User talk:Scope creep/Archive 11

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

Question about article[edit]

Hi User:Scope creep! I hope you had a great holiday season! I wanted to follow up to see if you were able to make any leads on the Vladimir Torchilin article or were able to find any sources on him? If we can get some solid sources, i would love to start reading and extracting information on him to get the article in better shape! --RealPharmer3 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @RealPharmer3:, I completely forgot about it, didn't I, what with the holidays and other articles I am working on. Now its been posted again I'll have a go. It's funny, when I archived this talk page this morning, I was looking at it, and thought there was something I missed before Christmas but couldn't figure it out. Funny thing that. We will start it tommorrow, and have a go working through to the weekend, see what can be done. It's a relatively small article and shouldn't take too long. scope_creepTalk 22:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries @Scope creep: ! Hope you had fun over the holidays! haha.. I think that sounds like a good plan! I'll look for some sources in the mean time as well. If you get word on any information/sources, feel free to keep me in the loop! Also, if there are any specific things I can do to help, please let me know! I'd love to learn some things from an experienced editor like yourself! --RealPharmer3 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kleiner König Kalle Wirsch[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

it's a long time You inserted the unreferenced tag to the lemma. Why? There are no links to (nearly) anything, as the series is an old series of German Television. At that time, there was no internet with links. But there are several ISBN numbers which can be verified. So: Whats the problem with the sources?

Asks Harald wehner (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Harald wehner: They're is no sources on the article. That message has been on for more than a year and not been updated, so it will be redirected. scope_creepTalk 09:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What would be "acceptable sources"? And the long time: I am no regular contributor to English Wiki. So i am very seldom locked on. Harald wehner (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Harald wehner: A couple of references would do it. Any book reviews of the book would do it. An interview with author discussing the books would be ideal. This is an example : [1]. That would make a reference. I've added it in. scope_creepTalk 11:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Harald wehner: Reviews of the book are most valuable as sources, but these types of refs as replacements. There is more there. It really really an article on Tilde Michels as well. She wrote a lot of books of that type. scope_creepTalk 11:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Hello. Any chance you could drop me an email to smartsewiki@gmail.com? It's about an editor you suspected of UPE and where from a quick glance I am also suspicious, but it would be good to compare notes. SmartSE (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice from the ping that I was referring to ScepticalChymist and that after more digging my suspicions were well-founded. They seem to be highly professional though, so I don't want to disclose publicly what was suspicious. SmartSE (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Smartse:, I will send you an email now. It was a while ago though. scope_creepTalk 18:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Smartse: I sent that email as request. Hope it helps. scope_creepTalk 19:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in friendship[edit]

January songs
in friendship

Thank you for being around, and your good wishes! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gerda Arendt: Happy New Year!! I was out a walk today through this forest on a hill, in a country park, in in the west of Scotland and it was exactly like the image. The sky was so clear and such a beautiful day. scope_creepTalk 18:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, that sounds lovely - much warmer where I'm now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt:. Living Billers's life is unimaginable. Good articles. scope_creepTalk 00:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
February songs
frozen
Today is a feast day for which Bach wrote several cantatas including Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, which was on DYK 10 years ago and TFA 4 years ago. I'm less happy that Biller stayed on the MP not even for a full day. It would have been so meaningful today, with the man in the cantata saying he can depart in joy and peace. - The February pic was taken in memory last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like my talk today (keeping Biller a bit longer, and even explaining how it works), and managed to picture two more vacation days --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: It is quite a visually strong talk page unlike few on Wikipedia. It's the flower image in the centre that I tend to look at mostly. Its the colour's, they are vibrant and profoundly beautiful. I listened to Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125 last night. It's a bit early for my taste. I was brought up with classical music, but the music was melodic and different from what thought Bach was. Douglas Hofstadter states that colour and music are linked somehow. I just noticed that fly animation on your deskop:) I see the link. scope_creepTalk 19:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the beauty comes from friends, like the flowers from El C I kept from 2021. The fly (Die Fliege) was given to me/all by nagualdesign, given first to a friend we both miss, then expanded, - feel free to add. I feel blessed by all these gifts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I decorated my talk with a Bach cantata. I heard it last year when missing RexxS began, and "not letting go" was a theme. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gerda Arendt:. Afternoon. You made the main page again. That was lucky! Is it an algorithm that selects it, or did you ask the mainpage controller. That is another beautifully written article. I'll listen to it, tonight. scope_creepTalk 17:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! - this time, the delegate asked if I agreed with his selection, - for the next (25 March), I asked - Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
stand and sing Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took the pic in 2009, and it was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Assam Lokayukta[edit]

Hi scope_creep. Hope you are keeping well. I wish you a Belated New Year Greetings. The article Assam Lokayukta moved by you to draft space couple of months back had been modified by me with additional references. Also similar articles for other states had been moved to main space considering its relevance to general public. Request you to review and suggest necessary improvements to move it to main space. Thanking you in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gardenkur: I will take a look at it. scope_creepTalk 11:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep. Hope you are keeping well. I take this opportunity to remind you to kindly approve the Assam Lokayukta for mainspace. The article is in the interest of public at large. Thanking you in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maximovitch[edit]

Would you please stop interfering with the improvements I am trying to make to this article and go read MOS:DECADE? The style WP uses for decades does not depend on any national style. The article contained decades both with and without the apostrophe, and I made it uniform. You also recklessly removed commas that I had added. If you want to be helpful, you could figure out why the article has her date of execution before her trial date, but stop screwing up the punctuation. The efn you messed with is not a quotation, so putting that in the edit summary is also not helpful. Chris the speller yack 22:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chris the speller: It wasn't the decade I was bothered about. I value your work, but you changed the quote 1930s–1940's. to this 1930s–1940s.. That is not British English, putting the s after the numbers with no dash. It is a Americanism that has no place, in a British English article. I'm not particularly bothered about the rest, as it is already British English. scope_creepTalk 23:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says "Do not use the 1980's", and it doesn't differentiate between articles written in British English or American English. And the efn is not a quotation; it doesn't list a source, so it should follow WP's style. Chris the speller yack 01:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should differentiate between between British English and American English. scope_creepTalk 11:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris the speller: I'm going to try and get it changed in the MOS and looking for a reference for that efn tag. scope_creepTalk 12:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Danna Azrieli[edit]

Dear Scope creep As per the article Draft:Danna Azrieli, I notiched that someone mark him as COI, as per myself, I don't have any Conflict of interestI don't know Danna Azrieli or get paid for editing in wikipedia. As per WP:BIO Please see for example any other Category:Israeli businesspeople such as Liora Ofer, Shari Arison, Idan Ofer and any other from List of Israelis by net worth. I edit and send the article for review, please advise if there anything else to do to improve the article. if you can review it, it could be helpful. thank you Yossilev (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yossilev: I will take a look at it. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: did you have chance look the draft? Yossilev (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yossilev: I had a look at the Draft:Danna Azrieli. It seems to be an NLP article. The name Azrieli is present in the article, 67 times, which is unacceptable. Even with roughtly a 10-20 Azrieli name used within the main article body, that leaves about 35-40. Far too much. It reads like an branded advertisement. The decline by User:CNMall41 is the correct choice in this situation. scope_creepTalk 01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Chen Qi (collector)[edit]

Hi Scope Creep! First of all I like your name. It brings me laughs! I thought you were only reverting the edition prior to mine.

About whether Mr. Qi is alive or not, I've read two admittedly unreliablish sources which state he died on the date on my source, which is one of the two unreliablish sources. Frankly, with a birth-date of 1912 I'd be surprised if he is still alive! My grand-pa was five years younger than him and he died in 2012. Good genes perhaps??

I'd responded last night but I was tired as hell.

All right, thanks for your message and God bless you! Antonio Creeptomaniac Martin (Dile al Creeptomaniac) 00:26, 17 January, 2022 (UTC)

@AntonioMartin: Thanks. I got the name from a IT project I was on. Somebody mentioned, they were suffering from scope creep, it was 12 weeks behind due to the customer trying to add new stuff. I thought it would make a good handle. I never noticed how old he was. It would make him 110 now. Slim chance of being alive, I guess. scope_creepTalk 12:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donnalyn Bartolome[edit]

Then how do you sure that it's her album? Isn't this BLP policy "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." You removed her filmography list, but you didn't remove the album list. Huh? –Ctrlwiki (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ctrlwiki: How goes are? I don't think anybody is going to lie about her albums, particulalry when they're listed on streaming sites like Spotify and archiving sites like discogs. It's almost common knowledge, listed in numerous places, so they're is no point removing them here, when they are already listed on these sites. I understand why you wanted to delete it. The article was some mess. I hate they types of article, where folk edit it, but never reference it. She is quite popular as a singer, though. I have zero doubt that a UPE or paid editor will be in, in the next couple weeks/months to update the article. She isn't an actor, but she is definetly a singer. She was a bit-part actor. A singer, doing some acting, for publicity, but not an actor. It is common work scenario with these folk. scope_creepTalk 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Netbase, Konrad Becker[edit]

Hey Scope_creep! Some time ago you were super helpful getting the article about Johannes Grenzfurthner in shape. Two of my new pet articles are Public Netbase and Konrad Becker. They are definitely noteworthy, but their articles lie somewhat in shambles. Most of the references are from their own project pages etc. Maybe you would want to help? All the best. ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 14:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarpoliceman: How are doing? The reason I worked on the Johannes Grenzfurthner article is because he is a cool artist type. I'm not sure of these articles and busy at the moment. I will have a look at the Netbase one for you. scope_creepTalk 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doing great, thanks! Concerning Grenzfurthner: I agree :) Thanks for having a look at Netbase! ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 14:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some article[edit]

Hi @Bluepencil13: What article is this? Also please read WP:TALK and WP:THREAD. Always create a new section at the bottom of the talk page. What is the point of you burying it and me trying to search for your comment in an archive. scope_creepTalk 01:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noey Jacobson edit and reversion to draft[edit]

I'd like to contest your decision to revert Draft:Noey Jacobson to draft as well as your decision to remove key information from the article's lead. Firstly, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is a reliable source within the Jewish community that meets all the criteria outlined in WP:RS (as are many of the other sources cited in the article), and I'm confused as to why you seem to feel otherwise. Secondly, in regards to notability, it may be thin but I think it's there? As a musician he's collaborated with multiple notable artists and his solo work was covered by a notable publication, as an educator he's been affiliated with the notable schools Yeshiva University and Shalhevet High School and served as an assistant and speechwriter to YU president Richard Joel. It could be argued that coverage in school newspapers like Shalhevet's The Boiling Point and YU's The Commentator does not establish notability due to conflict of interest, but I'd still argue they're credible enough journalistic sources to provide reliable support for things like his early life or his academic activities. In general, I feel that the reversion of the article to draft was premature and unfair. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Invisiboy42293: I removed x of y reference as they are non-notable. Started about 10 years ago by Forbes, they are seen as clickbait now, they are non-RS. The The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is RS, but newspapers as just as prone to puting clickbait about as anybody else. So please don't add in back in. When I reviewed the article twice, I looked at it yesterday, I looked for three WP:SECONDARY references that discussed the individual. They aren't there. Although a musician, it is a WP:BLP, so there must be secondary sources to remain in mainspace. They're is lots that discuss the band as a whole, but barely anything on Jacobson on his own. The boiling point is a student newspaper and it's the only real secondary source there. The Commentator is about the band, not him. I think it is potentially notable, if you find more reference. If I thought it was beyond-saving, I would have sent it to Afd. scope_creepTalk 21:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin–La Crosse[edit]

Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles probably is, Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles football should probably be merged back into the former? GiantSnowman 09:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Thanks. That seems reasonable. I really wasn't sure and it looked odd having two of the same article. scope_creepTalk 09:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep[edit]

Hello. I have tagged you for cleanup. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith: Thanks very much. scope_creepTalk 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Hello Scope creep, wondering wy this revert? Thank you foryour time. Lotje (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lotje: It is a Gestapo image, taken just before she was executed. Look at her face. She has two very prominent black eyes, as she is likely been punched. Almost every one of these Red Orchestra ("Rote Kapelle") folk were tortured, either the usual basic torture or the enhanced torture with dogs, for example. All of them were generally in prison for several months and lost significant bodyweight, often up to the third of their weight. You can see it in her face. They're is several of these public domain image. They are dreadful. scope_creepTalk 09:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I know, this is not an image where Anna Krauss looks at her best, but, still, this is no reason to remove if from the article. IMO, it is a kind of tribute to her. She (and other victims) should never be forgotten. Hence I will undo your revert. Promise, if one day, I come across an image of her when she was still happy and smiling, I will insert it. thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Don't put it back in. It is not a tribute. It is far from a tribute as its possible to get. I've explained to you what it is. Do you not understand what it is? It is a post-interrogation image. It is not suitable for Wikipedia nor the article. There is no other images of here, except what her family has. There is nothing available in German Federal Archives, so nothing will turn up. Don't put it back in. scope_creepTalk 13:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I promise you, that I will do everything within my power to find a suitable image. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you would leave the page unchanged. Thank you. Lotje (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Do not put in back in. There is two things that are going to happen. 1. They'll be an edit war to remove and you'll be up at admin. 2. I will get the article deleted. I'm not having any article I wrote, associated with a Gestapo image on Wikipedia. Leave it out. It is your pride and stubborness to move ahead when I have already explained what the problem is. Nothing else.scope_creepTalk 13:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Thanks for not doing that. scope_creepTalk 14:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Anna Krauss[edit]

Hello Scope creep, just to update you on my request at Commons. Bundesarchiv-B6 replyed: Dear Lotje, the division FA5 (Bildarchiv = picture archive) of the Federal Archives unfortuntely doesn't keep photos of Annie Krauß / Anne Krauss, sorry, but you may contact the department BE of the Federal Archives in Berlin (berlin@bundesarchiv.de), whether photos are kept in files.At least, you know where to turn to now. Maybe this can be of help to you. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: Are you up for contacting them? scope_creepTalk 17:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scope creep, I guess, since you probably gave lot more information about Anna Krauss, you are the best person to contact them. They do speak English Lotje (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Morning @Lotje: That fine. I will contact them today. I will update you if I get anything back. scope_creepTalk 11:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope they have photo's available. Keeping my fingers (double)crossed here. Lotje (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: I've forwarded them an email, requesting an image. Lotje, thanks for getting for looking out that email address. That was nice of you. scope_creepTalk 12:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. Actually all the credit goes to Commons:User talk:Bundesarchiv-B6 Lotje (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who is back![edit]

To check your answer, click here. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Amazon shipping to Israel[edit]

Hello Scope creep. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amazon shipping to Israel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I agree this article has problems - sourcing from PR websites and Amazon websites not the least of them - but in my opinion it does not reach the threshold for outright WP:G 11 deletion in its current form. Please do feel free to disagree. . Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shirt58: Thanks for getting back to me. I wasn't sure it was the correct csd. scope_creepTalk 10:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you an apology - it would appear that I have made a mistake here. I incorrectly assumed that "Amazon shipping to Israel" was about the broader topic of e-commerce businesses - such as Amazon - and postal delivery of packages in Israel by those businesses. I failed to consider reference 11 in the article, which explicitly points to a business of the name Shipping to Israel. As far as I can see, this business entity would not pass WP:CORPDEPTH and possibly any number of other policies and guidelines for a mainspace article. Perhaps move "Amazon shipping to Israel" to "Shipping to Israel" and lets see what happens? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shirt58: I never saw that either, Geez. Just read the article and the first block of reference. Yip, it is intentionally done to disguise it; it is brochure article. I plan to try and delete it via NCORP scope_creepTalk 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material from The Suede Crocodiles and the Kevin McDermott Wikipedia pages[edit]

Hi Scope Creep, I want to dispute your deletion of the following information, and your suggestion that I have engaged in “disrupting editing”. In fact, it is your edits have been disruptive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_McDermott_(singer%E2%80%93songwriter)&diff=1052944568&oldid=1052944211

Will you please add the information back in, and if you won’t, please explain why. CoffeeClouds (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CoffeeClouds: You've been adding external links into the body of articles and I removed them as quick as I could. For some reason you think external links in the body of the article are cool, when they are not. They are illegal on Wikipedia. There is two places in an article where should be, per the WP:MOS. One is the external links section at the end of the article, 2. In a bibliography section, where the link is pointing to the article or monograph or book assuming its a fully populated citation. Lastly please don't leave a large comment like again. It is not appreciated by anybody. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeClouds: If you put the content back in, which was well referenced, please leave out the external links. scope_creepTalk 14:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made another dumb error[edit]

Scoop Creep, I just entered a new Wikipedia Page which should have been titled Nuclear protein in testis gene but, due to my old age, I mistakenly entitled Nnuclear protein in testis gene. Would you please show me how to recitify (i.e. remove the extra "n" from the Title) this error? Thank you. joflaher (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: That is the article renamed. scope_creepTalk 22:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop Creep, Many thanks from Mr. Dumb. joflaher (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.11.97.87 (talk) [reply]

Malignant acrospiroma vs. Porocarcinoma vs Spiradenocarcinoma[edit]

Scoop Creep, I beginning to make a Wikipedia page on Porocarcinoma I found that typing in Porocarcinoma delivers you to Malignant acrospiroma. The two skin diseases are regarded as different. Furthermore, in the List of skin conditions Wikipedia page, malignant poroma, porocarcinoma, and spiradenocarcinoma are listed as synonyms for Malignant acrospiroma; they are not. According to the literature, porocarcinoma (or its synonym, malignant poroma), spiradenocarcinoma, and Malignant acrospiroma are different skin cancers. Would you please help me by stopping porocarcinoma, malignant poroma, and spiradenocarcinoma from routing to Malignant acrospiroma? I will then create Wikipedia pages for porocacinoma (synonym malignant carcinma) and spiradenocarcinoma. Thank you, joflaher (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: I think it is probably a good idea to remove the Porocarcinoma redirect first and then move to Spiradenocarcinoma when your need to create it. A blank page is never a good thing on Wikipeda. I'll remove the redirect at Porocarcinoma first. That is the first one done. It will take mere seconds to remove the other redirects when you need them removed. scope_creepTalk 17:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joflaher:, I see somebody has redirected the Porocarcinoma article. Once your article is ready, I can remove the redirect. scope_creepTalk 10:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Porocarcinoma Wikipedia page[edit]

Scoop Creep, I am finished making the Wikipedia page for Porocarcinoma. Would you please unlink the erroneous linkage of Porocarcinoma to the Malignant acrospiroma page so that I and print the Porocrcinom Page? This Porocarcinoma page has bee a real bear to write. Thank you for all your help. joflaher (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: That is it. scope_creepTalk 18:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scoop Creep, Page done. Again, thank you.Talk 18:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: Great article. scope_creepTalk 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News[edit]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jody_Turner[edit]

Hi, do you actually feel that the "publications" section on this article is justified? It's sourced to an interview and I'm not sure if the publication is real, in the sense of something a publisher independently chose to publish, and that has impact, or whether it's a bit of self-published "look how clever I am!" stuff. I'm very skeptical about the whole thing, but I'm beginning to feel I'm too harsh on people. I seem out of kilter with AfD at the moment, on ice-cream salesmen at any rate! Thanks for the tidying you're doing. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elemimele: How are you? I've no idea to be honest. I was just trying to clean the article up a bit. I'll take a look. scope_creepTalk 13:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: I see she works at that organisation. [[2]]. scope_creepTalk 13:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: I'm not sure. I think it probably is, in the grand scheme of things. I'll take a look tommorrow whem I'm more awake, if you have not removed it yourself. scope_creepTalk 13:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have no particularly strong feelings about it. It just seemed to me that it wasn't on a par with the publications I'd expect of an academic or author, but perhaps I should be less harsh. I am still quite inexperienced about what is notable and what is not. Elemimele (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: Yip, that seems to perfectly reasonable argument. Normally I would remove it, as she is works at the company, she wrote it and she is interviewed when it is mentioned on the ref, all things not really going for it. As a pure WP:SPS source, I think it is probably should be taken out, but at the same time, in several sources that I found it states she writes for Unesco and UN amongst others, so it could be a notable report, academically notable that is. I'll definenly take a better look at it tommorrow when I'm more awake. It needs a better look. scope_creepTalk 16:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind support[edit]

