This is going on for 2022, not 2005 or even 2010, when it was largly acceptable. It is the view of WP:NPP that an article needs to be sourced if it is in mainspace. There is no need for half completed articles to be there when there is both offline draft and sandboxes available that can be used to complete it. Use one of them to do. If you can't references for it, then there is no need for article to be in mainspace. It can sit in draft until it is referenced correctly. scope_creepTalk 10:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification for Draft:Enock "Nox" Guni Zimbabwean Urban Grooves Artiste improvements[edit]

Good day, would like to notify you that i did some work on an article that you moved to draft, it was a disaster but i worked on it, arranged it in proper Wiki format, you can do more on it if you like.Draft:Nox Guni Gwatakwata (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gwatakwata: Yip that looks better better structured. But, please take a look at WP:REFB and provide proper full. references instead of bare urls. These urls only have 6-16 week lifespan and after a couple of year become very difficult to identify. Give me a shout when your finished and I will mainspace it. scope_creepTalk 11:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I have filled bare references, thank you.Gwatakwata (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwatakwata: You will need to resubmit it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 12:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Oh yes i submitted it, thank you.Gwatakwata (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive[edit]

The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia   
For reviewing more than 500 articles during the backlog drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 646 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Brinker[edit]

Your latest reversion does not have an explanation, despite me explaining my reasoning in the edit prior. As I don't want to violate the three-revert rule, please restore and nominate the article for deletion if you feel strongly about this. Thanks. NemesisAT (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NemesisAT: Can you stop edit warring to restore that redirect. There was a prod on the article and it was deleted and nobody contested it. You also seem to be following me around, while not illegal it is unethical and dodgy to the extreme. Removing prods all the time, without a good reason and not even leaving a rationale isn't cool. Your severely peeving me off. There is only really one outcome of these strong inclusionist tendencies you seem have, and that is visit to AN. There is strong consensus up there, Arbcom has a good understanding of the problem now as well. Dude, if had left a proper rationale on the article and explained it, but they are ISP's. They are one of the most common companies in the world. The Victory Brinker article was already prodded. You didn't even check that. Anybody who suggests to me to take it to Afd, after removing the prod on a crap article is going to AN. scope_creepTalk 14:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Victory Brinker, another editor PRODed it on 21 September 2021 and I subsequently contested it. Today the article was redirected by Onel5969. This showed up in my watchlist and I challenged the revert. You then came in after and reverted me twice, the first time claiming the PROD wasn't contested (it was, by me), and the second time without an explanation). I don't feel I'm edit warring here.
Concerning me "following you around", I'm not. I use User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. Today, between 13:50 and 14:04 I contested four PRODs, two of them placed by yourself and two by other users. Following that, you reverted my edit to Victory Brinker at 14:03, nominated Interlake Maritime Services (which you had never edited before) for deletion at 14:05, got involved at Talk:Edinburgh at 14:12 and moved an article I created to draft at 14:15. This evidence speaks for itself, I contested two PRODS during a routine review of a log, and you made four retaliatory edits against me within 15 minutes.
Removing prods all the time, without a good reason and not even leaving a rationale isn't cool. I generally do leave a rationale when contesting a PROD, though note that per WP:PROD, I am not required to do so.
Dude, if had left a proper rationale on the article and explained it, but they are ISP's. They are one of the most common companies in the world. This sentence doesn't make sense sorry I think you've made a typo.
There is only really one outcome of these strong inclusionist tendencies you seem have, and that is visit to AN. There is strong consensus up there, Arbcom has a good understanding of the problem now as well. Empty threats aren't cool either. I'm still confused as to what I've done wrong. Anybody who suggested to me to take it to Afd after removing the prod on a crap article is going to AN. Why? That's the whole point of PROD. Easy to PROD, easy to remove a PROD. Another vague threat, but I don't believe contesting a PROD is breaking any rule. NemesisAT (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Why are you deprodding articles in the first place? scope_creepTalk 15:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I feel they already pass guidelines, or could pass them with some improvement. Sometimes its an old article with a lot of content or a lot of contributions, and I feel it should go through the deletions process so more eyes are on it and there is more time