Dear scope creep, I came here to convey my thanks and gratitude for your support at the latest ANI discussion. I am grateful to find that you and me, both share a common vision for Wikipedia. -Hatchens (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not paid?[edit]

Hi Scope. I'm not paid to edit Wikipedia. I've never heard of Tripp Smith or GSO partners and have no connection to them. As you can see from my edits, I have created several pages and made edits going back 12 years on various topics. I hope this is enough to sort this issue out. Queeninbriefs (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Queeninbriefs: I hope so, but you said almost the exact same words the last time, yet the article was reviewed at WP:NPP by another editor who found it to be non-notable and set it to a redirect and you reverted it. Why did you change it? scope_creepTalk 17:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March editathons[edit]

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Yonov Frederick Agah[edit]

Dear @Scope creep, I hope that you are fine and well? In Nov 2021, you moved the page of Yonov Frederick Agah, to the draft space. Your summary for that move was "incubate in draftspace, BLP for active diplomat that badly sourced. Great article apart from that". In this case, I wanted to reach out and ask for your help in improving the draft. Also, as drafts, which have not been improved may be deleted after six months - it was essential to request for your kind help or the help of any other willing editor. Thank you very much Planetearth285 (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Planetearth285: How goes it? The subject is notable as a senior civil servant but the article is a WP:BLP, which means it needs a reference for every sentence. There is whole sections that are effectively unsourced, that cover very large time periods. Update the article with at least another 30 references and it will be good. Unfortunately I don't have much time at the moment to help. scope_creepTalk 12:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Scope creep: I am great thanks for asking. Also, thanks for the very important updates/advice that you have given. I also take note that you do not have much time at the moment to help. However, as the draft might be deleted (say in 3 months) if no improvements are made, if you have time within this frame, please do helpppppppp. Until then, do take care. Planetearth285 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:, how are ya? So, thanks once again for the responses given so far. However, I just wanted to clarify one thing on "it needs a reference for every sentence/update the article with at least another 30 references and it will be good". In this case, could you please clarify what sort of/kind of references would be needed or acceptable? Thanks Planetearth285 (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Planetearth285: WP:SECONDARY sources are the best. People who talking about the person but don't know him. There is goodly number of google book references on him I noticed that confirms at lot of stuff, plus there plenty of newspaper articles that can be used for a reference. His time at the WTO should be well referenced. If you cant reference his teach career, remove it. The same with his time in the nigerian civil service. It would be hard to reference that is not primary. Remove that as well. The private sector block is the same. Your unlikely to get a reference for that, working for any private organisation for anybody, deatails aren't published. It would likkly be written by himself, so reduce it to a single sentence. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 13:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:, yes, it helps immensely and I am very grateful for the directions given. Do take care and until next time.Planetearth285 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
29 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Elisabeth Schumacher (talk) Add sources
17 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Robert Menasse (talk) Add sources
5,931 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Taliban (talk) Add sources
363 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA History of tuberculosis (talk) Add sources
2,437 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Gulzarilal Nanda (talk) Add sources
2,883 Quality: High, Assessed class: GA, Predicted class: FA Biology (talk) Add sources
437 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C National Disaster Management Authority (India) (talk) Cleanup
105 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Good agricultural practice (talk) Cleanup
411 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Community health (talk) Cleanup
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Germaine Schneider (talk) Expand
50 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Greta Kuckhoff (talk) Expand
451 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Social distancing (talk) Expand
4 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA George Schlager Welsh (talk) Unencyclopaedic
32 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Neuropsychoanalysis (talk) Unencyclopaedic
394 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Pharmacovigilance (talk) Unencyclopaedic
141 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Turk Shahis (talk) Merge
162 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Hindu Shahis (talk) Merge
33 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Frederician Rococo (talk) Merge
1,058 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Boarding school (talk) Wikify
459 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Human nutrition (talk) Wikify
26 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Edward Albert Sharpey-Schafer (talk) Wikify
3 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Mikhail Kuzovlev (talk) Orphan
1 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Mukhamed Tsikanov (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Sanzhar Mustafin (talk) Orphan
72 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Mooa (talk) Stub
7 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Order of Kurmet (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Thomas Phleps (talk) Stub
79 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Jawaharlal Nehru Award (talk) Stub
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Nista (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radical updating of the Wikipeida page "Multiple familial trichoepithelioma"[edit]

Scoop Creep, Since the WikipediaI page "Multiple familial trichoepithelioma" was made there has been a reclassification of multiple familial trichoepitheliomas: It along with Brooke–Spiegler syndrome and familial cylindromatosis are now classified as types of a single disease, CYLD cutaneous syndrome. I have ready to go a new page entitled CYLD cutaneous syndrome and would like to rename the Multiple familial trichoepitheliomas page as the CYLD cutaneous syndrome and fill it with my new page. Searching for the Brooke-Spiegler syndrome pulls up the Multiple familial trichoepitheliomas page while familial cylindromatosis has no page or linkage. I would like to have multiple familial trichoepthelipomas, Brooke-Spiegler syndrome, and CYLD cutaneous syndrome linked to the now named CYLD cutaneous syndrome. Alternatively, I could create the page "CYLD cutaneous syndrome" if you could show me how to convert the aforementioned linkages to "Multiple Familial tricoepithelioma" page and, perhaps remove this page as being redundant and perhaps confusing.For sure, I will do whatever you suggest to update the situation. Thank you. joflaher (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (←UTC)

Hi @Joflaher: So you want to do the following:
  1. Rename Multiple familial trichoepitheliomas -> CYLD cutaneous syndrome
  2. Put your content in the CYLD cutaneous syndrome
  3. Point Multiple familial trichoepthelipomas -> CYLD cutaneous syndrome
  4. Point Brooke-Spiegler syndrome -> CYLD cutaneous syndrome

Is that correct. If that is the case I would create the new article at CYLD cutaneous syndrome and redirecting the other articles to your new article. Would that be suitable. You can put your content in the CYLD cutaneous syndrome as it should be brand empty page. Once that is done I will do the other redirects. scope_creepTalk 17:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop Creep, the page CYLD cutaneious syndrome has just been created. In needs to have Multiple familial trichoepithelioma and Brooke–Spiegler syndrome unlinked to Multiple familial trichoepithelioma and linked to CYLD cutaneous syndrome and familial cylindromatosis (which was not linked to anything) linked to Multiple familial trichoepithelioma. Thank you. joflaher (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2022 (←UTC)

@Joflaher:

  1. On Brooke–Spiegler syndrome I've changed the redirect to CYLD cutaneous syndrome syndrome. Can you check that. You want the same redirect for Multiple familial trichoepithelioma. scope_creepTalk 18:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scoop Creep, The Brooke-Spiegler syndrome now correctly goes to CYLD cutaneous syndrome. Multiple familial trichoepithelioma should get the same redirect and "Familial cylindromatosis" (which had no linkage) should also now link to the CYLD cutaneous syndrome page. Thank you very much. joflaher (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2022 (←UTC)

@Joflaher:

@Joflaher: I think that it is. Can you please check each article to make sure the redirects are targetting the right article. That is a another beautifully written article. scope_creepTalk 22:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scoop Creep, yes, all linkages are in place. Again, thank you. joflaher (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2022 (←UTC)

March 2022[edit]

Hi Scope creep, concerning Josiah De Disciple, if I may ask, why was the article moved to draft space because in your edit summary you stated that the subject is notable and meet WP:Notability, and I've added that his single was certified Gold by the Recording Industry of South Africa (RiSA) here.Is the article now ready for the main space? Neo the Twin (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo the Twin: Thanks for getting in touch with me. There is two tags on the article, one for reliable sources and one for insufficient references. No new mainspace article should have those types of tags, particularly unreliable sources which is really serious gig. I will check the references on the rticle today. If it is good I mainspace it. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, thank you, please alarm me with your decision when you are done. Neo the Twin (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neo the Twin: The reason the article was tagged with the unreliable sources is due to the references. The first are made up of PR, blogs and profile. All them unacceptable as secondary sources. This for example: 10 Things You should Know About Josiah De Disciple. That is PR and illegal on Wikipedia. This here: Josiah De Disciple releases Spirits of Makoela, Vol. 2: The Reintroduction That looks like a blog reporting a press-release. Blogs are WP:SPS sources and press-release are Non-RS. You'll need to update the article with better sources. This is the same STREAM: Josiah De Disciple & Boohle new collabo album ‘Umbuso Wabam’nyama’. They are very poor references and unacceptable. scope_creepTalk
He is notable no doubt but an article that state is unsuitable in that state. scope_creepTalk 09:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I do believe the draft is now ready to invade the main space. Neo the Twin (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a linkage to Maligant acrospiroma[edit]

Scope creep, I just now greatly expanded the Wikipedia page "Spiradenoma" and included on this page its malignant form, Spiradenocarcinoma. I now find that searching for spiradenocarcinoma links to Malignant acrospiroma. I can find no reports that claim spiroadenocarcinoma is synonamous with or a form of malignant acrospiroma. Would you please redirect the linkage of spiroadenocarcinoma to the Spiradenoma page? Thank you. [User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (←UTC)

Hi @Joflaher: That is done, can you check and check the categories, to see if they're needing updated. scope_creepTalk 22:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I will check and check and check one more time the categories for updates. Thank you very much.[User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2022 (←UTC
@Joflaher:  :) You can use the four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message and this is converted by software into a full signature. Great article. scope_creepTalk 08:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your GA nomination of Gisela von Pöllnitz[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gisela von Pöllnitz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ealdgyth: Thanks. I'll take a look at your comments later this afternoon. scope_creepTalk 14:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Gisela von Pöllnitz[edit]

The article Gisela von Pöllnitz you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gisela von Pöllnitz for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 March 2022[edit]

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100,000![edit]

This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

Keep up the amazing work! 😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hi @ToBeFree (mobile): How goes it. Thanks for much. scope_creepTalk 03:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page haven't been reviewed[edit]

Hi Dear Scope creep Ji, This is Sams321 i have created artcle in few days ago have been reviewed but some artice are created before it, in the mid of the march month not reviewed till now

i pleased to you for review it, your review encourage to me for create more article and gives the best encyclopedia to the public and readers.(Thank You) Sams321 (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sams321: Thanks but I'm not really the person to review these at the moment. 23:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Leeds[edit]

Thanks for all the work you're doing on History of the Jews in Leeds; we're about halfway done, I think. Given that the article was formerly at 1000+ references, the fact that it's now under 500 is remarkable. Lkb335 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkb335: Its taken a lot of work to get it into shape and a lot more yet is needed. I was planning to delete the whole list as a WP:TNT. scope_creepTalk 23:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do really believe there is a lot that can be salvaged; the sheer scope of the current article is astounding, if often delving into non-notable territory. Lkb335 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lkb335: That is really the reason decided to keep it. I noticed a whole of bunch on whatever section I was on at the moment, seemed to be really notable folk. I've a removed a couple up until this point. I was planning to remove another oouple of entry today as I couldn't find anything on the people. Generally I think the editor has been pretty decent at picking out noteworthy individuals, but due to to the size there must be quite a lot of folk that perhaps that need to go. Do you want check each others edits to see if what is being deleted, if it is a person, to make sure they are non-notable. I'll do the same with you. Also I started to remove their post-noms. They only go in the source list, if there is one there. You never see them in listing articles. I've started to link them, if I think they are notable and don't have articles. Ones I've not linked i'm not sure, check it as well. scope_creepTalk 07:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that you're knowledgeable enough about notability guidelines to make the right choices; if you want to check my deletions, that's quite all right, and could very well be a good idea. Lkb335 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAN page edit[edit]

Scope creep, yesterday you removed three of your nominations by editing the GAN page directly.

They way to remove nominations is to remove them from the article talk pages. There's a bot that runs every 20 minutes, and once the nominations are gone from the article talk pages, the bot will no longer include them on the GAN page.

As it happens, you did those talk-page removals for two of the three nominations. The third, Harald Poelchau, was not removed, so the bot came along and added that nomination back to the talk page. If you really meant to retract your nomination, you'll need to go Talk:Harald Poelchau and delete the GA nominee template. After that, all you need to do is wait a bit, and the bot will remove it automatically. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BlueMoonset: I thought I did. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 07:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote (company)[edit]

If you believe other editors are behaving inappropriately, by all means take it to WP:ANI, but don't make threats and observe proper Wikipedia:Talk Page Etiquette; specifically don't remove other editors comments. I tend to agree with your arguments about the article, and I can certainly understand your exasperation with the situation, but your behavior is borderline WP:BULLYING. That doesn't help your cause. It has made me back off voting for deletion while I consider the whole thing. Jacona (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: I don't have anything against folk who create paid articles and follow the rules. Being paid to write an article for some people is a good way to earn money; they need to feed their family and keep a roof over their head like everybody else. I am completely sympathetic to those folk. There is nothing wrong with it. But this dude, who has three seperate editors on the coin noticeboard saying he is an UPE, has no interest in supporting Wikipedia or following the rules. The greatest project of mankind since the enlightenment. This dude wants to WP:GAME the system for his benfit and the company which has been advertising for a paid article for months, at our loss. The previous edior was trying to WP:BLUDGEON the whole argument and fudge it. I can't say exactly how I feel about it, because it would get me blocked in a New York minute. I have no time for these folk. They are corrupt. scope_creepTalk 18:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep:, I have quite a bit of respect for people who are passionate about wikipedia, and so occasionally get a bit incivil in momentary frustration. So while I felt your reversion of my response to you in a deletion discussion was not appropriate, I wasn't going to make a fuss about it. In fact I came here now, a day later, intending to reach out via a friendly message. However, instead I find you apparently accusing me of corruption in a discussion about the situation with someone else. I'm afraid I will have to insist you clearly and unambiguously withdraw that accusation, here and anywhere else you may have made it. Unless of course you have something to back it up, which seems unlikely since I don't know anyone of the participants in the discussion (other than by seeing their wiki sigs go by) and have no relationship with Remote (company), in fact was not aware of its existence before the AFD. I merely feel nearly as strongly that we've developed a strong allergy against covering companies as you seem to feel that we have a COI emergency. We could probably find some common ground....but not if you throw around unsupported accusations like "corrupt" and "fudge it". Martinp (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: I don't have problem covering companies if the articles are sufficiently well referenced. Do you know about WP:NCORP policy, that was written four years ago, explicity for this type of article? scope_creepTalk 19:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Yes I do know about it, and have made edits to that policy in 2017, 2011, and 2008. See [3] and [4]. I believe in its original incarnation it arose in part due to a controversy about Arch Coal, where I participated in a DRV when Jimbo Wales deleted it in 2006 [5]. We've come a long way since then, both in the evolution of the policy as well as in the tenacity of spammers, so we could have a discussion whether I'm out-of-touch too lenient on all this -- there were definitely those who thought I was back in 2006! However, we need to start with you withdrawing your accusation that I am corrupt, which I understand comes from a passionate frustration on your part, but is still unacceptable in a discussion of which a permanent record is retained and accessible indefinitely. In addition, a recognition that your revert of my discussion contribution at the AFD was suboptimal (versus. eg. just commenting that you felt I was indeed bludgeoning but letting the comment stand, or strike-through the comment but retaining it if you felt strongly, or asking for an uninvolved admin to address) would be helpful. Given your strong contibutions to wikipedia, I'm sure you know well that AFD is a discussion, not a vote; but that means that the bar for removing comments dissenting with your own views needs to be very high! Martinp (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: That is really cool. I've never done any of that kind of stuff. Its interesting you have worked on it. I've not met anybody that has done that kind of work before. On the other subject, ff you felt that I was calling you corrupt, then sorry. I plan to stop working from Afd from this forward, as its driving me up the wall. If you want me to put the comment back I will. At the time I thought it was attempt at blugeoning. I woudn't have put a strikethrough on it, as that seems be against policy and severly annoys folk. scope_creepTalk 07:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: I have put it back in, in the same position. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 07:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Thanks, @Scope creep:. I accept your response here, and your statement at WP:ANI that you "weren't particularly discussing" me as an effective withdrawal of the accusation against me. And I appreciate your reinstatement of my comment. So you and I are cool. I don't think your withdrawal from deletion discussions and COIN is necessary, though if it's making you frustrated, taking a break from it and doing something else sounds like a great idea. That said, I don't think the overall treatment of Husond (in which I don't think he smells of roses either) is fully resolved, but that's being discussed at ANI. Happy editing, and I genuinely meant it that I appreciate your passion! Martinp (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI discussion[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. Húsönd 23:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grove House School.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grove House School.jpg, 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TTEC[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Just now realized you reverted some of my edits at TTEC. I tend to think that for non-promotional material like company structure primary sources are reliable. But I've modified the section a bit - removing double information from the history and intro - and added other sources as well. Hope you agree with it this way. Best --Tec Tom (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tec Tom: Not really, no. This is an encylopedia and secondary sources are standard. If the sources are primary then I will remove. Making the article like a native advertising article is explicity against wikipedia terms of use. I will continue to remove stuff I think is promotional. Any services, product, product lisings are promo by definition and fail WP:NCORP. You have added more entries into acquisitions list. Reader don't read them, this is show by research and they all backed by primary sources, so why add them. 9 of 20 references on that are primary and the rest are a mix of PR that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and other routine coverage scope_creepTalk 15:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tec Tom: It was already cleaned up in 2015, when complaints were made. scope_creepTalk 15:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. Obviously secondary sources are standard and I'm definitely not trying to add unnecessary fluff or turn articles into promotional spam. However I see a lot of good articles around that include a lot of background on products and NCORP actually states: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company." I also didn't add new acquisitions, just tried to create a better overview by summarizing information from the history. And I actually do read them ;) But I do take your point and hadn't seen the 2015 complaints yet. Thanks for your feedback! --Tec Tom (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tec Tom: Yip, it is notable, no doubt. It's not a bad article per se, its just the way it is on Wikipedia, they seem to puff over time. For a company that size I thought it would have been a much bigger article. I guess they never employed paid editors to expand it. scope_creepTalk 19:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Chess articles[edit]

Dear Scope creep! Please delete my chess articles without spam on my talk page. Thanks for your understanding!--Uldis s (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uldis s: I sincerely don't want to delete any of your articles. There is nothing wrong with them apart from missing references. I would like you to add secondary sources to each one of them. One or two refs per article would be enough. Then that would be it, back to mainspace. I only drafted a few to try to get you to notice there was a problem with your approach, but deletion was never on my mind, merely a slight change in approach. scope_creepTalk 16:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of surgery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Kurtz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Proposal to formalise and centralise the control and reporting of Undisclosed Paid Editing[edit]

I have created a discussion at WP:VPR to start the ball rolling. Thank you usernamekiran for your thoughts about WP:COIN, but I had already placed it, or set the placing of it in hand, at WP:VPR.