for people to find sources. Now could you please address the contents of my message above? NemesisAT (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: You are not a reviewer in NPP or APC, you don't write large articles that are well referenced, and your judgement doesnt seem to be particularly sound when your deprodding these articles that have been reviewed by experienced NPP/AFC editors, who found them to be junk. So why are you doing it? Why are you using a script to find articles to deprod, which itself is breaking the consensus for the design of the guidelines. You don't even leave a rationale. scope_creepTalk 15:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Please try and up your judgement, as the way it is going at the moment I am going to report you.I will see what happen's after Christmas. scope_creepTalk 15:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I left a summary on all three of my edits to Victory Brinker. Your first summary, Restore. prod wasn't contested, was false, and the second, Restore., did not provide any reasoning at all.
If you're going to take this to WP:AN then please do so, otherwise please stop making accusations. Especially as you never addressed my comment above. NemesisAT (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: What was your comment? scope_creepTalk 15:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The one that reads "Regarding Victory Brinker, another editor..." NemesisAT (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Simply put, that editor is a page reviewer and writes large articles over a sustained period, so has a excellent judgement on what constitutes notability. They have been reviewing for donkey's. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an adequate answer to be honest. Regardless, if you're not going to raise this at WP:AN could you please repeat here what you were going to write? You've accused me of various things so I'd like a specific answer on what I'm doing wrong and what rules I'm breaking. Thanks. NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Your not breaking any rules, but that doesn't make it right. The prod mechanism was created about 2006-2007 and it has been updated continuosly but it's mostly the same. It has made very easy to remove the tag, but the other side of the coin, you have some idea of what your doing and a rationale behind it. You don't seem to be. Articles with a lot of content or a lot of contribtions are really nothing to do with it. It is the quality of the references that count and whether they indicate that it is notable. Structure only comes into when it is well referenced and is notable. You get lots of article that are paid that have 10's of editor to 100's of editor putting their wee bit in. I really don't trust your judgement, or think you know what your talking about. unless it is celebrity stuff or the companues, which I guess it is the reason you went for these prods, and the reason I'm trying to delete them. Victory Brinker doesn't have existance outside the show, no coverage. scope_creepTalk 16:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like my reasoning or rationales, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR, you should not have redirected the article again. You should have discussed, or nominated for deletion. You threatened to take me to AN because I asked you to take something to AfD, yet that's literally one of the options WP:BLAR says to pursue. NemesisAT (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the guidelines, but that is also the same line from that inclusionist group WP:ARS members used to take, that was up at AN, several weeks ago and that you voted on first. I wouldn't mind your reasoning if was balanced and rational but is not. scope_creepTalk 16:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read those guidelines, why didn't you follow them? Instead, you reverted my edit without explanation. And now you're questioning my reasoning? NemesisAT (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to argue any more. Just please stop making accusations against me and don't threaten me with ANI or arbcom. NemesisAT (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't told me yet why you think those are notable? Tell me that. scope_creepTalk 17:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Since this insn't an Afd, please tell me why you think they are notable enough not to be prodded, as there is no assumption they should automatically go Afd, since I may be wrong. Why do you think they are notable enough not to be prodded. scope_creepTalk 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote in the history "add ref, decline PROD. Has had more than one appearance on different programs, so I feel she may be notable". I'm sorry, I don't need to provide any more reasoning than that. What "line" where you referring to in your comment at 16:51? NemesisAT (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I thought. From now, don't post any more comments to this talk page, ever. scope_creepTalk 19:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NemesisAT (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyment of this project[edit]

Hello Scope Creep, You do so much great work for this encyclopedia. Thank you.

It is sad to see the frustration in some of your writings recently, so it seems like some folks are getting you down. I don't have any specific advice to offer (you would have a much better idea than me of what to do), but I just hope that you can spend your time here doing things that give you satisfaction.

All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Thanks very much. That is heartwarning. I'm going to concentrate on the two articles series i'm working on and get away from these folk. scope_creepTalk 16:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. I'm so glad to hear that you're planning to focus on a happier part of the project. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JK Llamera ‎[edit]

Can you please not just randomly strike comments as you did there. WP:SOCKSTRIKE only applies if the author is a sock, which I am rather obviously not, the fact that the originating IP is an open proxy is irrelevant as per policy: While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. Yes due to the app I'm using my IP is currently hopping randomly all over eastern europe, yes some of those probably are proxies, I have absolutely no control over this but I never cast more than 1 !vote, and my style is painfully obvious. Bottom line this app is fast, it's free, and I don't feel like taking 15-30 minutes to test out a few dozen other ones to find one that's better. Granted there's nothing stopping LTAs from also using the app, but english monoglots will be completely unable to use it and it may well not even be available in the countries that have the majority of editors. Don't get me wrong it's not like eastern europe has any shortage of LTAs some of whom do not like me, but the density is lower. And given that like me they would have almost a hundred other apps to choose from the odds are against any issues occurring.

Incidentally I'm still not seeing any WP:DMFD reason to delete, as Liz pointed out there's about two to three dozen unsourced blps dumped into draftspace on any given day, mostly self-promo junk, but g13 handles that without wasting everyone's time. MFD is actually terrible idea in these cases because the draft will get more views in those 7 days than it would otherwise get in 6 months (cf. Streissand effect); further we allow unsourced blps to go 7 days in mainspace where they are actually indexed and can be found through searches. To the extent unsourced bios are a probelem, and I'm not convinced that self-promo autobios that 1 edit users place in drafts or on their userpage really are, community efforts should be focused on Category:All BLP articles lacking sources which as of this writing includes over 90,000 articles with a backlog going back years, those are indexed and can potentially do real harm. If the bio is unsourced and negative speedy it as a g10, if not, we can safely ignore it along with all the other draftspace junk.

If you're really insistent I can actually ping an SPI clerk here who is familiar with my MO, and will confirm my statements, obviously I can't stop you from filing an SPI but there's still enough people around who recognise me that there's a fair chance you'll be laughed out of the room. And no I am not creating an account regardless of how many problems it would solve, meatball:LoginsAreEvil. Regards, 188.232.146.110 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but why not create an account, like any other normal person if you have access to the page? Regarding that LoginAreEvil page, it is total bullshit of the lowest kind, for a number of reasons. It makes zero sense. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your still seen as blocked on the Mfd and the closing admin will ignore your statement. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't happen super often, but it does happen, the mfd regulars have probably seen it often enough where they will shrug and move on, it's all about strength of argument anyway, and I try to ground my !votes thoroughly in the PAGs as !votes from IPs tend to be ignored otherwise anyway. I disagree the page is BS, but hey you can change it, meatball is also a wiki, just don't be surprised if you get reverted by the community members there. If you want some other reasons stored locally, WP:WNCAA while tagged humourous has a solid arguement, User:69.145.123.171/registering is also worth reading even all these years later. Regards, 188.232.146.110 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unsourced BLP and seems to be worthless as an article and will be deleted, in due course. I will not be editing anything that called Meatball, humorous or otherwise. You haven't answered my question, why not create and account? scope_creepTalk 16:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We both agree it is worthless and will never become an article, but WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity and WP:RAGPICKING is a waste of time. The difference is I prefer these be quietly deleted through g13, and supporting deletion in those mfds only encourages more of them while dramatically increasing the number of pageviews the drafts will receive over their lifetime. The additionally 20-40 daily draft mfds would also overwhelm mfd. If the someone is really dead set against these, and it is a tricky issue because draftspace is supposed to be a place to safely develop topics away from the normal notability standards (in theory anyway, in practice it's mostly a holding area for junk until g13 automatically cleans it away, but it reduces the time that would otherwise be needed to afd/prod/csd the stuff in mainspace, see also WP:DUD) then they should go to WT:CSD and get consensus for a new one to enable quiet deletion to take place without taking up any community time the way mfds do.
In fact essentially everything that is brought to mfd is going to be deleted eventually, it's just preferable that g13 be used so mfd can focus on the rare cases outlined in WP:NMFD where a discussion is actually necessary rather then being flooded with crap that could just as easily have been ignored and deleted per g13. The silliest noms are the ones that take place less than a week prior to when the draft would've otherwise been g13 eligible, no matter what deletion ends up delayed.
I think it's best if we just agree to disagree on registering for now. At present I really only have time to edit between some other tasks, and I should really commit to a wikibreak anyway, maybe in a few months when I'm less busy a random IP will pop back onto your talk page to explore the issue in further detail. Regards, 188.232.146.110 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, yip, that seems sensible. I've heard folk complain to Mfd about using it that way. It seems to be the way for some reason, for some articles. If you are coming back, create an account will you. That way, folk can see you, you can become part of the firmament and we can send you thanks and whatnot. You seem to know the guidelines backwards, so your an definently an asset to Wikipedia, unless there is a specific reason your not doing it, of course. scope_creepTalk 17:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Claure[edit]