I have chosen a very simple proposal, knowhingthat the more complex a proposal be, the more it will be torn to shreds

Your thoughts and your publicising this proposal to such parties as you feel appropriate, perhaps by link to WP:COIN are welcome. Note that I do not seek your support simply your opinions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I will be glad to participate, and share my opinions :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran It is my hope that it will lead... somewhere. I expect any finished and potentially approved proposal will be widely different from the original. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: I just saw the proposal, but unfortunately, it looks like it will not lead to the results you were hoping to. The reason I wanted to discuss it on user talkpage first was to get opinions of few editors, going straight to VP was a little hasty. I will comment there soon. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timtrent - I am saddened that you chose to put it forward at Village Pump Proposals at the same time as I was trying to start discussion at the Idea Lab. You say it is a simple proposal. It may be simplistic, but it isn't simple, because your answer of an additional class of privileged editors doesn't seem to be the answer to any specific question about Undisclosed Paid Editing. It didn't look as though I was getting a positive response at Idea Lab, but I was about to suggest a few more thoughts. Well, now I think we will have to wait a few more months before anything new can be proposed. I thought that I didn't have a specific idea, and so would try to develop it at the Idea Lab. You had a half-baked idea that needed more cooking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon I am also saddened. I had already pulled the trigger. I had no idea you were discussing this. Wikipedia is so devolved that this can happen too easily. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Usernamekiran - That is also why I wanted to develop it at the Idea Lab first. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A simplistic idea can also be torn to shreds quickly at Proposals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Scope creep,

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

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

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 858 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

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

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

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

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTOBJECT to move of HighFleet to draft space[edit]

The article was created in 2021, my friend. Since it is not a new page, moving it to being a draft without going through AfD first is a violation of WP:DRAFTIFY and should be reversed. That said, neither AfD nor draftification are valid when an article simply needs cleanup. Instead of moving it to being a draft, the right move would have been to fix it yourself by removing cruft or adding reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zxcvbnm: How goes it. Yip, tt probably is a bit late in the day to draft it, but half that article isn't sourced. It is 2022 and it is unacceptable to leave an article in that state in mainspace. That is what is draft is for. If I thought it was non-notable I would have sent it to Afd and I would have tried really hard to delete it. I will happily promote it back out of draft once its fixed. My time is more valuable and im not wasting my time on this when there is other more important stuff to do. Lastly drafty is a guideline only. If the original OP was still about would have informed that needed more references. Why don't you add references and clean it up, and I'll promote it. scope_creepTalk 16:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DRAFTOBJECT, you are required to move a draft back into mainspace if objected to. I am objecting to it because the article is in need of cleanup, but is not, as you claim "unacceptable" to leave in mainspace. Just delete the unsourced parts if you must, but having sections that require cleanup does not merit draftifying it.
I might clean it up at some point, but that's beside the point. Until then, it shouldn't be a draft. That is preventing anyone from seeing or gleaning any sort of information from the article.
In any case, the attitude that some things are a "waste of time" on Wikipedia isn't a helpful one. That essentially implies anyone who works on this page is wasting their time. You can say that "I have other things I'd rather do" but in that case, don't kick the can down the road to someone else by making it a draft with an expiring time limit, just leave it as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am reminding you that per Wikipedia policy you have to undo your previous contested move into draft space, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. If you still don't do it, I will have to do it myself, but ignoring people is WP:NOTHERE behavior. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I've not been in the last couple of days except the odd look and don't reply to messages unless I've got time to do it properly. Take it back out and I'll take a look at it at some point. scope_creepTalk 13:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Sarah-Nicole Robles[edit]

Hello Scope creep. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Sarah-Nicole Robles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 16:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Security College[edit]

Please do not move to draft space long existing articles, especially with many incoming links and many redirects, and especially created by long-standing editors. You move into draft space dubious articles created by neebies who dont know Wikiperdia policies. See Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 May 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Creation[edit]

Hello Scope creep. When creating a new article on Generalbezirk Lettland, I encountered an existing draft that you sent to AfC in March 2022 as containing only one source. I inserted my greatly expanded draft that cites many in-line sources, and which I believe addresses the concerns raised. If you are so inclined, I would appreciate you reviewing the draft for approval. Many thanks.Historybuff0105 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

June events from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Secretory carcinoma Wikipedia page[edit]

Scoop Creep, I am finished updating and expanding the Wikipedia page for Secretory carcinoma. The page should be titled Mammary secretory carcinoma because other tumors have used this title (please read 2nd paragraph of the updated page. Would you please change the pages title to Mammary secretory carcinoma? And, if you agree, free the linkage of Secretory carcinoma to the revised page and allow me to start a page named Secretory carcinoma which would give a brief listing of the diseases once termed Secretory carcinoma along with their new names and linkages to Wikipedia pages. Thank you! joflaher (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: I'll do it now. scope_creepTalk 08:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: That seems to be it. scope_creepTalk 08:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scoop Creep, Thank you for the change. I will make a page entitled Secretory carcinoma to detail the different types of Secretory carcinoma.[User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 11:44:27 UTC Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Know about Article Review[edit]

Hi dear Scoop Creep, this is Sams321 i have a question about review of the new article page, dear i can see last 2 months any page which i have been created did not reviews till now could you please let know what is major problem, if it will be like this how can i motivate for contribute and create new article page, specially i am intresed in bollywood cinema's articles. Thank you ! Sams321 (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sams321: At least tell me what article it is. scope_creepTalk 16:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Kumar Neeraj, Ritu Chauhan and major contribution another article Sidhharrth Sipani is also not been review please look at this, I'm planning to create another new articles releated to my bollywood subject but can't creating now just because fear of unreviewed :( thank you Sams321 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sams321: I sent those two other articles to Afd. They are junk. Both of them don't have coverage. Ritu Chauhan who is a real jobbing actor seems to be the real deal. Hope that helps!! scope_creepTalk 18:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sams321: When your looking for sourcing look solid outlets in Indian that you and verify as being substantial and worthy. Brand new directors and actors are not notable. Bollywood produces sheds loads of these folks, its a massive industry and many editors come on here, expecting to write article from a fan viewpoint and find out that what they are writing is just going to be deleted. If they're brand new and getting lot of press in India but nowhere else, then they are likely to be non-notable. If they are getting a lots of press in India and internationally then they are likely notable. scope_creepTalk 18:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mammary Secretory carcinoma Wikipedia page[edit]

Scoop Creep, the above page that you just finished correcting needs one further correction viz., the word Secretory should not be capitalized, should be secretory. When I link Mammary secretory carcinoma to other pages, the linkage is not recognized unless I capitalize Secretory. Thank you very much for you ongoing help. joflaher (talk) 2:22 PM Thursday, June 2, 2022 UTC

@Joflaher: Thats the move completed. can you please check. scope_creepTalk 16:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joflaher: I see the opening lede states it "Mammary Secretory carcinoma", should that not be "Mammary secretory carcinoma"? scope_creepTalk 16:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snoop Creep, you are right. Sorry for my error. joflaher (talk) 3:15 PM Friday, June 3, 2022 UTC
Hi @Joflaher: No need to apologise. I would have fixed it myself but wasn't sure at all. :) scope_creepTalk 12:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian theater in Great Turkish War[edit]

Hello,

I saw your copy edit tag on the article. What exactly is the issue? I'm not sure I understand it.

Thanks.

Franjo Tahy (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Franjo Tahy: How goes it. Great article. Excellent bit of work. The Turkish Croatia section has a link in it, which is illegal. scope_creepTalk 00:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I appreciate the feedback. The Issue is resolved. Franjo Tahy (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Articles for creation submissions[edit]

What is this, Scope creep? Are you reviewing articles that you created for AFC review and posting your own self-approval on your own User Talk page? That's a little strange. Shouldn't these notices go to the page creators? And should you be reviewing pages that you submit? Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were mistakenly sent to Afc. At the time I didn't understand what he was trying to do. It seemed unlikely the editor was going to update each entry with an article, as a valued piece of art they are better mainspace. scope_creepTalk 05:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Central Bontok language[edit]

Hey, Scope creep,

I hope you are well. Please do not draftify the same article more than once. Editors are allowed to object to a page being moved to Draft space and revert the page move. This shouldn't end up in a page move war. If you think the article is in terrible shape, you can always use WP:PROD or WP:AFD to mark the page for deletion. Thank you for your contributions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It's just another editor who doesn't want to reference the articles they are creating. scope_creepTalk 05:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to comment that I appreciate your work at AfD: our interactions are usually on those few circumstances when we disagree, but I see your contributions all the time, and rarely feel a need to contribute, because you're almost always right on target, in my opinion. I just recently stumbled around on the AfD on Ying Zhang, I had no idea it was such a common name. As I continued to look around, I noticed the article creator had a paid editing disclosure (that did not specifically mention this article). I placed a question on their talk page, because this article really looks promotional to me. Do you know of any other ways to follow up on questions of this nature? Thanks in advance. Jacona (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: It is a low citation field she is in. What link or name were you using? There is three Zhang's that seem to be notable, and she doesn't seem to be one of them. The quality of the source indicate this. If she had five papers with more than 100 citations then she would be notable, but the massive list of sources that event programmes, profiles and stuff like that are classic paid editor attempt to obfuscate the fact the person is non-notable by flooding it with dodgy references. It costs 300 quid to get an articles on Wikipedia now, so there is lots and lots of trash articles, or people who just doing there job. The young lady is massively intelligent, who is going to have illustratious careeer at sigularity, but it is case of WP:Toosoon. She wouldn't have been employed at that new university otherwise. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winter(l)ink group organigram(me)[edit]

I do not like to be annoying (no, really...) but should this beautfully clear file be renamed before some well-intentioned fellow-contributor copies it to commons and/or links it more widely?

Thank you for thinking on it. Be well. Charles01 (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Hi @Charles01: Thanks for taking an interest in this. It is a real pleasure. What should it be renamed to? I think it certainly needs updated as one of the names if wrong and one of the terms is wrong. scope_creepTalk 09:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, I see what you mean now. Geez. I never would never have spotted that. I'll need to dig these out. Its about 3 years ago that I created this. Thanks for that. I must have looked at diagram a 100 times since then. scope_creepTalk 09:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Lucy Adeline Briggs Cole Rawson Peckinpah Smallman.

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

Hi, Really needs an image of the lassie.

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 14:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:. If I can find a photo of our many-named artist, I'll be sure to add it. (It'd be somewhat easier to obtain a photo of a plant that she collected, but that's not really the same thing!) Drechmeria-RBGV (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drechmeria-RBGV: I think I looked at the time but couldn't see much. Perhaps there is portrait of her. If you can't see much there might be one in google books, or some archive site that has a biography of here. scope_creepTalk 06:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With my luck, I'll find it while looking for something else. But I'll keep an eye out. Drechmeria-RBGV (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Katharine Jowett.

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

Hi, needs an image.

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 14:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Malika Moustadraf.

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

Hi, Need an image for this article.

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 14:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alert[edit]

I have replied on my talkpage--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenya Cuevas Fuentes[edit]

I usually agree with your AfDs, but I disagree with this one so strongly I wonder if there was a language problem that caused your BEFORE to be invalid. You may want to recheck it, maybe it was an accident, or maybe not. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: You could be right, i'll take another look at it. It was very late in the day when I posted it, was tired, and it could be right off the beam. I will be tommorrow though as I'm busy at the moment. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs[edit]

Thanks for your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire-Louise_Leyland. I would be interested to know your thoughts on this related AfD I started: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Cooper (politician).--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of Anne Casabonne[edit]

Thanks for moving the article to draftspace. The external links have been removed. Fulserish (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating The Human Predicament.

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

Great work so far.

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 09:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking to yourself, heh :-) I guess this message was intended for User:Yitzilitt. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loew Galitz: It looks like it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 20:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rote Kapelle tables[edit]

I see that images like File:Ozols Group.png are not in Commons. Is there a reason? I am asking because I am not good at licenses. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I run into Waldemar Ozols when I was fixing a sloppy translation of the occupation of Anatoly Gurevich. I gave an exact (in terms of meaning) translation (the general term "scout" sored my eye as grossly misleading), but since I am not a native English speaker, I am wondering whether there is a corresponding professional term in English. Resident spy, maybe? Loew Galitz (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loew Galitz: I think that is bang on, "Resident " was the name they used for the lead agent in the country. scope_creepTalk 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily lead: google say: резидент = 3. Тайный представитель разведки в каком-н. районе иностранного государства. (A secret intelligence agent in some area of a foreign country.) Loew Galitz (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what about my first question? I am asking thinking of the use of these tables in other wikis. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loew Galitz: Of course, please use what you need. I'm not sure why its not in commons. It should be. I've not really had time to look at it. scope_creepTalk 21:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otrium[edit]

Hi Scope Creep - I see you are trying to delete properly sourced info about Otrium's business by labeling it advertising. Every company article should have information about what a company does, and it's not advertising if it restates in a neutral manner what multiple reliable independent sources are writing about the company. I already tried once to revise the info, to find a compromise, and I think I did. You may not have read the new section before blanking it again, but check out the diff. I prefer to leave at least some of the info there, with the multiple reliable independent sources, to show notability and demonstrate how this meets WP:NCORP, and to paraphrase how the media describes the company. I'll WP:AGF, but the timing of the content deletion and the immediate nomination for deletion makes it appear that you are trying to weaken the sourcing to encourage more delete votes. But if it truly is a delete, in the shape you found it, others will surely agree without you having to weaken it. Please leave the revised business section and sources intact until the discussion is closed, or better yet, let's work together to do a proper WP:BEFORE and find new sources that are out there, some in Dutch as well, to improve the article even more. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {{[ping|TechnoTalk}} I work in article review, on WP:NPP. I reviewed this article first and removed that block not because it wasn't well sources, but because Wikipedia isn't a manual per WP:NOT. Anytime you see some kind of block that states stuff like operations or manual or work or business model or stuff like that, I remove it. Policy is clear on that. It wasnt my intention to somehow delete it or try to subvert the afd process with that block missing. I was only after I finished reading the references, that I decided to sent to the Afd. I have no interest in getting one over on another editor by removing their work, or by subverting the Afd in any way. The Afd will run at its own pace and I'm only interested if its fair. I do to many of them to bother to how going to come out. scope_creepTalk 05:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing New Page Patrol. That's a lot of work, and I'm sure you come across a lot of bad articles. I volunteer at the AFC help desk, and coach declined editors about how to improve their articles' chances of success. I'm trying to get the helper script so I can more easily edit on the article page instead of having to do it at the help desk. I was told by Primefac I need to have more articles under my belt to get the script, but as I do them, you and High King are nominating them for deletion. No hard feelings. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll get there eventually. After I have 25 under my belt, I'll also request autopatrol access and you won't be bothered by my articles anymore at NPP. ;-) TechnoTalk (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: Well I'll check the rest your content as well, if this is the quality of your content your producing. scope_creepTalk 07:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: I intend to have a chat Primefac when I get back. You have 25% of articles of the article have created been deleted, which is problematic for Afc. Many of them are native advertising, brochure type articles. Are you a paid editor per chance? scope_creepTalk 07:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty serious allegation, considering none of my articles have been deleted for 7 years. This sounds like it could be another case of revenge and disruptive editing. TechnoTalk (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: Not a allegation, just a simple question. Paid editing is allowed on Wikipedia once you disclose. Everybody has earn a living, put a roof over their head and feed themselves and their families. Are you a paid editor? scope_creepTalk 17:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a paid editor. It's insulting to me that you are accusing me. I know the guidelines about COI disclosures. You're on thin ice with your behavior. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: Thanks for that. That is coolio. scope_creepTalk 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons given for your new edits of 23 June 2022‎ on Sian Proctor[edit]

Hello.

After reading your more detailed edit reasons listed on the history page Sian Proctor, I full agree with most of your decisions, especially paring down her TV appearances. I do have a question about what to do about The Colony (American season 2) since some publications consider it a "Reality TV show" in which the producers basically throw problems out on the "participants" in which the producers film how the "participants" react to certain scenarios. Definitely less "science show", but more similar to Survivor (American TV series). What is your opinion? My gut feeling is to delete this like you did for her sole "acting role". -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @108.71.214.235: I'm not sure. I was wondering if your paid editor, as the article is pure puff, meant to promote. It looks like paid for article. All these astronauts do. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello scope_creep.
To answer your question, no I am NOT a paid editor and I did NOT create the article in question. Looking at the article's revision history, the article predated the "flight" of Inspiration4 by four years. I try to keep articles as much as possible but it is hard to do when there is not much (quality material) to work with.
Is Proctor an astronaut? In my opinion she is a space tourist who got to ride free on Jared Isaacman's dime. Although many publications claim she had "piloted" the spacecraft, I doubt that she is type rated to pilot a spacecraft on her own and may not be able to fly the spacecraft if communications with Earth is broken and the computer stops working even though she is a licensed airplane pilot. It is my opinion that most of the important work was performed by on-board computers with some input from ground controllers since the mission did not require any difficult maneuvers such as rendezvous and docking. Isaacman deserves an article for being rich. Not sure about the other two Inspiration4 passengers since both would fail to satisfy under most WP criteria.
Should all space tourists deserve articles? Does all aircraft passengers deserve articles. Although the first known aircraft passenger do not have an article, he does have a redirect while the first person to be killed in an aircraft has his own article. Proctor deserves an article based on her prior work.
Prior to her being picked for Inspiration4, she was known for three things: (1) teaching at a community college; (2) science communications (HI-SEAS, PolarTREC, ACEAP, NOAA Teacher At Sea, etc.); (3) media personality (The Colony (American season 2), Genius by Stephen Hawking, NASA's Unexplained Files, A World Without NASA, Strange Evidence, Phantom Signals)
(1) If teaching at a community college is her only source of fame, then such an article would fail per WP:PROF, her doctorate degree is in science education and not in any of the "hard sciences"; her doctoral thesis is a snoozer (it is available on the web) in the School of Education; she has not published in any peer review journals (which would quickly make her notable per WP:PROF); anyone with a master degree or higher can teach at a community college (the First Lady teaches at a community college).
(2) Being a science communicator for several notable projects would make her a notable person since those are worthy endeavors.
(3) Media personality. She is definitely not in the same league as Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, or even Bill Nye. Look at her TV/film credits on IMDb, most of those shows are third rate. (per WP:CITEIMDB, IMDb as a source is acceptable only for information for film/tv credits such as who was the first assistant director for a particular film since that information is embedded in the film/video, but not biographic information such as when and where the person was born; IMDb might be ok as external link per WP:IMDB-EL) If you believe that the inclusion of the awful video Emulator is not appropriate, then it is my opinion that The Colony (American season 2) should also be deleted since I consider it in the same league as a "game show". Did you bother to read the description of The Colony (American season 2) or at least look at the existing citations (both of which fails to support what the show is about in the current version of the article)? The show's basic premise is about having a group people (that were hand-picked by the shows producers) and include a community college instructor (I don't consider persons teaching at a "glorified high school" as professors since most of them don't write textbooks, peer reviewed journal articles, or produce graduate students), a professional model, an auto mechanic, a construction foreman, etc. and have them deal with problem associated with a dystopian world. (All your food disappeared, what do you do? Zombies attack the village, etc.) Not too much difference than a 1960's TV series about a captain of a small charter boat, his hapless first mate, a millionaire and wife, a movie star, a high-school science teacher, and a farm girl from Kansas trying to survive on a deserted island, although she plays herself during make believe events. If we restrict the mentioning of her TV/film appearances to "significant work that support either her teaching or science communications", then we might consider eliminate more of her work since including them could be consider PUFFERY. The alternative is to include ALL of her work even though she is not a successful actress.
Why did bother to keep her Twitter link in the External links section while deleting her IMDb link? According to WP:TWITTER-EL, we need to delete this while WP:IMDB-EL says we can keep IMDb in the External links section.
Do we need to know her personal "call sign"? Does any of the NASA astronauts use a call sign during their time in space? After the Mercury program, do NASA astronauts have personal call signs? Pure puffery, but others keep adding it back into the article.