Hi, I wanted to ask the reason behind reverting some of the edits made to Marcelo Claure, as these edits have been agreed on the article's talk page, and you ignored my proposal of discussing this issue there. Thanks, AtomsRavelAz talk 17:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a BLP, not a company article. scope_creepTalk 17:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AtomsRavelAz: Your name has come up at Coin and the article seems to be expanding and expanding with more business information. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Thanks for letting me know, could you please provide me with the link. I did state on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard that I was paid for some of my contributions, but not for the majority of them. Frankly, like I said before, I kept postponing it because I assumed it would be a very time consuming matter which I somewhat dreaded, but now that the issue has finally caught up with me I'm more than willing to defend myself if necessary, and act in accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. AtomsRavelAz talk 18:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AtomsRavelAz: I see it is controversies section your looking to add. So your being paid? Where is your paid disclosure on the your user page. I notice there is 13 mention of the word Britghtstar in a relatively short BLP article, that worries somewhat re: the NLP crowd. If you are paid, you should make a edit request per WP:EDITREQ, which is the standard way a coi edit's an article, on the talk, not by 6k to 30k article. The article being relatively short for successful businessman, doesn't mean that more than 80% of the content needs descriptions of the companies. A person's life is more than his work, obviously. So it needs to be slimmed, by quite a bit. The brightstar stuff is covered in its own article. It doesn't need any extraneous information on it, if it has its own article. Make a declaration will you, otherwise I will need to try and get you blocked, for breaking Wikipedia Terms of Use. scope_creepTalk 18:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Ok, thanks a lot. I'll make all the necessary arrangements. I'm not looking to cause trouble for anyone, I'd really appreciate if you could comment on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paid work discovery, where someone pointed out my paid contributions. Like I said, I hadn't gotten to it because I believed it would be a time consuming matter which was going to stress me out. Let me know if there is anything else I should do, I'm willing to collaborate 100%. Thanks, AtomsRavelAz talk 18:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @AtomsRavelAz: I found out this morning that your weren't informed of your entry up at Coin. That was a bit crass by the posting editor. It is not normal practice. Sorry about springing it on you. scope_creepTalk 12:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Yes, the whole thing seemed kind of odd, I really want to assume good faith and move on, but there's a paranoid side of me that thinks there was some sort of agenda pushing against my person, especially if you take into consideration that that user has no previous contributions, no talk page, no user page, and then all of a sudden they go on an editing frenzy of all of the articles I declared being paid for, he added this template that says "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view" when even himself said at COIN that "your articles are well-written and neutral so no action required", so if they are well written and neutral why is he still adding the template to all of them?, especially when you consider that Wikipedia:CONFLICT states that "There are three venues to do this" and not that all three venues are mandatory, and I had already disclosed my paid contributions on my user page. His account was created on December 17 of this year, how is he so familiarized with Wikipedia's jargon and technicalities in such a short time?, either he is remarkably savvy or there is something else going on of which I have not been informed. AtomsRavelAz talk 13:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Scope creep![edit]