.

Is it important to know that "She is an international speaker and has given several TEDx talks"? Did you bothered to look at the citations? Those citations do not support those claims. Why is this statement included under "2009 NASA Astronaut Selection"? Does she talks about being a failed candidate to become an astronaut candidate?
If you want to trim out more puffery, we need to determine which rules to follow, come to a consensus on edge cases, and do some more trimming. We need to define puffery that other editors can understand, since it may not be as obvious to other people as it is to you (you obviously have much higher standards than me). I was not aware of which rules you were following when I reverted some of your edits, but I will follow them if we can determine which rules to follow and state the reasons more clearly in the history on WHY those items were trimmed. So let us start trimming. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.71.214.235: Hi, How goes it. What article does this concern exactly. scope_creepTalk 06:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The article is in the title for this section, Sian Proctor. (I apologize for being too wordy.) -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sian Proctor article. Yip. Only one social media link per article. Peppering an article with many social media links reduces its quality drastically and makes it look like a social media article. Wikipedia is not social media host, webhost or forum. I reviewed four of the astronaut articles and they all look the same. It looks like NLP article with these dodgy section names. She is not an actor, the same as I am not an actor. It is non-notable. It is meant to PUFF the article. I've not sent it to Afd as I don't know if she is genuine astronaut or a space tourist unfortunately. I wasn't planning to take a look at it again. scope_creepTalk 06:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one. There is no rush in getting back to it right away. I do not plan to touch the Sian Proctor article for about a week, or two, or more, but I would like to "try" to keep some form of the article but have it trim further by about half (or more). It would go faster if we bounce ideas back and forth on the edge cases and explain in Talk:Sian Proctor why the trims would be severe or the puff will keep floating back. Looking at her many dodgy TV series appearances, even appearing as herself, some of those "reality" shows might be considered "acting". According to IMDb, she has appeared on a LOT of TV series, which would be hard for other editors to ignore. However, her science communication gig is real and might become the bulk of the remaining article when all gets done. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, she may be a presenter in science programmes which could make a good section or expand the section in there. She has done quite a lot, but not an actor per WP:NACTOR. The excessive section still need fixed. scope_creepTalk 07:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Scope creep,

Backlog status

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

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

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

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

Backlog drive

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

TIP – New school articles

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

Misc

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

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14055 articles, as of 08:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

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

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

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

Your GA nomination of Ian Donald[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ian Donald you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep re: Afro-Atlantic Histories[edit]

Hi! Just wanted to clarify re: your scope creep designation on Afro-Atlantic Histories. You flagged the excessive social media citations - totally agree that's normally an issue. However, the video cited is an official presentation given at the National Gallery of Art. The NGA hosts all of their lectures on YouTube - all the citations are the same lecture, but the times are specified to make the citations easier to access. What's your view on citing social media sites that host official content in video format? Would love guidance on how to fix here. --19h00s (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @19h00s:, the video is produced by the National Gallery of Art and your correctly citing each part of the video, like I would do. The script posts up the fact they are supposed to be unreliable references, where they are etc, but its from the National Gallery of Art, a talk. You know, just remove, or revert that cleanup tag I left. I think there are valid references. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Its a lovely article. scope_creepTalk 15:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the guidance! Appreciate the clarification on citing to an official produced talk that's hosted on YouTube, and thanks for the good feedback on the article! Have a good one :) 19h00s (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in July 2022[edit]

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235


Online events:


See also:


Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unkn0wnsep10l (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Other ways to participate:[reply]

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Syed Faisal Ahmed (June 29)[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 Gusfriend was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
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 after they have been resolved.
Gusfriend (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Scope creep! Having an article draft 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! Gusfriend (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Red WheelBarrow[edit]

Hi, i'm @Unkn0wnsep10l, i saw that you're reverting change to "The Red WheelBarrow" Page about popular knowledge of the poem, especially about television, i checked very briefly and i found out that the content DOESN'T violate any of the Wikipedia policies. Would be great if you stop undoing edits about it. Unkn0wnsep10l (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today[edit]

June songs

Today is a birthday. - Thank you for greetings! Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ian Donald[edit]

The article Ian Donald you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ian Donald for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on![edit]

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

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Buidhe: I thought it was on last month, and this was finishing. I've been working every day for the last two weeks on it. ;) scope_creepTalk 20:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would have run it last month but I was already committed to working on the GAN drive that month. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit flag for T. R. Otsuka[edit]

Hi, I see you've added a copy edit maintenance template to the article T. R. Otsuka. Could you please be more clear as to what you believe needs improvement? I'm new to article creation on Wikipedia, and I don't see where the article may need improvement. Thanks, Bethcody1 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bethcody1: The references first. They are not exactly standard, they are not exactly non-standard, but they are a wee bit of a mess. For example ref 6, you seem to have two book references here. The page number aren't apparent and the google books link doesn't work. Ref 26 is another example that doesn't seem to work. Ref 7,11,12 and 22 are Non-RS, meaning they are not reliable sources and really need to be removed. Looking at ref 24, I would have done that as wp:cite book and filled in the fields. I understand the difficulty of doing these big references, they are nippy to learn, but once you learn how to do it. Looking at ref 23, as an example, <ref>{{cite book |last1=Campbell |first1=N. Margaret |title=Keith's magazine on home building |date=1 January 1899 |publisher=M.L. Keith |location=Chicago |page=419 |url=https://archive.org/details/keithsmagazineon31minnuoft/page/418/mode/2up |chapter=Suggestions from the Japanese on Interiors, Decoration and Landscape Gardening|volume=31-32}}</ref> Try that and see what you think. WP:REFB is good for describing how to create a references. Refs with archives are a bit of a pain. My user page has some templates for book chapters in book, refs with an archive. There is also missing templates from the infobox, the circa 1950 death date doesn't have a reference, the articles layout needs work and I found a spelling mistake, so all good fodder for the copyeditor. Hope that helps. It probably needs about 10 hours work and that will be it. scope_creepTalk 15:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the sources you found are excellent. scope_creepTalk 15:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for listing those -- I agree, I have no idea how to put sources in correctly, and I'll try to fix the ones you noted. Did you fix the spelling mistake? Or what was it so I can do so? Thanks again, Bethcody1 (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bethcody1: I will give you some help. It needs work and try and fit it in, over the next few weeks. Ref 6 needs fixed. I don't know why there is two url's on it? scope_creepTalk 23:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some new information over the past few weeks and may be able to re-write some of the sections which use those references you referred to. As far as sources like ref 22, I'm not sure why an official death certificate that can be freely found online isn't considered reliable. Would a direct link to that page make it more reliable? Thanks again for your help. Bethcody1 (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cipher Department of the High Command of the Wehrmacht[edit]

Cipher Department of the High Command of the Wehrmacht[edit]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my change on the above-mentioned page. While I'm aware that both spellings are appropriate, even the Oxford dictionary says that "cipher" is used much more often these days. It's also mentioned on the WP:Cryptology page

The page title spells it as "cipher" so the core of the article should do the same, save for the use in name of bureaus or books. The article switches between the 2 a number of times, with "cypher" appear between 20 and 30 times and "cipher" well over 140.

Additionally, the ci/ypher spelling wasn't the only change that I made, as I also corrected a number of other spelling and grammatical errors that would need to be redone. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lindsey40186, the original sources uses that spelling and they were all "cypher" originally but multiple edits by folk have changed it, over the years. Your edits were excellent apart from that. Up to this point, nobody has mentioned the page title stuff. I'll need to look at it. I've not seen that WP essay before. It is suprisingly old. Its funny how I never came across it. I'll fix the sp's I knackered. Sorry I reverted. scope_creepTalk 16:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing anything. Thank you for the reverts on the other bits :) Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lindsey40186: Don't let that put you off. There is plenty of other espionage article I wrote that need work. scope_creepTalk 08:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lindsey40186: I reverted on the article. I read the WP essay. It makes a lot of sense, and its seems to be worldwide consensus now that "cypher" is no longer used and hasn't been for an age. scope_creepTalk 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion[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.TechnoTalk (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalls[edit]

In your comment here you mention that you were unable to view the content because of a paywall. If it helps, using this addon for Firefox I was able to view the content behind those paywalls, it also works for most other paywall sites that I've come across so far. It helps me with verifying information in sources so I figured I'd share in case it might help you as well. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoidh: Thanks very much. That is very nice of you. I've added it. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aoidh: I just tried this. It works perfectly.;8) scope_creepTalk 13:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hmm[edit]

I was very surprised not to see a a paid warning here because it's fairly obvious. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PRAXIDICAE: Do you think so? I did ask the editor, in a exchange above, and they told me they weren't a paid editor. I accepted it, but it was before it kicked off. I thought it was odd at the time; the large number of very poorly sourced articles that are all private businesses, all the articles that have been csd'd/afd in the last year or so, the pushback against accepting the policies, getting access to the helper script, helping out at afc . Why would they need to access to the helper script? I think I will open a coin entry. scope_creepTalk 21:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't believe anyone who writes that level of promotional corporate spam about mostly non-notable or barely notable companies is unpaid... PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
right. scope_creepTalk 21:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15 day rule[edit]

Hi you mentioned a 15 day rule at AfD as being the time limit for draftification of new articles. I thought we had 90 days. Where is the 15 day rule written down please? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Neither are hardline rules (to my knowledge.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was something I read about a 15 day rule. Allowing a new article to develop for at least 15 days before it could be drafted. I thought it was in but couldn't find any policy that stated it, so never mentioned it again. I don't know if it was discussion about some potential new policy or some idea being kicked about at the time. Yip, consensus is 90 days for the time limit for drafting articles. I'll will have a look for it. scope_creepTalk 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need Suggestion[edit]

@Scope creep: Hi. I just dropped the message seeking your assistance/suggestion on the Draft:Sajid Mir. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: fixed as you assisted. can I use Circa template in his DOB as per FBI wanted page? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: fixed, used Circa template in his DOB as per FBI wanted page. Final edit done. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for your opinion[edit]

Saju Chackalackal was deleted in 2016. Do you think the subject is any more notable now than it was then? Jacona (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peronally I don't think he is notable as the conditions, re citation count are roughly the same as that when the article was deleted in the Afd in 2016. I'll ask an academic expert, who attended the Afd for a better idea. Hi @David Eppstein: Do you think this philosophy professor is notable. scope_creepTalk 14:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again the page is leaning towards AfD. All refs are subject's own books. 1 dead link. Possible UPE is also a concern. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 02:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: Let me get back to you, this afternoon. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not enough citations for WP:PROF#C1. But editor-in-chief of a bluelinked journal, Journal of Dharma, makes a clear case for WP:PROF#C8 notability. If there were multiple published reviews of multiple of his books then there might also be a case for WP:AUTHOR but I didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Thanks. I couldn't find any reviews that would take it past WP:AUTHOR either, but I think that is more than a weak keep. So @NeverTry4Me: to answer your question, the subject is progressing in his career, and has become notable enough for an article. scope_creepTalk 16:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep From the Journal of Dharma: The editor-in-chief is Jose Nandhikkara (Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram), not Saju Chackalackal. I searched for his book reviews, but found nothing. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 17:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: The editorship is claimed in his article, with a source. It doesn't have to be the current editor-in-chief; past editors-in-chief are equally notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Isaac Wayne (1699-1744)[edit]

Thank you for the note on my talk page about Isaac Wayne (1699-1744). It was not so much a new page as reversion of a re-direct by @50.45.170.185:. This has been happening across several Van Leer family pages with 50.45.170.185 blanking the page and re-directing to Anthony Wayne. Please give me some time to improve the page because I do agree it is relatively poorly referenced. Even in the case that new/better references cannot be found - I do not believe that re-direct to Anthony Wayne is the correct move. It should be listed for AFD and discussed. Thank you. Dwkaminski (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dwkaminski: The page seems to be listed at Issac Wayne. The double redirect is due to naming with the bigger dashes between The big dash is defined at WP:MOS, so even the two redirects look the same, they are not. The article seems to have been reviewed by another editor, but the references are very poor. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Aashir Wajahat[edit]

Is Aashir Wajahat notable? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 12:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with Draft:G Bidai[edit]

Yet I'm unable to figure out what's wrong with the draft. It's pending for last 2 months. I have undid submission several times, and improved and then resubmitted. Many reviewers visited, edited but not declined. I'm expecting your opinion how more I shall improve. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 13:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Syed Faisal Ahmed has been accepted[edit]

Syed Faisal Ahmed, 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.

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!

Missvain (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Singer Kovács Prize[edit]

Hi Scope creep, 

I see that you re added "prestigious" to the lead sentence. Also, I changed the spelling since I just noticed it now through spell check. I started a discussion on the talk page. Not sure if you edit a lot of prize articles but it doesn't seem like this typical. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)ps oh, I guess the article is written in a "British" version? with English spelling? Is that right? I didn't change the spelling, cheers!--Malerooster (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casuarina Senior College[edit]

Hi Scope creep As I have mentioned earlier that I'm with some restrictions, I have tried hard to cite the concern page. But I don't get any WP:SECONDARY yet. I usually don't like nominating AfD, but this page created extreme pressure (in my Special:Homepage) on me coming as a daily suggestion to add resources. I'm not going for any further discussion on the AfD as the discussions by the page creator led to several controversies like UPE, COI which are declared by them on the AfD itself. But none is even noticing the UPE, COI issues with the page creator user's all the edits. I would like to request you to focus on the point and take action as per rules of Wiki. I request you with good faith, as you are a more experienced editor than me. Regards- - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NeverTry4Me: The main criteria for notability for schools was changed in 2017 as defined in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Up to that point they were considered notable. Now there is not a standalone notability policy for schools after that 2017 RFC. What that means is the coverage on the school must satisfy the WP:GNG standard Secondary sources are defined as people talking to people about a person they don't know, so it is independent. It makes it harder as this school is less than 50 years old. My high school is around the same age, built in the 1960's and I wouldn't consider it notable. For schools, I would look for stuff like newspaper reports, analyst reports. I can't offer any more advice. I tried to save some of them back in the day, but it very very hard. For Casuarina Senior College I looked at the quality sources, and they weren't there. An that is often what it like. scope_creepTalk 08:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep thank you for updating my knowledge about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COIN[edit]

No. I prevented them from using WP:OUTING against you. If that user (and I assume you have seen their talk page) saw it they would have used it to the fullest. You were part of the people looking at BI. Please don't say I am making it harder. SVTCobra 08:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Why are you going 3RR? I thought we were allies against UPE and COI editors. SVTCobra 08:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: What are you talking about? We are. Is it the Katherine Singer Kovacs Prize article. You have removed the prestigious term in a drive by edit without due consideration of the sources. I've left a bundle of there. The article is barely started. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I think you can see the history of the article and the initial cited source didn't justify the superlative as per my edit summary. But I will give you some room and time to work it out. Not sure why you put an incomplete article in main-space. But I will admit, I was a bit paranoid because of the oversight. I don't like doing that to people and and I don't like it when it happens to me (so I thought you might have some animosity towards me).
Nevertheless, I was not the first to dispute the "prestigious" term. But now you brought some more sources. Cheers, SVTCobra 09:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yip. I've not replied to the talk page discussion as the article has barely began. There seems to be few prizes on that scale, although I've not done research on it, but at the time I did notice on the other Katherine Singer Kovacs Prize article that everyone of the sources mentioned it as prestigious. It is probably in the top ten with a Nobel prize at the top and other like the booker prize, pulitzer prize and so on futher down. I did notice a while ago that these other articles don't mention it, but it is assumed by everybody in the industry that is prestigious, perhaps because they are well established and quite old, for example the Booker prize, been going for 60 odd years, Pulizter is much older. The Katherine Singer Kovacs Prizes seems to be known in the industry, but much less so, outside it. That may be the reason why its mentioned as being prestigious. Its not so well established as the others. We could hold an RFC on it at some point to determine if it goes it. I intend to expand those articles out to 60-80k at some point in the future, so its not set in stone by any means. scope_creepTalk 09:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am persistently pedantic, but I noticed the article says "to any book that is published in English or Spanish in the field of Latin American and Spanish literatures and cultures" ... surely it must be to the best book or something, it can't just be any book. That would make it random or every book gets the award. You might also have a problem with putting literature into plural. Cheers, SVTCobra 09:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: I don't know the criteria for any of that, or even who the lassie is to be honest. The articles were only split out from the main article at the beginning of the month so I'm no sure. I've not done any research yet. scope_creepTalk 11:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability about some pages[edit]

Are these notable Disrupt Asia, Lanka Graphite, Wireless Technology Industry Association, Asian Institute of Digital Finance? I have seen that all are cited primary sources, press releases and passing mentions. I have strong reason to believe that user Eesan1969 is paid to create all the corporate articles under his Articles. What's your take on the issue? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 11:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: Lanka Graphite is notable as its public company. Think tanks and industry associations generally don't get sent to Afd. The Disrupt Asia is problematic as a private industry group/conference that is covered by NCORP. It has a notabilty tag put on more than 2 years ago. I work on the cat:nn and would send that for deletion. scope_creepTalk 12:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep understood. But what about the user's COI/UPE? Someone should bring the issue to ANI, as I am with restriction to not to land there unless I'm asked for any reply. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 12:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I have a strong belief that the user is a sock and creating pages taking money (tons of such examples in freelancer sites). Their edits in the pages are like doing in a hurry which resulted out several issues. But at the AfD, they change than the page editor one. At all the AfD, they don't sound like a newcomer, but hammers with strong Wiki knowledge which never reflected on page creation. Thus, I suspect a sock as the language and tone of the page creator and the same in AfD are having fast difference. Have you noticed that? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 13:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: Not really. Generally you have to have very good evidence before you take an editor to WP:SPI. scope_creepTalk 13:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will find the sock with evidence someday for sure. Thanks for your precious time for the discussion. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 13:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Lelio Bonaccorso moved to draftspace[edit]

Hi! Following up on your move of the page on Lelio Bonaccorso to the draft space due to lack of sources, I added 32 new ones to the page body and to almost all the prizes mentioned. What do you think of it now? Do you believe it is ready for the mainspace? If not, can you suggest where it could be improved? Aethelfirth (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aethelfirth: That seems much better now and it seems to prove the individual notability but can you please let it sit there until it is reviewed by an independent editor. scope_creepTalk 12:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep thanks, yes sure let's wait for the standard process to unfold. Aethelfirth (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aethelfirth: You made a statement that several short films won awards. Can you put a reference in for it. scope_creepTalk 13:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep  Done, now all awards are referenced. Thanks for the suggestion! Aethelfirth (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Narayan Singh[edit]

Just came across the newly (re)created article for Ganga Narayan Singh which I tried to draftify to find (to my great surpirise) that it was already there so I AfD'd it instead. The draft version Draft:Ganga Narayan Singh looks pretty decent to me so I put the draft up for review. The sources support the text and seem to be reliable. Anyway could I ask that you tak anoher look at the draft and then proceed from there? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren: The process for this is to put a redirect to the draft and inform the user. If you want to close the Afd we can do that. scope_creepTalk 07:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, redirect in, will withdraw AfD. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2022[edit]

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello[edit]

I’d like to know why my article was deleted as it contained verifiable documentation? Finnohanl.4 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Finnohanl.4: Your article as it currently is non-notable. The references are not reliable references and the article doesn't include anything that is not already present in the band article, making the whole exercise redudant. The article was reviewed under page review, specifically WP:NPP. If you revert on it and start edit warring I will take you to the edit warring noticeboard. I would suggest creating the article in a sandbox in your own user page and working on there, because at the moment you don't have clue what constitutes notability. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 01:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnohanl.4: It takes a bit of time to learn a constitutes a good source. Stick with it. There is a list wp:musicrs which lists the sources which are good for music articles. Unfortunately good referencing, is it not something that can be taught. I comes with experience. There is many sites on the web that talk about stuff, but a lot of it is transitory and very poor and makes for poor references for example clickbait sites, PR, press-release sites, framework articles, social media sites and stuff like that. Book and newspapers and sites which have an editor and a copyeditor team, tend to be quite decent. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 02:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:GT-MU[edit]

Your move is against Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT - please undo it. But you might also please break down for me how this meets Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY, so we can assess how best to fix any concerns. Spokoyni (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spokoyni: How goes it? More than 90% of the article is unsourced. It has a couple of reference that prove it exists, but its not enough to remain in mainspace. The main central block doesn't have any references. Please add some more prove per WP:V and it will be set. scope_creepTalk 08:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, but this isn't really adequate for Draftifying requirements. There are sources present, and while it would be good to have more citations, the article does not meet Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY. But more importantly Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT - "A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc." It has been objected to, and you cannot redraftify this. Spokoyni (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spokoyni: Are you one of these people think because its been pulled out of draft, then it will somehow remain in the state. It is 90% unsourced. If it goes back to mainspace without sources, I will copyedit it down to stub. I will take out everything that is not sourced. Is that what your looking for? I have no time for anybody that uses policy to foist unsourced content onto mainspace, and somehow thinks thats ok to use unsourced content. The policies WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, WP:N overrides any secondary structural moving in the draft system. The consensus is that the article must be sourced to remain on mainspace. It is worth pointing I've had the same argument several times with the train folk, chess folk and the cycling and sports folk and the radio folk. In the last months since the WP:NPP push has been on and the month before when I was working on it, I've seen dozens of the these military articles that were unsourced. I don't understand the reason for it, but it is unacceptable in 2022. Its not 2008 anymore. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm sorry you feel that way, and for what it's worth, the fact that you tagged it has brought it more to my attention. I was in the process of looking for sources when you moved it back to draft space. I've added the cites to the existing refs to bring more of the text into being cited. I've also been looking up Russian-language sources which have more coverage. So thanks for that. But:
You absolutely must not ignore Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT. You moved it back into draftify despite it clearly stating that must not be done. Being upset with the state of the articles does not allow you to override that. I have no objection to you tagging or cutting it down to the bare minimum, nor for you nominating it for deletion. Those are the options that remain allowable under DRAFTOBJECT, and I agree that a bare stub can often be better than a large amount of unsourced material. So please AGF and don't assume that I am "one of these think because its been pulled out of draft, then it will somehow remain in the state" - but draftifying has requirements that you violated several times here, including failing to adhere to DRAFTOBJECT and 'there is no evidence of active improvement' when you could see that I had both objected to the draftify and was editing the article. I think you're doing some good work, but a WP:NPP push doesn't allow you to override that. I've added cites where the refs support the material used. I'll ask again, please restore the article to draft space, and by all means, tag away or edit the article as you wish. It'll help to indicate areas I can expand. Again, thanks, but I will escalate this if I see that you're not following WP:DRAFTIFY properly, and I have some concerns from this that you're not. Spokoyni (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have referenced it. Normally that wouldn't happen. Thanks for that. Please submit it for review. scope_creepTalk 09:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and please feel free to bring articles on Russian subects that you are concerned lack sourcing to me. I can usually get access to a range of sources, though not always immediately. Again, per Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT - "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." I have tagged it for review as a courtesy, assuming that you will now accept it and move it back. But objections, either to your talkpage, or that of the article, or other edits to reverse a draftify, do require it to be returned to main space and then further action be taken if neccessary. A review is not required. Spokoyni (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is rank. It like the rest of these, are articles are effectively copied from other sites. There is no encyclopeadic analysis in the article. Its merely a reflection of the other sites, that looks like blogs. That is best you can say about it. Its the exact same as the railyway folk, the radio folk, the cycling folk. scope_creepTalk 09:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Edits[edit]

Hi @Scope creep Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. However, I do not think that I made any edits that are "not constructive" on Rasaq Malik. Could you please let me know what exactly you picked an issue with. Thanks. WheelHelms (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WheelHelms: External links in the body of the article. Can you please not add in any external links that are not in the ext links or bibliograhy/sources section. They are illegal per policy and uncontrolled, meaning they are dangerous. The other reference was dead, so the section was unsourced in a BLP and I removed it. It can go back once you source it. Apart from that, it is a great wee article. scope_creepTalk 09:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep: Thank you. But I was not the one who added the external link. Another editor did. WheelHelms (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WheelHelms WS: There was two links in the article when reached the revision 1088347161 on 15:03, 17 May 2022 to [[6]]. The edit history shows that you added them. It is not cool. scope_creepTalk 05:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Scope creep,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb[edit]

Regarding this edit, the reference you removed was a link to a picture, not a statement that was in violation of WP:RS. -- James26 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @James26: IMDB is a social media site. Wikipedia isn't. IMDB is non-rs in the main body of the article. Linking to a gallery of images that are not hosted in Wikipedia may not strictly break the terms of use, re: questions about copyright but it certainly breaks the spirit of the agreement. Don't do it. The image folks really wouldn't be happy if they knew you were doing it, hence the reason that you don't see it done anywhere on Wikipedia. If the images are hosted on WP, you could use a gallery, otherwise avoid. scope_creepTalk 21:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. This wasn't a copyright issue or a hosting issue. I wasn't attempting to make an image from IMDb visible on this site. Did you check to see what you were removing before you removed it? The article claimed that the actress won an award. The reference you removed showed an image of her holding the award, thereby verifying the claim. That picture was the clearest method of verification available, so I used it. I'm fully aware of the policies, but just because a link says "IMDb" doesn't mean it's a automatic violation of policy. -- James26 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@James26: Of course I checked. Why would I not check it? That kind of linking is not used on WP. You never see it used anywhere, and i've reviewed thousands of article. If it was IMDB itself you were commenting on, then would be fine, but its not. Find a newspaper that reported the award being given, not a social media site source. Showing the person holding the award, that is not any kind of reliable context. It makes no sense. In the scale of things it would be quite a low quality reference as you can't draw real meaning from it. She could have made the award. I would suggest there is too much ambiguity in such an image, used as reference and its not a good thing. Don't do it please. Find a better reference from a newspaper, or some other source. scope_creepTalk 22:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@James26: Fandango Movieclips and scherlcreative.com are Non-RS. They are all really good articles that you write. Excellent really. scope_creepTalk 22:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I altered the references. I know that your edits were made in good faith, and I appreciate the compliment. I haven't done this full-time for years, and don't really plan to again. James26 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion here. Do you think the article deserves to be deleted, or do you think the sources are reliable and independent? -- James26 (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @James26: She is a bit of a bit-part actor but I wasn't planning to send it to Afd. I'll need to look at the references in the morning. The articles you write are quality. I would be a shame if you stopped. Do you fancy doing something else? The problem with doing bleeding-edge BLP's is that they are often questioned, sent for deletion and so on, as they have often not proven themselves to be really notable, as yet. However, there is ton of women biographies that are needing done of writers, botanists, poets, actors, in fact every subject under the sun at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red (Wir). I write these types of articles for Wir, for example I've plan one on Elisa Mercoeur, a French poet. There is a French WP article on her, so it should be straightforward. It would be breeze for you do these types of articles. scope_creepTalk 04:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely look into WiR. For now, I want to keep the Andrea Hickey article around because I don't believe it's in clear violation of policy. I definitely see your points about this sort of thing, though. -- James26 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hickey Discussion[edit]

When you get a chance, I'd still appreciate your input on the discussion I mentioned, and whether you think the article violates WP:GNG. -- James26 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @James26: I had a look at the article over the weekend after you mentioned it here. I think I would probably pushed for delete. I thought she was more than borderline but I don't think it would have made much difference. I know what its like to get an article deleted. Its hard going, to say the least. scope_creepTalk 10:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your input. I've no real issue with it being deleted. Also, I moved the text to another site. James26 (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award[edit]

The New Page Reviewer Bronze Award

For over 1,000 article reviews during 2021. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable?[edit]

Is Draft:G_Bidai notable? None is caring. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 15:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NeverTry4Me: Its not that at all. There is just a backlog of new articles getting worked through. The Afc process is a critical part of maintaining quality on Wikipedia and as a result it is quite busy. Yip, it is notable. scope_creepTalk 06:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Thank you for your kind response. Notable, so it should be likely accepted. Keeping hope. :) -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 06:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Chapian[edit]

thanks for this. Should have caught / removed that when I closed the AfD. Star Mississippi 13:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I never noticed either. I didn't even realise I'd sent it to Afd in May this year, until now. I see it went through a Heymann update, a lot of good work has went into it. scope_creepTalk 15:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message[edit]

Hi Scope creep,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2020[edit]

The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award

For over 1,000 article reviews during 2020. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion[edit]

Hi @Scope creep, I hope you're doing well! It's been a while since we last spoke but i wanted to reach out because I am interested in getting involved with Articles for Deletion but not quite sure where to start. Was wondering if you could give me a bit of guidance or direction on how I could get some experience and get more involved with it!

--RealPharmer3 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RealPharmer3: How goes it? Right, first learn the policies. When you going into Afd, first thing you do is look at the article. Generally you might want to specialise in a particular type of article and its Afd, so you might see the see the type of article and get good at recognising what is a well written one. Firstly you would have a quick read of it and you would examine the references. Generally I look at each block, so if there is a block of 3, you will look at the first one. The first few references should pass WP:V on the article and prove its notable for what particular subject it is, and pass WP:SIGCOV. For example if it is a bio article it would show it passes WP:BIO, or a part of it. When you look at the reference, you might need to translate some of those, Deepl is good for that as is Google Translate. Evaluate each one and make your judgement. Next you do a WP:BEFORE. You look for sources if they're are insufficient in the article. Look in Gbooks, archives. Finding good sources starts as an art when you begin and becomes a science after several months, as you known where to ferret them out. archive.org is good one for older stuff, universities archives, there is loads. Once you have done that, and you've found 3 sources that proves the article is notable, then you would, I would assume, state a keep. (It is not a vote, merely a discussion, your looking to build consensus). If you don't find sources, try and delete it. Push back on arguments that its on WP, it should be kept, particularly for very large articles. You may find an article is already being up dated. You will often find the sources going in for contentious subjects, for example billionaires, where they editors are in a group, spas who are meatpuppets or are organised spammers, or an agency updating it with poor sourcing, looking for quantity rather quality, shorter in number. With WP:SIGCOV, you can take the view on Heymann that if there is quantities across several different domain(s) for example a particular industry, or grouping, that shows significance, then that quantity can become notable. When you have many people discussing it, often a source analysis table is good. The table should focus for each decent reference, whether it is secondary, independent, and in-depth (significant). WP:SECONDARY sources are the gold standard, newspapers, university and medical archives, tv reports, government reports, google books and so on. If each ref can fufill those criteria, then you may have your 3 refs to prove its notable. If all in the table is cross marked and it doesn't meet any of them, then its not notable. When your in the Afd, try and keep in mind its a discussion and focus on content not on people. You will find there is folk who have an agenda, from simple WP:SPAs to long-established editors who want to keep all articles. Try and be cordial, even though you lose your temper, but always focus on the references. If the references are bad, then the article is bad. When you talk about some policies, for example WP:NPROF have particular requirements. You need to know these. WP:NCORP is another one, for example it has its own definition of what constitutes a source at WP:SIRS Alternatives to deletion are often posited. If you think the article is really bad, try and delete it, otherwise offer a redirect or possible merge. If the article is really bad and kept, have a go at deleting it again, sometimes within weeks if you think it is really bad, other times within months. Quality is the watch word. On the rationales. There seems to be a mindset that its worth keeping them small, better chance of deletion. I think it is more of case of time available. Quote the policies that fails and a quick reason why it needs to go, for example, if no references, then say "No effective references". On the 2nd Afd, put a bigger rationale in. You need to explain why either in the lede or body. Do be afraid to sent to an article to Afd queue. If your not really sure, try a prod on it. An editor may show up and update it. Sometime when you send an article the 2nd time, it will be updated quickly. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a comprehensive response, I really appreciate you taking the time out. I'll dive deeper into everything that you mentioned and if any questions arise - youll hear from me soon ! Thank you!! --RealPharmer3 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2019[edit]

The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award

For over 360 article reviews during 2019. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in September 2022[edit]

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Reviewer Barnstar
Dear colleague,
Thank you so much for your wonderful help in double-checking the 150+ citations in my recently published List of candidates for the Man in the Iron Mask!
I have now fixed four of the six you had highlighted, and have also double-checked that the other two were correct. Please know that your forensic assistance is very much appreciated, and thank you also for all your other contributions to our encyclopaedia.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 17:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pdebee: Thanks. There is still a couple, ref 126 and 137. Kudos for fixing the other ones so quick. scope_creepTalk 17:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once more for treble-checking for me; I fixed them shortly after seeing your post, above. Done
I wonder: do you use a tool or a bot to detect these citation link errors? If so, thank you for letting me know, at your convenience. (I use CitationBot, which doesn't report these.)
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 20:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska[edit]

I find the reverts shocking. A long time ago, it was redirected as a G4 deletion ATD. When it was salvaged with Great Norwegian Encyclopedia sourcing, i.e. the most reputable soruce available anywhere, instead of a "Thank you", it was redirected again with the flawed reasoning was "Most of new article unsourced". It was pointed out exactly which part was unsourced, i.e. half a sentence. Not willing at all to debate the issues constantly brought up by the article salvager - the article talk page is untouched - a new redirection rationale was instead added: "one source is not enough to establish notability". Another source was added, and then the new redirection needed no rationale at all, just: "Restore". This is completely mindblowing. It's just so completely mindboggling to me why someone chooses to spend their life fighting some IP rather than adding up the following reasons why the article must exist: (1) Throughly sourced with Great Norwegian Encyclopedia (2) Spellemannsprisen award (3) Very good sales and 4th in Norway's official chart (4) Album reviews are henceforth added, starting with one from Norway's largest newspaper. 2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2 (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2: How goes it? It can be frustrating. The sources you added to the Jonas Alaska may be laudable from a process viewpoint but they were pretty byzantine from a physical viewpoint as I couldn't make head nor tail of them. They must be verifiable from a WP:V perspective. The consensus is that you must assume WP:AFG when dealing with this and I made an attempt to find them, but couldn't. Those I even left a message on Jalenfolfs pages, saying so, so if he reverted, he could fix the references. Can you take a look at WP:REFB, which is a small tutorial on creating references. I understand you have had pretty it rough but fans tend to be at the sharp end of page review as they tend to not care about the basics. If you think Alaska is notable, please send me 3 urls that verify the information in the article and I will update the article accordingly. scope_creepTalk 10:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What did you not find? Did you not find the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia which was linked directly? Were you not able to process this through Google Translate? Adding the fact that both the biographical details (Åmli, Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts etc) as well as the accolades (VG-lista, Spellemannspris) can be glanced from there verified even without translating? Was it possible to consider other online sources verifying the basic info, such as All Music Guide? Were you not inclined to detail any of the issues on the talk page? Lastly, is a tutorial really needed here with the way the references are formatted? 2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was working on article review at WP:NPP. I have worked about 40-50 article this morning. allmusic.com is a profile service and insufficient to prove a WP:BLP is notable. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words the content was not given much consideration. You just had to robotically redirect the article, owing to the large number of articles to patrol. And still you ask me to give you dozens of album reviews to add to the article... 2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is consensus. The article must have valid references, or it goes to draft if it is under 90 days old. If older and it you can't verify it, then its redirected. If you think there might be case for the article to be notable, you might sent to Afd, but Afd is not cleanup. You also expect the person to come to back to you, to at least make a case as you would in any face to face meeting. The content must be verifiable per WP:V. You can't have a non-referenced article in mainspace. scope_creepTalk 12:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its nothing to do with the number of articles that need reviewing. scope_creepTalk 13:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who brought up the tally of 40-50 articles, but I take your word for it. However, considering all of the above, as well as the state of the article which is pretty plainly visible in the history; if you still contest that it meets WP:V, then I guess this conversation is a lost cause. I have described in pretty minute detail why the article does not only meet WP:V, but WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:THREE (though the addition of more references is unwanted), WP:NMUSIC etc etc. 2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2: You can still work on the article in a sandbox in your user page, or in draft for example and its the case that nothing in Wikipedia is lost, if they have even a hint of notability. The very worst articles on some subject are deleted and recreated further up the road, all the time. So what I can do is revert it and sent to Afd for a wider consensus view, if you can show a couple of good references that show he may be notable. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which tool or bot did you use, please?[edit]

Dear colleague
Thank you once again for helping me a couple of days ago (see #A barnstar for you!, above). Please would you let me know if you used a tool or a bot to detect these citation link errors? I regularly use CitationBot, but it doesn't report these. Thank you very much for letting me know, as I would like to adopt the same tool or bot, thus saving time and effort by future reviewers such as yourself.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 13:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pdebee: Try CiteHighLighter. scope_creepTalk 14:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pdebee: There is one that check for harv links. Let me check to see what one it is. It the HarvErrors [7] one by Trappist the Monk. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 14:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, @Scope creep: I have now installed both scripts; please would you kindly point me to the instructions on how to use them? When I installed Twinkle, my user page was updated with the TW task bar, but there doesn't seem to be one such for these tools. I apologise for troubling you about such trivial things, but I could only find instructions on how to install, and none about how to activate or use them against an article. Thank you for your helpful assistance, whenever convenient.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 14:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdebee: The Harv script shows Harv errors, an error message next to the citation in grey. Its automatic. You fix the error and the message is removed. The CiteHighligher is automatic as well. There is a help for it. Citations in red should generally be avoid and if present in the article, should be removed as they are likely Non-RS. scope_creepTalk 16:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @Scope creep: I have just seen your latest reply, above, and tested the two scripts by introducing an error and checking the results. I had no idea they run automatically, which is why I was wondering how to invoke them. These are most helpful; thank you once again for your patience and teaching me about them!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 21:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another barnstar for you![edit]

The Guidance Barnstar
Dear Scope creep,
Thank you so much for finding the time to teach me about citation verification scripts of which I was unaware, and thank you for your always patient assistance.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 21:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Pdebee: I've never seen this barnstar, which makes the event unique. Thanks very much. They are very handy those scripts. scope_creepTalk 22:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees election[edit]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Information icon

Dear Scope creep,

I do not expect any money from anyone to promote anything on Wikipedia. Rather, I work for the development of Wikipedia. I wanted to create a new page instead of redirecting to Buddhism in Ecuador. I wanted to enrich Wikipedia with this work. But you didn't allow it. You should have corrected my mistake and written it. Anyway, forgive me if I made any mistakes. Nice to meet you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojer Aurther (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rojer Aurther: Coolio, your not being paid. But why did you put two spam links in, one to advertise a Soka Gakkai Center and another to directory site listing phone numbers. Your article is effectively a promotional advertisement. Not a single part of it constitutes anything akin to an examination of the history of Buddhism in Ecuador. scope_creepTalk 07:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roads4117[edit]

I notice you've recently reverted this user. I have mentioned them at ANI, as has somebody else [8], [9]. As I said at the last thread, I've disagreed with them on a few things so I probably consider myself WP:INVOLVED in taking any action, but since they seem to be giving short and terse answers to suggestions on how and what to edit, I'm wondering if another thread might end up being created anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ritchie333, the reason why I use short, sharp answers is because it is part of my personality. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Roads4117: I plan to pass it to WP:ANI and let them deal with it. scope_creepTalk 16:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep OK then. Roads4117 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I also do it so I have more time to edit articles. Roads4117 (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2018[edit]

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

For over 100 article reviews during 2018. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sianis[edit]

Hello Scope Creep, regarding Billy Sianis. I was not finished writing his biography, I want to expand much more on it. I just posted the start of the biography, because I needed to leave the PC for a while, and now I found that you reverted it. Billy was not just known for one event, as the previous user mistakenly stated. The event itself was pretty well known on its own as the often referred Curse of the goat on the Chicago Cubs, described by all sports journalists, who wrote about the Cubs and Chicago for 76 years until 2016. His tavern, his life and family were written about in Chicago Tribune even after the end of the curse. His tavern was also frequented by journalists from the Chicago news agency, journalists and writers from 4 different newspapers in the area, including Pulitzer winner Mike Royko and screen writer for SNL Don Novello, as well as local Chicago actors Bill Murray and John Belushi. Don created the recurring sketch Olympia cafe on SNL based on Billy and his tavern, with Belushi and Murray starring in it. Even the catch phrases of the sketch were copied directly from Billy and his Greek staff (the yelling in broken English "cheeborger, cheeborger, cheeps, no fries" by the cooks etc). Besides the SNL show, Mike Royko wrote many articles and columns about Billy, his tavern and his goat, including his obituary article, when Billy died. I am able to source and document all that. There is also at least one book written about Billy and that curse on Cubs. This curse also became a staple part of Chicago city history, as well as Billy himself. Wouldn't you agree, that he is notable enough for a biography if both his bar and his curse have articles?