Jujiang (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@Jujiang: Merry Christmas. scope_creepTalk 10:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luckin Coffee on COIN[edit]

The discussion got hostile very quickly, so I am checking out. Do you think it warrants an SPI? Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: They are two UPE's and the IP is probably related to one of them. Yip. That got ugly quickly. Smoke and mirrors, what they used to called FUD, trying to get fear, uncetainty and doubt going to obfuscate the issue. scope_creepTalk 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of them claimed to be the IP and actually very early in the responses. Since my post to your talk page, there was rev-del for copyright. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: Yip, I noticed that. They are UPE's. I've no doubt about it. Just need to convince an coin admin to block them. It is clear as day, and all obsfucation is just part of the playbook. scope_creepTalk 17:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Everlasting Fireworks looped
Everlasting Fireworks looped
 Bring on the cheer!

Hi Scope creep, May you have a bright and beautiful holiday season. Thank you for all your work on the encyclopedia.
Have a happy and healthy 2022!

Netherzone (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you too. @Netherzone: scope_creepTalk 21:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your contribution to ANI[edit]

Thankyou for your contribution to ANI. I have been doing these edits to try and bring article leads into compliance with the Wikipedia manual of style guidelines that says use William Henry Gates not William Henry "Bill" Gates. I thought I was making sure that I was not stepping into religious figure ones when I came across them. I can think of at least 2 religious figures that I saw similar issues with and made sure to move on. With articles that have a religious figure title in parentheses, I only click on them because of wanting the whole birth year category to go from blue to purple so I can easily tell I have gone through all articles, and click back off before I even see anything. I guess I was so focused on making the changes in these cases that I got careless and did not check to make sure they were in no way a religious leader, broadly construed. I am very sorry about this. I was not at all trying to evade the topic ban. The other 2 were the fact that if we have a name given as say J. Edgar Hoover we in the opening say John Edgar Hoover and do not further than that explain the common name form. That was the issue involved in the second edit, if you look at J. Edgar Hoover] you will see we just give his name, and do not bother further saying in the lead he was commonly known as J. Edgar Hoover, because it is the article title. That is the issue involved in the second case, and it had no relevance to who the person was, so I unwisely and rashly did not even both trying to figure out, which I am sincerely sorry for. In the last case it is standard practice to put (1915-1996) or whatever exact years someone lived in parentheses after the name. In that case I saw that the person was a state legislator, and I knew their birth date because of the category, and quickly saw the death date in the categories as well. I probably quickly glanced through the article to ensure that the birth and death years were in the article, but I failed to read it in detail because the lead only said they were a member of the a state legislature and all the categories identified them as a politician, or were bare bio facts categories, there were no categories that at all related to religion. In the imposing of the topic ban in part it said 'There was some concern that such a topic ban would be over-reaching, which was addressed with one comment "This should be apparent from categories, and if John finds out a topic he thought had no religious involvement is not religiously involved, he could play it very safe and revert his edits."' All 3 of these were rushed edits focused on very specific things. I am very sorry that I did them, and will try my hardest to not do them in the future. The only one that involved ever looking beyond the very opening name, into any actual content was the state legislator, and that is what is emphasized both by categories and by the lead. Well, I should say that is all about the person that is included in categories or the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you think posting this full explantion to ANI will help, maybe only going to before the sentence stanrting "In the imposing of the"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it that people can use a word like "abuser" with impunity to describe my actions in this case?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Johnpacklambert: I'm not sure, but I think if you keep on the same editing pattern, you are likely to get permanently blocked. They folk at AN will lose patience, eventually. scope_creepTalk 21:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello Scope creep: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas Scope creep

Hi Scope creep, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and healthy New Year,
Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,
   –Davey2010Talk 17:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Share similar holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Davey2010/MerryChristmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

Manuel B. García Álvarez[edit]

Sorry for the inconvenience. The message was about the article on Manuel B Garcia Alvarez. I updated the article, I added some new references and external links to the draft-Morseo (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) I have moved the article, I do not know if this is correct, if it is wrong, please let me know and i will erase it. Merry Christmas! Morseo (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC) @Morseo: Merry Christmas. I hope you have a great New Year. scope_creepTalk 11:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pfizer and the British Medical Journal[edit]

Are you saying that the BMJ is junk? @Klimt.1980: No the BMJ isn't junk, it speaks truth and is a high-end academic source, but the site your quoting is putting a spin on it, which is incorrect and asserts a Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. That site is absolute junk. Also, that article is read by millions of people, and dumping a bare url in the wrong area isn't cool. I will post a welcome message, so you can learn to edit correctly but don't post that link again, please. Also please don't write on the user page. Only talk page please. scope_creepTalk 12:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about article[edit]

Hi User:Scope creep

I hope you're doing well! I wrote a Wikipedia article about Tony Coles in the past and it was nominated for deletion, and soon later, deleted because it failed “WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.”

It seems that based off what you had taught me in that experience about WP:SIGCOV and WP:MOS, this article on Vladimir Torchilin has some similar issues. Can you take a look at the article and tell me your thoughts on it? I feel like this article is lacking in WP:BIO and WP:NOTE, as well as WP:SIGCOV and WP:MOS; and based off what you had explained to me in our previous experience, should potentially be nominated deletion (or if possible, completely rewritten with secondary sources). --RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RealPharmer3: How goes it. It is a slightly different case. Completely rewritten with secondary sources. Looking at Google Scholar [13], he passes WP:NPROF. He is a very intelligent and sucessful academic. It is very hard to find Russian sources, due to the language and translation problems. I see what you mean by lack of sources and it sure needs rewritten. It will be very hard going. I think that is reason the way it looks. Its been taken directly off the CV, as its the easiest way. I will put it on my todo list. Any help on it is appreciated. I will try and get the Russian Wikiproject going on it, if there is one. There is one. Cool. That will make it easier. Thanks for posting it up. Merry Christmas. I hope you have a great 2022. scope_creepTalk 11:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep: Oh alright, sounds good to me. I'm happy to get involved in rewriting it! Just getting a hold of some good sources would be beneficial. Let's stay in touch, and we can make some solid strides with the article! Have a wonderful holiday! --RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the morning to you[edit]

I don't know if you celebrate Christmas, but I have a gift for you. If you liked Luckin Coffee you will probably love Deluxe Corporation. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: No way. Another one. Merry Christmas. scope_creepTalk 11:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Hi Scope Creep. Merry Christmas to you and your family also. Best regards - Neils51 (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reproductive History of Black Women (December 26)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Scope creep! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022 Women in Red[edit]

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFA 2021 Completed[edit]

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year!
Hello Scope creep:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
@CAPTAIN RAJU: I didn't. Thanks. Happy New Year!! scope_creepTalk 13:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Scope creep![edit]

Happy New Year!

Scope creep,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Abishe: I hope you have great new year in 2022. scope_creepTalk 13:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Low-priority) Update related to Raviv Zoller AfD[edit]

Howdy! I updated your AfD nom with this diff [14] to change from the red-linked WP:BLPRIMARY to WP:BLPPRIMARY. I just figured I'd give you a message explaining the change. All the best. Happy new years! snood1205 15:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Snood1205: I hope you have a great year in 2022. scope_creepTalk 16:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

Please add the article to the discussion page, it would not be correct to delete the article without discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rza_Talibov --37.26.33.244 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all happy new year Scope creep. Secondly, feel free to ignore the IP editor, they are 99.9% the paid sockpuppet abuser who created the article in the first place. - Kevo327 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kevo327: Yip, they have been blocked, so need to worry. scope_creepTalk 00:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Scope creep![edit]

Happy New Year!

Scope creep,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010Talk 00:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year @Davey2010:. I hope its much better than 2021. scope_creepTalk 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scope_creep/Archive_10&oldid=1107718756"