In comparison, someone like bartender Ada Coleman has her article, because she invented one cocktail by adding Fernet to an already existing sweet martini. Her cocktail is not really known anymore today, as even its only reference is a book called Vintage Spirits and Forgotten Cocktails. If one vintage cocktail is enough for notability of a bartender, isn't the well documented 76 years "curse" on a sports team, recurring columns by Royko and a recurring sketch on SNL also enough for notability for a bar owner? Looking forward to your answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Sianis&oldid=prev&diff=1109023450 Wieszczy (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wieszczy: The guy is known for a single event (and it all comes from that one event) and the supposed ultra-local news meaning he fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. Three of those references are non-rs as well. That was the reason it was reverted before. Its a 1E event. And trying do a like for like comparison between this article and others that look similar, when they are fundamentally different does not help. They are not the same. Please work on another article, on something that is more notable. Please take a look at WP:REFB. It will show you how proper references. scope_creepTalk 15:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. What exactly do you mean by "ultra local" news and non-rs? Which 3 non reliable sources do you refer to? Do you mean that the Chicago Tribune or the Greek American media outlet GreekReporter are not reliable, ultra local news? Sure, the GR journalist is writing in extreme superlatives about Billy like he was the next Messiah, but I never would copy that extreme praise word for word, I just used it to source the data - the factual small details of his life.
I can find all the reliable, secondary source articles referencing him, including the book and the Royko columns, all reliable, published sources. I used 4 references just to find his DoB, DoD, and his early life before he even got the tavern. The tavern, the goat, his other events, the SNL sketch, and of course the curse have so much more references and I am willing to find the most notable of them all.
If I write the full article in my Sandbox with all the reliable references, would you then mind reviewing it? Wieszczy (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wieszczy: Yes, but you have to be careful of creating an WP:1E article as folk will try and delete them all down through the years. I think you should create a draft article so an indepedent reviewer in good standing can review it. scope_creepTalk 10:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wordpress[edit]

@Scope creep: Thank you for your message regarding Athalmer, British Columbia. I appreciate that apprehension once widely existed regarding the reliability of Wordpress, but over time its adoption has become quite common for well researched articles in North America. I assume this was the reason why the Wordpress update confirmation was removed from WP quite some time ago. In this instance, the platform is used to display online back issues of the respective museum's monthly newsletter/magazine. You tagged one such edition as unreliable and deleted the extract. Where sound content is being published using Wordpress, a WP editor can either show the online reference or merely identify the magazine article. The former allows a WP reader to confirm whether the WP content aligns with the magazine and also provides further background material. What are your thoughts? DMBanks1 (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DMBanks1: I think around 37% of all websites are wordpress sites. Is it a good references, do you reckon? scope_creepTalk 22:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DMBanks1: There wasn't any kind of publishing meta data on it to confirm where it came from. A lot of these types of information documents are prepared by local historical societies that are attached to local museums. I know experience from experience working in one of these societies in place called Lochwinnoch that it tends to be folk like us that run then. They are not neccessarily academics, although you get those types. So that makes it similar to a SPS source. I wouldn't say its massively valid as a source. You could take an alternate view, by assuming AGF, you assume the source is correct, as its going to be, because somebody has done the work, and because its not needed to prove the article, you could take a view on it, if your confident it was valid information. If your confident its good. scope_creepTalk 22:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: When researching, I do not assume the reliability of ANY source. If content survives through to my final draft we can assume it has been carefully weighed up as to accuracy. DMBanks1 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DMBanks1: Bung in back in, if your sure. scope_creepTalk 22:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Dawson[edit]

Hi, if you don't agree with a close, you take it to the closer and if that doesn't satisfy you, then take it to WP:DRV. You don't change the close unilaterally. This is something that may get you blocked, so consider this a warning. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: I did take to the closer. Did you not check? That was classic WP:BADNAC, simple as that. I asked the editor to fix it, the editor didn't do it properly, so I fixed it, so it not a warning. I followed the process exactly. I didn't need to go to DRV. I'm not contesting the close. scope_creepTalk 15:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I saw that you had talked to the closer. What I wrote above is the procedure to follow in case you don't agree with a close. Your "fix" was highly inappropriate. If talking to the closer is not satisfactory, you go to DRV, you don't unilaterally "fix" things. The warning stands, if you do something like this again, you'll be blocked. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who[edit]

Hi SC. I closed your AFD as keep. I laboured over this decision for a while. I would like you to please let me know if you agree with my closure and reasoning. As a NAC - I typically avoid anything potentially controversial but you and I have interacted at AFD before and I am hoping you will (grudgingly perhaps) agree there was no merit in the discussion continuing further. If you want the closure undone, please ping me. Have a nice day! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta: Can you open it again. That is a WP:BADNAC and you no rationale to close it. That discussion isn't even done yet and are not an admin. scope_creepTalk 07:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: The two editors that that have made keep statements are WP:ARS member. They make keep on everything. I guess you didn't know that. scope_creepTalk
I will definitely undo, because as a non admin, I honour all requests to undo. However please do not state falls undo a WP:BADNAC.
I do not have a COI, it was not a close call, I am experienced at AFD, and the action did not require action by an administrator.
Undoing now though, per my personal stance on NAC to avoid DRV disputes. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep I really do understand. I do. I put my head in my hands over many discussions that get stacked one way or the other, but I saw no grounds to invalidate their votes. While it is not a vote on numbers alone, when keep outweighed more than 2:1 there clearly will not be a decision made to delete the article. Have undone per your request, and I will be interested to see whether someone else can come to another conclusion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: I wouldn't worry about it too much. It is a symptom of the decay of Wikipedia and the fact there is simply not the numbers on Wikipedia any longer who are interesting in removing this junk. Those who do, have mostly given up on doing anything about it, due to vast amount of it there. Most of it is just copied and pasted from somewhere else. scope_creepTalk 08:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bays of the Shetland Islands, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sandwick and Skaw.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARIA certification[edit]

Hi Scope creep. I am enquiring/explaining regarding this edit. I understand that this may be unusual, but ARIA chose to publish their certifications on their "official" dropbox account. You can see it by going to their website and clicking "Latest accreditaions(sic)". To avoid the issue the apparent problem of looking as an non-RS, I suggested that all usage will be through the template {{cite certification}}. You can be assured that this template will only use the official account. I am enquiring whether you removed that source on other pages. --Muhandes (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC) PS. There are now 7,577 articles using this source, it's not a new thing and it reflect the long time consensus.--Muhandes (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Muhandes: How goes it? I never reviewed other articles where I've seen this before. It was reviewed as part of the WP:NPP process. But if I did review another article, where this was, I would remove the section as the reference is non-RS. How ARIA chooses to publish their information is their business. But even that method of publishing is highly irregular in any situation, in any industry. Who does that.? Really. I suspect its designed in that manner as they know it will be used by Wikipedia editors, and that is why its now non-RS. Do not put that back in. Find another reference. scope_creepTalk 08:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we remove it from the 7,577 articles in which it is used? --Muhandes (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to find out today or tommorrow how valid it is a source. scope_creepTalk 09:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no rush. I can say that the folder is maintained regularly with monthly updates. I am also in private correspondence with the ARIA employees responsible for uploading the charts, I helped them locate some historical errors. They assured me that this is their secured account. Let me know if you need any details. --Muhandes (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniël Goulooze[edit]

Hello! I edited the Daniël Goulooze article a bit because you thanked my for my first edit on that article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani%C3%ABl_Goulooze contains the words: "In 1927, he wrote De grondslagen van het communisme, de taak van de". The task of the what/who? According to the translation it is the communist youth but in Dutch the subtitle is incomplete.

This file should be renamed from Winterlink to Winterink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winterlink_Group.png because it is named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Winterink

Then I looked at some other articles you've written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schl%C3%BCsselger%C3%A4t_39 contains the word "activing". Not sure if that's a word tbh.

Please check my most recent 50 edits.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polygnotus (talk • contribs) 01:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Polygnotus: I missed Winterink diagram name change. I've changed the name in another article but I've not done it here. scope_creepTalk 07:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Polygnotus: A thoughtful and well executed copyedit. If you see anything that fixed in any of these articles and you have time, please fix it. scope_creepTalk 07:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: I only checked a percentage of the updated articles but I think your skills at grammer and spelling and copyediting are more polished than almost everybody I've met so far. I noticed your username, does it mean "Known to everybody". If it does, you've made an excellent start 8:).

Thank you, that is very kind. I wish it was true! Polygnotus (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Joseph Lister[edit]

Hello Scope Creep. Sorry to say the above article popped up on the feed at CopyPatrol as a potential violation of the copyright policy. Comparing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3744350/ with Joseph Lister shows quite a bit of overlapping content that needs to be paraphrased, when comparing using Earwig's tool. Please don't go by the percentage which the tool states as 78.2%; it's distorted because of the bibliography. Nevertheless it requires quite a bit of work to become compliant with our copyright policy. I am hoping you can quickly get this cleaned up in the next few days. If not, please let me know, and I will list it at WP:CP. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Diannaa: I will do. I will try and rework it somehow. scope_creepTalk
Hi @Diannaa: Most of that wording comes from Godlee, which is the public domain and taken into the Howard document There is conversational descriptions from Howard, where it uses his wording and that will need changed, but I can use the original Godlee and/or reword it somehow where necessary. That last block "Lister's paper was able to show that capillary action is governed by the constriction and dilation of the arteries" uses Howards words and I will change that. The majority of it comes either straigh from Godlee, Sir Rickman John (2009). Lord Lister. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1333634315. or from Listers papers. scope_creepTalk 21:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Any PD books or publications that have matching content need to be marked with {{PD-notice}} and include the original publication date. I've fixed this one. — Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Yes, I thought it was already done. Something been changed in the interim as Godlee was the one of the first ref I added. I've never used that orig-date parameter before. Its really handy. I will start working on it tommorrow, line by line as I have an earwig report. I was worried about the language as I'm not a doctor. I will need some effort. scope_creepTalk 22:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am super busy with CopyPatrol at the moment or I would have done it myself. Sorry for the extra work. — Diannaa (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Thats fine. That CopyPatrol stuff is a massive job on its on. I admire the time and effort, the sheer effort you put into it. I known from experience when wee did that wee training block a couple of months ago, how hard it is. I know what to do, now. scope_creepTalk 05:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2022[edit]

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_experiential_dynamic_psychotherapy

I have tried to clean it up a bit but this needs more work. Thank you Polygnotus (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Polygnotus: I will take a look at this now. scope_creepTalk 13:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MSIG Can this page boast wiki move to meta-wiki site[edit]

This column is my English encyclopedia compiled in the sandbox for the draft to be submitted to Wikimedia campaign strategy-2030project report，I just meant to get out of the sandbox moved to metawiki MSIG application page Can you help me?I'm because I'm offline use app When you are done, you can link to the report uploaded to Wikipedia Just move the draft of the application out and integrate it.I also just found out that I can't move pages across wikis，I copy the content to my device first, then I delete it myself thank you！🤗🤗Jc.Mandy 12:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @J.zht: I don't how to do it unfortunately. You will need to ask an admin. I'll leave a message on @Primefac:. He's really good in this area. scope_creepTalk 12:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@J.zht: I've take the Db notice off. Contacting primefac now. scope_creepTalk 12:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@scope_creepThen I'd like to say thank you here first.Although I have been browsing Wikimedia for almost 10 years But they just want to read and find information don't know how to edit、Accessing websites from mobile devices is inherently unsuitable for programming Phone screen size is too small Virtual keyboard for touch screen software Fingers often mistakenly touch options other than the target.bye bye🤗🤗🌹🌹Jc.Mandy 12:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@J.zht: There has been long conversations on here about how woeful they are. I hope you get your grant. scope_creepTalk 12:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
J.zht, if you want to make a post on Meta, you have to go to Meta itself. Hopefully, as scope creep has said, you can find the correct location and get your grant. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Primefac: The article will need to be deleted. Will I just put a csd tag on it? scope_creepTalk 13:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page is currently in their sandbox, why does it need deleting? Primefac (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Its a grant application on mainspace. I see you have deleted it already. That excellent. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2022[edit]

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galați steel works[edit]

Hi. If I may ask for a bit of advice: how does one deal with a situation like this? Thanks. — Biruitorul Talk 14:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Biruitorul: Firstly, you must be careful about the WP:OUTING policy. Never expose somebodies real details on Wikipedia, it can expose you to the harrassment policy and get you blocked. It will need to get it redacted. scope_creepTalk 19:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, sorry about that. Now, second, can we address the substantive issue of what to do in order to safeguard the neutrality of an article from, shall we say, people who aren’t here to improve the project? — Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Primefac: when you have a minute can you please redact this. scope_creepTalk 19:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what am I redacting? Primefac (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit — an honest mistake on my part. — Biruitorul Talk 20:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Biruitorul posted the details of linkedin details of user:GeorgianaCostea who has made two two edits Galați steel works. Its now been removed from view. Thanks scope_creepTalk 07:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right, thought you meant something at the article; didn't see this conversation had been altered.  Done. Primefac (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I apologies if i did something wrong, but i don't understand what the problem is. Can someone explain it to me, please? I just updated the information about the company, after the takeover by LIBERTY Steel Group. The Galati Steel Work is a very important firm from Galati, it's like the biggest company in the city and its support a half of the Galati community... GeorgianaCostea (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has strict rules against coi and promotional editing without sourcing. scope_creepTalk 08:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. I will add the source. GeorgianaCostea (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in December 2022[edit]

WiR Women who died in 2022
WiR Women who died in 2022
Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name,
    like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Super Biton de Ségou has been accepted[edit]

Super Biton de Ségou, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 17:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M41 (Durban)[edit]

NPP is not a trump card for redirecting articles. Per WP:BRD - please take this to AFD if you want these articles gone. Rschen7754 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: No of course it not, but neither does an article with a single google maps references validate the subject and make it notable. The consensus now, since the summer RFC, is that articles must have more than 1 reference and must be able to verify the information in the article. That is not happen here. Do you plan to go against established consensus? There has been a continual push by folk writing road article against proper references, for months now, which is outside consensus. Articles of that type, can no longer stay in mainspace. I urge you to reference them properly. I plan to send them to Afd. scope_creepTalk 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "effective reference"? A term that you made up in order to discount Google Maps? And please link to this RFC. There has been a continual push by folk writing road article against proper references, for months now, which is outside consensus. Please also back this accusation up. Also, I will point you to WP:BEFORE before you send to AFD. --Rschen7754 19:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look for it. I've began the process to send them to Afd. Since the WP:NPP call back in August, when it was close 14000. I've spoke to about three folk about it. scope_creepTalk 19:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't show me this supposed RFC I will not abide by its results. Your last two sentences are borderline nonsensical. --Rschen7754 19:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: I really enjoy working with maps and geographics systems, more than more, but a Google map link, isnt a reference in anybody's book. I know from a 2010 decision. It verifiable information, not something that is copied from a map. I truly understand how hard it, but just copy-and-paste isn't the way to do it. Look for it. scope_creepTalk 19:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one redirecting, so shouldn't the onus be on you? WP:BEFORE. I will say that in 90 seconds I found a source for M25, so before you submit AFDs that boomerang, you might want to try that too. --Rschen7754 19:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: Thats a good start!! In the mean M1 (Durban) is now at Afd. scope_creepTalk 19:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Films India Ltd.[edit]

was it an accident? Doesn't look like much. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Usedtobecool: I don't know. I don't think so. I found a reference that were going since 1988, which makes it a 35year old production company. There must be some kind of references there for that length of time. That combined with the number of viewers they have is more than borderline. If you think that is wrong, send it to Afd. scope_creepTalk 09:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Sounds like you've reasoned it deeper than I have. Let me think about it. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: Afd would test it, to determine if they were notable. scope_creepTalk 09:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Elephant Whisperers" moved to draft[edit]

Hello, a stub that I created 'The Elephant Whisperers', based on a movie which is about to be released has been moved to draft. Can you please advise on the changes that need to be done to qualify it for a wikipedia article. Dg432 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dg432: The Elephant Whisperers is just a WP:CRYSTAL article that has no place on Wikipedia mainspace. It is advert and non-notable. Reviews are the gold start. If it comes into mainspace without at least favourable reviews then it can be promoted. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dg432: If any decent reviews turn up after its released, put them in and give me ping and i'll promote it. I'll keep eye on, in the meantime. scope_creepTalk 08:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morning @Gerda Arendt: I didn't realise that three years had passed already. It doesn't seems like that time has passed. They say as you get older it moves faster, flashing by. I read if you talk about it too much it seems to go faster. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robby Starbuck[edit]

hello, the entry is linked to that page on it.wiki so I have no idea why it's deleted.. SURDUSVII 15:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SurdusVII: The standards of notability are much higher due to the large number of different languages of folk. A lot of junk is created that you don't neccessarily see on other wikipedias, which has slowly pushed up the criteria over the last decade. The references that are on that Italian WP are mostly interviews, dead or X of Y (40 under 40) which are non-rs. You need better references than that if its to stay. It will be either reverted or sent to draft. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 15:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
from what you have written to me I think I will ask my fellow Wikipedians about a PdC for the voice.. good job wiki!! SURDUSVII 15:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SurdusVII: What is a Pdc? scope_creepTalk 15:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is PdC!! SURDUSVII 15:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SurdusVII: Has it just be deleted this second on the Italian WP? That is weird. scope_creepTalk 15:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no, I applied to delete the entry.. SURDUSVII 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SurdusVII: An Italian speedy delete tag. I see. scope_creepTalk 15:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
exact!! SURDUSVII 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants in Portland, Oregon[edit]

Hi Scope_Creep. Hope you don't mind me seeking your advice/views here as I see from your username and talkpage that you have a great deal of experience in the AfD area.

Recently I started looking at AfD discussions as a means of understanding Wikipedia's notability and advertising policies. I somehow came across this article (not AfD listed) Dime Store (Portland, Oregon) which has achieved good article status. While the article is very well written the subject matter is a restaurant in Portland that was only open for about a year. I don't understand how it fulfills WP notability and thought that if it was still open it would fail advertising/promotional rules, but was probably allowed because the place had closed. I was tempted to put it up for AfD as a 'test case' but discovered that it's written by a very experienced editor so backed away!

I then opened the Restaurants in Portland, Oregon box at the bottom of that article and was frankly astounded to see so many eating places in Portland listed. Some are stubs but others have been developed. Those I've looked at were started and largely written by the same editor. The sources used are mainly reviews in the local press/websites/inclusion in top 10, 50 lists etc.

Presumably, many AfD nominations originate from long standing article tags challenging notability/advertising/sourcing but the articles I've seen above are not so labelled.

What do you make of this? Aren't the articles advertising/promotional? Does this mean that if I can find 3 reviews of say my local fish and chip shop it's good for a WP article?!! To your knowledge have any Good Articles received an AfD nomination? Rupples (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Found WP:REST, a failed proposal to set separate guidelines for restaurants. Seems to me that restaurant articles operate in a similar way to albums and so long as there are, say, 3 or more independent reviews can pass notability and are not seen as promotion/advertising (point 1 of WP:NALBUM). Rupples (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rupples: How goes it. Seems to be. I think the editor who is writing the articles is either a paid editor, paid to write about all of them or probably more likely a bon viveur who feels its important to have all the restuarants in Portland including the the defunct ones on Wikipedia. I would suggest sending one of the defunt ones and one a live ones to Afd and see what happens. Looking at them, a lot of coverage is generic reviews, created by content writers on the web to draw traffic to specific websites that offer either coupons or reviews. It is effectively creating a directory of restuarants in Portaland and is an attempt to replace something like Fodors or the Michelin guide with something that is both less technical and accurate as a Wikipedia article. They are crass and inaccurate and mostly rank that is base advertising. scope_creepTalk 09:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples: I've sent defunct Bit House Saloon to be prodded. If its removed I'll send it to Afd. scope_creepTalk 09:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. Your thoughts mirror mine.
There looks to be a proliferation of this type of article. Restaurants in Seattle looks to be going the same way as Portland. The Eater website from which many of the "reviews" are taken has offshoots in other places including, yes, Seattle. The local newspaper reviews referenced are there to promote local businesses.
I enjoy writing about places but certainly wouldn't add a paragraph, let alone a whole article on a cafe/restaurant I'd visited, even if I'd thoroughly enjoyed the meal! Rupples (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I think the editor who is writing the articles is either a paid editor, paid to write about all of them or probably more likely a bon viveur who feels its important to have all the restuarants in Portland including the the defunct ones on Wikipedia." I'm not being paid to write these entries. I am addressing a content gap. I've promoted ~50 restaurant articles to Good status. I'm very familiar with notability criteria and what sort of coverage is needed for restaurant entries to be promoted. Feel free to share your concerns on specific article talk pages, please, instead of jumping to AfD or prodding. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your an editor who is fundamentally turning Wikipedia in a directory of restuarants. You must have 50 defunct restuarant on the template. Even Fodors or the Michelin guide doesn't support defunct restuarants. When I think of somebody creating that many articles on Portland, I wonder if it is a paid editor. You've said your not and that is fine, but your creating all the restuarant in Portland, which to me seems as if you creating a directory on Wikipedia, which is equivalent to Fodors or the Michelin guide, or the US equivalent, but it will be, if want your doing is taken to the natural conclusion. 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel a need to respond further. Take care for now, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Martt draft page[edit]

@Scope Creep: Hello, i've added a bunch of newspaper citations to the Mike Martt page i was working on, let me know if that works? Thanks

Innerturmoil (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Innerturmoil: How goes it. I don't think the article is notable at the moment. The coverage is all passing mentions, just the name, nothing of significance. I've copyedited it a bit and submitted it for review. You might get an editor who passes if think it is notable. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 09:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created category[edit]

Hi, here's a new category that I created that you can add to your userpage. Category:Wikipedians who have earned the 100,000 edits award. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: I've added that in. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Gerdner[edit]

Thanks for joining in on the discussion. Since you think that this person is a notable academic, I'd really like to help facilitate the creation of a well-sourced neutral article about her. However, I don't think she realizes that I had requested that she be the one to initiate a WP:REFUND of the deleted content. Can one of us request it on her behalf, or does it need to be from her? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drm310: How goes it? I found several book reviews. I read that. I'm not really sure. I've not refunded an article before. If your up for doing it? I'll follow behind. I never saw the original article but I can certainly help with copyediting and so on. If you fancy doing it today, I think it should be pretty quick and its posted to draft. I think its a quick process. We can do most of the work on today. scope_creepTalk 10:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: I'm just back in from a walk. I had a look at the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion but couldn't see it. I'm going to make a request now. See how it goes. scope_creepTalk 16:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: I've created an entry at WP:REFUND. scope_creepTalk 16:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I will be intermittently online today so I'll check back in whenever I have a chance. Thanks for making the refund request. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: The article was refunded User:Scope creep/Linda Gerdner but they're is barely anything there. The book reviews are about shamanism, it looks like and they're is barely any kind of valid biographical details. It is just research and they're isn't enought for secondary sources. I'm thinking of G6'in it. scope_creepTalk 21:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be easier to WP:TNT it. Question for you, what does the citation to the Handbook of Asian American Health support? It's not clear to me. Also, I think putting a brief outline of her education back in would be good. I saw they used a primary source, which would be fine but it didn't actually list her degrees. I found a page on the SCIRP site, but now I see that it's considered a predatory publisher... so scratch that. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: Yes, that site is rank. They're is profiles in several gbooks that list oddments. The handbook verifies Gerdner's position at Stanford certainly. I couldn't find anything that verifies Gerdner's education. How do I WP:TNT it. I was also thinking of going to UtherSRG and asking for it to be deleted. scope_creepTalk 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe TNT was a little over-dramatic on my part. Gutting it and completely rewriting it from scratch is a more accurate description. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: I think she is notable, but I can't take it forward or I would have added it to my todo list. I'll move it to draft, which will give some months to work on it and keep a watch on it. Suitable references may show up in the meantime. scope_creepTalk 10:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I can pick away at it in the draft space. Even if we can get it to a stub for starters, it's something. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: I've now sent that article to draft here: Draft:Linda Gerdner. Hopefully something will come of it. I've G1'd the page here as its not longer needed. scope_creepTalk 14:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniël Goulooze[edit]

Daniël Goulooze is an interesting article. I have one question so far: what is the "(NLR)"? The Banner talk 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The Banner: Excellent work!! I'll check it out. scope_creepTalk 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of the substantial risk of disinformation. Both by the group around Paul de Groot and by government agencies like the General Intelligence and Security Service (BVD). As far as my limited knowledge goes, it was a power struggle later on. With Goulooze with his contacts in de USSR a risk for De Groot who as leader of the CPN went into hiding for everybody, including his own party. The Banner talk 16:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: Are you talking after the war, or during the invasion? I know they're was a lot of rancor after the war and Goulooze was effectively banned from the CPN, but don't know much about it as yet. Can you clarify it a bit, so I can zero on the particular period? I'm using the Harmsen book, apparently a comprehensive biography of Goulooze. scope_creepTalk 16:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: That starting to worry a wee bit. Any documentation, source, archive docs and so would be most welcome. scope_creepTalk 16:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have my books available but largely since he started the radio connections with Moscow independently from the CPN. Harmsen is, as far as I know, a reliable source. The Banner talk 16:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I've been thinking about this last night. I'll look at it again. scope_creepTalk 10:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far the article is okay to me. Is the book in Dutch or translated? The Banner talk 10:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch. scope_creepTalk 10:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine. scope_creepTalk 10:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you speak/read Dutch. :-) So you can use Delpher (www.delpher.nl) to back up some fact, like his first trip to the Soviet Union here. The Banner talk 11:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I picked up some while working there in the late 90's, early noughties putting in software. I'm not fluent in any manner. I take a look. scope_creepTalk 11:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Digital engineering necessary?[edit]

I suspect that you see Digital engineering as a plug for digitalengineeringgroup.com. If so, and it were to be proposed to fold any salvageable content into an existing article, I'd support that. Engineering design process may be appropriate, I'm not sure yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this wake-up edit after a 15 year hiatus is very sus. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bri, I did only see the cambridge university book ref and the ext link and i've heard the phrase before and assumed it was that, but it does have three refs to pivotpoint technologies which are spam links and two wiki links which are WP:SPS. I never caught it. I really really wish just once, for it to be a normal academic article on a new subject. To answer your question, no, its not. Well done for catching it. Could merge. It is a valid term and a valid engineering domain and there is a couple or three good refs that could be expanded. I would happy for a merge. scope_creepTalk 18:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: The PivotPoint article has been updated by the other editor and cross-linked to here. scope_creepTalk 18:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: And they have removed the notability tag as well. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling[edit]

Please check the edit history of the pages you are patrolling. You tagged Holliswood, New York for deletion when actually a new editor had blanked the page. The vandalism should be reverted, the page shouldn't be deleted. Please look beyond the surface and look at the history of the pages you are considering tagging for deletion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 09:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I came back and thought was experimenting. Take a look at this: Unconscious bias. scope_creepTalk 09:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I later saw that you handled a similar page appropriately but I had already post this notice. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi Sir Scope creep (talk · contribs) i hope you are fine, But i have a question can i create 2022 Zambales local elections??? — Einahr (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Einahr: How are you? Yes, but you need to create references. Please take a look at WP:REFB which is a small training video on how to create references. Create the references before you copy to mainspace. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 09:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help sir Scope creep (talk · contribs) — Einahr (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Ohara Shoson (Koson), Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
Ohara Shoson (Koson), Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
 Have a wonderful holiday season
filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder.

Hi Scope creep, Thank you for all your contributions during the year.
I've learned a lot by observing your work here throughout the year, and wanted to take a moment to share my gratitude and appreciation.
May your 2023 be filled with creativity and good health.
Image: Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927

Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers
Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers
 Seasons greetings!

Wishing you joyous holiday spirits,
Scope creep!
and best wishes for the New Year


Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes
Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes


Beccaynr (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Hello. Regarding the Roy Sebag article, it was not my intention to advertise, although I can see where you were coming from. Atrahasis01 (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atrahasis01: If he is an author, look for two or three book reviews in independent journals and magazines and newspapers, not a social media cite. That will prove he is an author. Folk tend to say they are many many things, because they're company or their people do it for them, and they assume the role, but its not really true. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 13:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I will do my best to be judicious with my choice of references in future. Atrahasis01 (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro) for Disruption, NPA vios, bludgeoning.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Why I am I blocked? I never made any WP:NPA attacks against anybody on any of these Afd. What WP:NPA attack explicity? I have not replied to any other editor regarding bludgeoning. Not once. scope_creepTalk 20:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I'm not going to do any more of these defunct restuarants. scope_creepTalk 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You must know MJ isn't a COI editor simply because they work in the industry. And twisting the knife at the Toledo train thing? And then pinging me back to the AfD just in case I hadn't seen the PA you removed?
All I really want is for you to not disrupt AfD with bickering and baiting of other editors. Unblocking now since you've said you won't go back. Valereee (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just the Toledo train station article, scope unreviewed (Special:Log/Scope_creep) FOURTEEN articles MJ has significant contributions to, some almost a decade old. That's an egregious abuse of NPP perms, and they should be immediately removed. That message I sent you a bit earlier was meant for you, scope_creep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, I'm not sure your block of SC here was fair or justified, just as a random third-party non-admin observer.
For clarity, I have no recollection from where I know @Scope creep and I think I may have followed their page to actually see if they caused further disruption, not because I agreed with them. And I have absolutely zero involvement in that situation, in defunct restaurants in general, etc. So I would count myself as probably a good neutral non-admin party on this.
If you examine that thread, it's clear @Scope creep was trying quite hard to avoid NPAs. They are mainly commenting to post sources and justify their argument like here where they just do a source review of the restaurants. Here they just justify how they got to these pages (via NPP), demonstrating (despite others saying the contrary) that they are not WP:HOUNDING.
  1. There are numerous comments there assuming SC is acting in bad faith, themselves violating WP:AGF, such as "You're just assuming there's no such thing as a notable defunct restaurant in Portland? Yikes"[10] and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess nominator hasn't done extensive research here [11] and there's also an editor who has begun to believe any restaurant stub I've created is problematic and/or any defunct restaurant is non-notable [12] and Like it or not, the nominator is clearly engaged in wikihounding. This can't go on much longer [13] and You had offered to put together a thorough source assessment demonstrating non-notability for Beast but you "didn't find anything" so I guess that's complete [14] and nominator and friends are bad-faith targeting useful entries, and have astonishing misconceptions about the importance of the restaurant industry in society and to historical narratives [15]
  2. Plus comments like these which are clearly not civil: If you don't think a fucking doctor can write about fucking hospitals hundreds of miles away I can't even with you.. [16]
  3. And through all of that, Scope creep was able to keep their cool, and not escalate tensions.
Why would that merit a block?? Is it for BLUDGEON? Because even then, the user was mostly responding to others describing their actions and in other ways addressing them. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't really the point or heart of BLUDGEON. The user wasn't responding to everyone who contributed, being hostile, or repeating arguments, etc.
Humbly, truly, I know being an admin is a hard job and it's really hard to deal with these situations where it's so unclear who is in the right. But I firmly believe this should not be one of those situations where a kid is getting bullied, and the school suspends both the bully and bullied. I hate those! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how it looked to me:
14:05 12-19 Special:Diff/1128316303 accusations of bad faith from MJ
17:42 12-19 Special:Diff/1128348802 accusations of COI from SC
18:24 12-19 Special:Diff/1128355002 SC ups the ante with a PA: You seem to be incoherent.
18:31 12-19 Special:Diff/1128355882 MJ fires back with namecalling
18:44 12-19 Special:Diff/1128357805 SC removes MJ’s namecalling
18:56 12-19 Special:Diff/1128359630 MJ removes an entire exchange among multiple people in order to rem SC’s earlier PA. We now have a discussion that can’t easily be followed.
19:44 12-19 Special:Diff/1128367066 I ask MJ to stop making personal attacks and assuming bad faith
19:46 Special:Diff/1128367355 MJ pushes back on that, makes further accusations
19:50 Special:Diff/1128367960 SC pings me to let me know they’ve removed a PA, possibly thinking I hadn’t seen it
20:25 Special:Diff/1128373102 I get to the end of my own personal rope. Both editors have made their positions clear. All they are doing here with their various personal attacks, namecalling and assumptions of faith, and retaliatory removals of each others’ posts is generate heat. Valereee (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a discussion that can’t easily be followed.
Yes, I think this befell me as well, I didn't see the incoherent comment. I can see why that is absolutely "commenting on the contributor" rather than the content. I respect your decision and your seeing this as a tit for tat was clearly done in good faith, even if I think one party's actions were decidedly more severe than the other. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get it. To read the thing as it currently reads, I can see how it looks like an overreaction. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable[edit]

Hello, Scope creep,

An editor brought your recent actions to my attention. It is unacceptable to mark older articles as "unreviewed" as some sort of strange payback to an editor you are in a dispute with. If you do this again, it could result in your privileges being revoked. So far, I've stayed out of these AFD discussions but I see bad behavior on both sides of all of this.

Remember, if you take this dispute to ANI, your own conduct will be reviewed. If I were you, I'd be sure I didn't do anything that would justify a boomerang. Remember, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to get even with editors we disagree with, even if we feel provoked. Personal attacks and misplaced accusations of COI are completely out-of-place in an AFD discussion. Focus on the articles, not the contributors. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It wasn't payback and I'm not interested in any kind of revenge. Please examine this article: Toledo and Ohio Central Railroad Station. Ref 17 to 32 are barelurls that evaluate to a login page. I put a bareurl tag on the article and the editor removed it. That mechanism is being in dozens of articles. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SC, I think Liz is referring to multiple articles by MJ that you marked as unreviewed? Valereee (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EEng: Thanks for your help at the Afd. That small group decided to subvert it from the get-go and turned it into a complete farce, even though they're was pushback against it from several folk including yourself, for which I thank you. I don't intend to send any more of these articles to Afd. I've had my fill. It is a complete and utter waste of time. I think probably if a notability tag is placed on each of them, likely within 6 days to six months they will be taken off and the whole thing will be quitly forgotten. I think it is probably a waste of your time. Nobody's mind has been changed. And even that disgraceful dounut article looks as though its coming back. scope_creepTalk 23:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Scope creep (talk · contribs) can you help me add source/references in my new project 2022 Zambales local elections? — Einahr (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Einahr: I don't enough about the 2022 Zambales local elections. scope_creepTalk 12:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clozee[edit]

Hi looks like you removed information on an independently sourced performance? Artedm (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-afd[edit]

Hello Scope Creep, I wanted to let you know I closed out the multi-afd as no consensus without prejudice. NAC. Bruxton (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page move mess[edit]

Hello, Scope creep,

I am very upset. You chose, for some reason, not to leave a redirect when you did some recent page moves and now we have 133 broken redirect pages that need to be fixed. Just look at this list!.

Please go back and create redirects when you decided to leave none. You really should clean up after your bad decision. ALWAYS leave a redirect when you move a long-standing article to a new page title or you are likely to end up with a lot of broken redirects that shouldn't be deleted because they are valid redirects. Please go and create all of these redirects where you decided to leave none so another editor doesn't have to go and tag all of these valid redirects as broken when they should not be. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The folk that are working on RFC at Talk:First ladies and gentlemen of Kansas will fix them in due course. I've left a message the editor who is running the RFC. I don't have much experience in creating valid redirects at scale. The reason the RFC was created in the first places was 50 odd article had names that weren't valid per MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:NCCAPS. The RFC is finished and these have to moved their correct names. scope_creepTalk 23:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: If they don't get them done, I will work through the list in the next few days. I will need some help to determine what needs to go in. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 23:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I have created the redirects en masse using my alt account.
SC, redirects even if it is contrary to the MOS is inexpensive and help at least the search engines to pick up the changes on their end and not having the readers being surprised at arriving at a 404 page when they follow the redirect. If anything, my experience working on mass moves is that editors, even at a collective effort, will take weeks, if not days to clean up everything according WP:POSTMOVE. A couple of Rcats should do the trick in informing those who are looking at the redirects. – robertsky (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: @Liz: Thanks for being so prompt and fixing that problem. scope_creepTalk 13:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas, Scope creep

Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice!
As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to
recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia.
May this Holiday Season bring you and yours nothing but joy, health and prosperity.
Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023.
Happy editing,
Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers
Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers
 Seasons greetings!

Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, a Merry Christmas, and a very Happy New Year
Scope creep!
and best wishes to you and your loved ones. Have a great time.


Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes
Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes


RV (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 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.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newer[edit]

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]

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) 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Scope creep,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023.
Happy editing,
Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please archive your UTP[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Would you be able to archive your UTP? It is current approaching 360KB, and the archival guideline recommends archiving at 75KB. Thanks and happy holidays, HouseBlastertalk 20:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Balderdash. EEng 04:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2023[edit]

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Question about article[edit]

Hi User:Scope creep! I hope you had a great holiday season! I wanted to follow up to see if you were able to make any leads on the Vladimir Torchilin article or were able to find any sources on him? If we can get some solid sources, i would love to start reading and extracting information on him to get the article in better shape! --RealPharmer3 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @RealPharmer3:, I completely forgot about it, didn't I, what with the holidays and other articles I am working on. Now its been posted again I'll have a go. It's funny, when I archived this talk page this morning, I was looking at it, and thought there was something I missed before Christmas but couldn't figure it out. Funny thing that. We will start it tommorrow, and have a go working through to the weekend, see what can be done. It's a relatively small article and shouldn't take too long. scope_creepTalk 22:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries @Scope creep: ! Hope you had fun over the holidays! haha.. I think that sounds like a good plan! I'll look for some sources in the mean time as well. If you get word on any information/sources, feel free to keep me in the loop! Also, if there are any specific things I can do to help, please let me know! I'd love to learn some things from an experienced editor like yourself! --RealPharmer3 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kleiner König Kalle Wirsch[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

it's a long time You inserted the unreferenced tag to the lemma. Why? There are no links to (nearly) anything, as the series is an old series of German Television. At that time, there was no internet with links. But there are several ISBN numbers which can be verified. So: Whats the problem with the sources?

Asks Harald wehner (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Harald wehner: They're is no sources on the article. That message has been on for more than a year and not been updated, so it will be redirected. scope_creepTalk 09:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What would be "acceptable sources"? And the long time: I am no regular contributor to English Wiki. So i am very seldom locked on. Harald wehner (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Harald wehner: A couple of references would do it. Any book reviews of the book would do it. An interview with author discussing the books would be ideal. This is an example : [17]. That would make a reference. I've added it in. scope_creepTalk 11:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Harald wehner: Reviews of the book are most valuable as sources, but these types of refs as replacements. There is more there. It really really an article on Tilde Michels as well. She wrote a lot of books of that type. scope_creepTalk 11:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Hello. Any chance you could drop me an email to smartsewiki@gmail.com? It's about an editor you suspected of UPE and where from a quick glance I am also suspicious, but it would be good to compare notes. SmartSE (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice from the ping that I was referring to ScepticalChymist and that after more digging my suspicions were well-founded. They seem to be highly professional though, so I don't want to disclose publicly what was suspicious. SmartSE (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Smartse:, I will send you an email now. It was a while ago though. scope_creepTalk 18:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Smartse: I sent that email as request. Hope it helps. scope_creepTalk 19:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in friendship[edit]

January songs
in friendship

Thank you for being around, and your good wishes! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gerda Arendt: Happy New Year!! I was out a walk today through this forest on a hill, in a country park, in in the west of Scotland and it was exactly like the image. The sky was so clear and such a beautiful day. scope_creepTalk 18:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, that sounds lovely - much warmer where I'm now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt:. Living Billers's life is unimaginable. Good articles. scope_creepTalk 00:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
February songs
frozen
Today is a feast day for which Bach wrote several cantatas including Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, which was on DYK 10 years ago and TFA 4 years ago. I'm less happy that Biller stayed on the MP not even for a full day. It would have been so meaningful today, with the man in the cantata saying he can depart in joy and peace. - The February pic was taken in memory last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like my talk today (keeping Biller a bit longer, and even explaining how it works), and managed to picture two more vacation days --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: It is quite a visually strong talk page unlike few on Wikipedia. It's the flower image in the centre that I tend to look at mostly. Its the colour's, they are vibrant and profoundly beautiful. I listened to Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125 last night. It's a bit early for my taste. I was brought up with classical music, but the music was melodic and different from what thought Bach was. Douglas Hofstadter states that colour and music are linked somehow. I just noticed that fly animation on your deskop:) I see the link. scope_creepTalk 19:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the beauty comes from friends, like the flowers from El C I kept from 2021. The fly (Die Fliege) was given to me/all by nagualdesign, given first to a friend we both miss, then expanded, - feel free to add. I feel blessed by all these gifts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I decorated my talk with a Bach cantata. I heard it last year when missing RexxS began, and "not letting go" was a theme. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gerda Arendt:. Afternoon. You made the main page again. That was lucky! Is it an algorithm that selects it, or did you ask the mainpage controller. That is another beautifully written article. I'll listen to it, tonight. scope_creepTalk 17:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! - this time, the delegate asked if I agreed with his selection, - for the next (25 March), I asked - Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
stand and sing Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took the pic in 2009, and it was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Assam Lokayukta[edit]

Hi scope_creep. Hope you are keeping well. I wish you a Belated New Year Greetings. The article Assam Lokayukta moved by you to draft space couple of months back had been modified by me with additional references. Also similar articles for other states had been moved to main space considering its relevance to general public. Request you to review and suggest necessary improvements to move it to main space. Thanking you in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gardenkur: I will take a look at it. scope_creepTalk 11:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep. Hope you are keeping well. I take this opportunity to remind you to kindly approve the Assam Lokayukta for mainspace. The article is in the interest of public at large. Thanking you in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maximovitch[edit]

Would you please stop interfering with the improvements I am trying to make to this article and go read MOS:DECADE? The style WP uses for decades does not depend on any national style. The article contained decades both with and without the apostrophe, and I made it uniform. You also recklessly removed commas that I had added. If you want to be helpful, you could figure out why the article has her date of execution before her trial date, but stop screwing up the punctuation. The efn you messed with is not a quotation, so putting that in the edit summary is also not helpful. Chris the speller yack 22:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chris the speller: It wasn't the decade I was bothered about. I value your work, but you changed the quote 1930s–1940's. to this 1930s–1940s.. That is not British English, putting the s after the numbers with no dash. It is a Americanism that has no place, in a British English article. I'm not particularly bothered about the rest, as it is already British English. scope_creepTalk 23:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says "Do not use the 1980's", and it doesn't differentiate between articles written in British English or American English. And the efn is not a quotation; it doesn't list a source, so it should follow WP's style. Chris the speller yack 01:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should differentiate between between British English and American English. scope_creepTalk 11:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris the speller: I'm going to try and get it changed in the MOS and looking for a reference for that efn tag. scope_creepTalk 12:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Danna Azrieli[edit]

Dear Scope creep As per the article Draft:Danna Azrieli, I notiched that someone mark him as COI, as per myself, I don't have any Conflict of interestI don't know Danna Azrieli or get paid for editing in wikipedia. As per WP:BIO Please see for example any other Category:Israeli businesspeople such as Liora Ofer, Shari Arison, Idan Ofer and any other from List of Israelis by net worth. I edit and send the article for review, please advise if there anything else to do to improve the article. if you can review it, it could be helpful. thank you Yossilev (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yossilev: I will take a look at it. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: did you have chance look the draft? Yossilev (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yossilev: I had a look at the Draft:Danna Azrieli. It seems to be an NLP article. The name Azrieli is present in the article, 67 times, which is unacceptable. Even with roughtly a 10-20 Azrieli name used within the main article body, that leaves about 35-40. Far too much. It reads like an branded advertisement. The decline by User:CNMall41 is the correct choice in this situation. scope_creepTalk 01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Chen Qi (collector)[edit]

Hi Scope Creep! First of all I like your name. It brings me laughs! I thought you were only reverting the edition prior to mine.

About whether Mr. Qi is alive or not, I've read two admittedly unreliablish sources which state he died on the date on my source, which is one of the two unreliablish sources. Frankly, with a birth-date of 1912 I'd be surprised if he is still alive! My grand-pa was five years younger than him and he died in 2012. Good genes perhaps??

I'd responded last night but I was tired as hell.

All right, thanks for your message and God bless you! Antonio Creeptomaniac Martin (Dile al Creeptomaniac) 00:26, 17 January, 2022 (UTC)

@AntonioMartin: Thanks. I got the name from a IT project I was on. Somebody mentioned, they were suffering from scope creep, it was 12 weeks behind due to the customer trying to add new stuff. I thought it would make a good handle. I never noticed how old he was. It would make him 110 now. Slim chance of being alive, I guess. scope_creepTalk 12:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donnalyn Bartolome[edit]

Then how do you sure that it's her album? Isn't this BLP policy "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." You removed her filmography list, but you didn't remove the album list. Huh? –Ctrlwiki (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ctrlwiki: How goes are? I don't think anybody is going to lie about her albums, particulalry when they're listed on streaming sites like Spotify and archiving sites like discogs. It's almost common knowledge, listed in numerous places, so they're is no point removing them here, when they are already listed on these sites. I understand why you wanted to delete it. The article was some mess. I hate they types of article, where folk edit it, but never reference it. She is quite popular as a singer, though. I have zero doubt that a UPE or paid editor will be in, in the next couple weeks/months to update the article. She isn't an actor, but she is definetly a singer. She was a bit-part actor. A singer, doing some acting, for publicity, but not an actor. It is common work scenario with these folk. scope_creepTalk 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Netbase, Konrad Becker[edit]

Hey Scope_creep! Some time ago you were super helpful getting the article about Johannes Grenzfurthner in shape. Two of my new pet articles are Public Netbase and Konrad Becker. They are definitely noteworthy, but their articles lie somewhat in shambles. Most of the references are from their own project pages etc. Maybe you would want to help? All the best. ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 14:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarpoliceman: How are doing? The reason I worked on the Johannes Grenzfurthner article is because he is a cool artist type. I'm not sure of these articles and busy at the moment. I will have a look at the Netbase one for you. scope_creepTalk 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doing great, thanks! Concerning Grenzfurthner: I agree :) Thanks for having a look at Netbase! ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 14:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some article[edit]

Hi @Bluepencil13: What article is this? Also please read WP:TALK and WP:THREAD. Always create a new section at the bottom of the talk page. What is the point of you burying it and me trying to search for your comment in an archive. scope_creepTalk 01:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noey Jacobson edit and reversion to draft[edit]

I'd like to contest your decision to revert Draft:Noey Jacobson to draft as well as your decision to remove key information from the article's lead. Firstly, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is a reliable source within the Jewish community that meets all the criteria outlined in WP:RS (as are many of the other sources cited in the article), and I'm confused as to why you seem to feel otherwise. Secondly, in regards to notability, it may be thin but I think it's there? As a musician he's collaborated with multiple notable artists and his solo work was covered by a notable publication, as an educator he's been affiliated with the notable schools Yeshiva University and Shalhevet High School and served as an assistant and speechwriter to YU president Richard Joel. It could be argued that coverage in school newspapers like Shalhevet's The Boiling Point and YU's The Commentator does not establish notability due to conflict of interest, but I'd still argue they're credible enough journalistic sources to provide reliable support for things like his early life or his academic activities. In general, I feel that the reversion of the article to draft was premature and unfair. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Invisiboy42293: I removed x of y reference as they are non-notable. Started about 10 years ago by Forbes, they are seen as clickbait now, they are non-RS. The The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is RS, but newspapers as just as prone to puting clickbait about as anybody else. So please don't add in back in. When I reviewed the article twice, I looked at it yesterday, I looked for three WP:SECONDARY references that discussed the individual. They aren't there. Although a musician, it is a WP:BLP, so there must be secondary sources to remain in mainspace. They're is lots that discuss the band as a whole, but barely anything on Jacobson on his own. The boiling point is a student newspaper and it's the only real secondary source there. The Commentator is about the band, not him. I think it is potentially notable, if you find more reference. If I thought it was beyond-saving, I would have sent it to Afd. scope_creepTalk 21:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin–La Crosse[edit]

Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles probably is, Wisconsin–La Crosse Eagles football should probably be merged back into the former? GiantSnowman 09:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Thanks. That seems reasonable. I really wasn't sure and it looked odd having two of the same article. scope_creepTalk 09:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep[edit]

Hello. I have tagged you for cleanup. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith: Thanks very much. scope_creepTalk 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Hello Scope creep, wondering wy this revert? Thank you foryour time. Lotje (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lotje: It is a Gestapo image, taken just before she was executed. Look at her face. She has two very prominent black eyes, as she is likely been punched. Almost every one of these Red Orchestra ("Rote Kapelle") folk were tortured, either the usual basic torture or the enhanced torture with dogs, for example. All of them were generally in prison for several months and lost significant bodyweight, often up to the third of their weight. You can see it in her face. They're is several of these public domain image. They are dreadful. scope_creepTalk 09:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I know, this is not an image where Anna Krauss looks at her best, but, still, this is no reason to remove if from the article. IMO, it is a kind of tribute to her. She (and other victims) should never be forgotten. Hence I will undo your revert. Promise, if one day, I come across an image of her when she was still happy and smiling, I will insert it. thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Don't put it back in. It is not a tribute. It is far from a tribute as its possible to get. I've explained to you what it is. Do you not understand what it is? It is a post-interrogation image. It is not suitable for Wikipedia nor the article. There is no other images of here, except what her family has. There is nothing available in German Federal Archives, so nothing will turn up. Don't put it back in. scope_creepTalk 13:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I promise you, that I will do everything within my power to find a suitable image. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you would leave the page unchanged. Thank you. Lotje (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Do not put in back in. There is two things that are going to happen. 1. They'll be an edit war to remove and you'll be up at admin. 2. I will get the article deleted. I'm not having any article I wrote, associated with a Gestapo image on Wikipedia. Leave it out. It is your pride and stubborness to move ahead when I have already explained what the problem is. Nothing else.scope_creepTalk 13:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Thanks for not doing that. scope_creepTalk 14:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Anna Krauss[edit]

Hello Scope creep, just to update you on my request at Commons. Bundesarchiv-B6 replyed: Dear Lotje, the division FA5 (Bildarchiv = picture archive) of the Federal Archives unfortuntely doesn't keep photos of Annie Krauß / Anne Krauss, sorry, but you may contact the department BE of the Federal Archives in Berlin (berlin@bundesarchiv.de), whether photos are kept in files.At least, you know where to turn to now. Maybe this can be of help to you. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: Are you up for contacting them? scope_creepTalk 17:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scope creep, I guess, since you probably gave lot more information about Anna Krauss, you are the best person to contact them. They do speak English Lotje (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Morning @Lotje: That fine. I will contact them today. I will update you if I get anything back. scope_creepTalk 11:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope they have photo's available. Keeping my fingers (double)crossed here. Lotje (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: I've forwarded them an email, requesting an image. Lotje, thanks for getting for looking out that email address. That was nice of you. scope_creepTalk 12:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. Actually all the credit goes to Commons:User talk:Bundesarchiv-B6 Lotje (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who is back![edit]

To check your answer, click here. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Amazon shipping to Israel[edit]

Hello Scope creep. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amazon shipping to Israel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I agree this article has problems - sourcing from PR websites and Amazon websites not the least of them - but in my opinion it does not reach the threshold for outright WP:G 11 deletion in its current form. Please do feel free to disagree. . Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shirt58: Thanks for getting back to me. I wasn't sure it was the correct csd. scope_creepTalk 10:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you an apology - it would appear that I have made a mistake here. I incorrectly assumed that "Amazon shipping to Israel" was about the broader topic of e-commerce businesses - such as Amazon - and postal delivery of packages in Israel by those businesses. I failed to consider reference 11 in the article, which explicitly points to a business of the name Shipping to Israel. As far as I can see, this business entity would not pass WP:CORPDEPTH and possibly any number of other policies and guidelines for a mainspace article. Perhaps move "Amazon shipping to Israel" to "Shipping to Israel" and lets see what happens? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shirt58: I never saw that either, Geez. Just read the article and the first block of reference. Yip, it is intentionally done to disguise it; it is brochure article. I plan to try and delete it via NCORP scope_creepTalk 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material from The Suede Crocodiles and the Kevin McDermott Wikipedia pages[edit]

Hi Scope Creep, I want to dispute your deletion of the following information, and your suggestion that I have engaged in “disrupting editing”. In fact, it is your edits have been disruptive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_McDermott_(singer%E2%80%93songwriter)&diff=1052944568&oldid=1052944211

Will you please add the information back in, and if you won’t, please explain why. CoffeeClouds (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CoffeeClouds: You've been adding external links into the body of articles and I removed them as quick as I could. For some reason you think external links in the body of the article are cool, when they are not. They are illegal on Wikipedia. There is two places in an article where should be, per the WP:MOS. One is the external links section at the end of the article, 2. In a bibliography section, where the link is pointing to the article or monograph or book assuming its a fully populated citation. Lastly please don't leave a large comment like again. It is not appreciated by anybody. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeClouds: If you put the content back in, which was well referenced, please leave out the external links. scope_creepTalk 14:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made another dumb error[edit]

Scoop Creep, I just entered a new Wikipedia Page which should have been titled Nuclear protein in testis gene but, due to my old age, I mistakenly entitled Nnuclear protein in testis gene. Would you please show me how to recitify (i.e. remove the extra "n" from the Title) this error? Thank you. joflaher (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: That is the article renamed. scope_creepTalk 22:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop Creep, Many thanks from Mr. Dumb. joflaher (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.11.97.87 (talk) [reply]

Malignant acrospiroma vs. Porocarcinoma vs Spiradenocarcinoma[edit]

Scoop Creep, I beginning to make a Wikipedia page on Porocarcinoma I found that typing in Porocarcinoma delivers you to Malignant acrospiroma. The two skin diseases are regarded as different. Furthermore, in the List of skin conditions Wikipedia page, malignant poroma, porocarcinoma, and spiradenocarcinoma are listed as synonyms for Malignant acrospiroma; they are not. According to the literature, porocarcinoma (or its synonym, malignant poroma), spiradenocarcinoma, and Malignant acrospiroma are different skin cancers. Would you please help me by stopping porocarcinoma, malignant poroma, and spiradenocarcinoma from routing to Malignant acrospiroma? I will then create Wikipedia pages for porocacinoma (synonym malignant carcinma) and spiradenocarcinoma. Thank you, joflaher (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: I think it is probably a good idea to remove the Porocarcinoma redirect first and then move to Spiradenocarcinoma when your need to create it. A blank page is never a good thing on Wikipeda. I'll remove the redirect at Porocarcinoma first. That is the first one done. It will take mere seconds to remove the other redirects when you need them removed. scope_creepTalk 17:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joflaher:, I see somebody has redirected the Porocarcinoma article. Once your article is ready, I can remove the redirect. scope_creepTalk 10:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Porocarcinoma Wikipedia page[edit]

Scoop Creep, I am finished making the Wikipedia page for Porocarcinoma. Would you please unlink the erroneous linkage of Porocarcinoma to the Malignant acrospiroma page so that I and print the Porocrcinom Page? This Porocarcinoma page has bee a real bear to write. Thank you for all your help. joflaher (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: That is it. scope_creepTalk 18:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scoop Creep, Page done. Again, thank you.Talk 18:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: Great article. scope_creepTalk 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News[edit]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jody_Turner[edit]

Hi, do you actually feel that the "publications" section on this article is justified? It's sourced to an interview and I'm not sure if the publication is real, in the sense of something a publisher independently chose to publish, and that has impact, or whether it's a bit of self-published "look how clever I am!" stuff. I'm very skeptical about the whole thing, but I'm beginning to feel I'm too harsh on people. I seem out of kilter with AfD at the moment, on ice-cream salesmen at any rate! Thanks for the tidying you're doing. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elemimele: How are you? I've no idea to be honest. I was just trying to clean the article up a bit. I'll take a look. scope_creepTalk 13:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: I see she works at that organisation. [[18]]. scope_creepTalk 13:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: I'm not sure. I think it probably is, in the grand scheme of things. I'll take a look tommorrow whem I'm more awake, if you have not removed it yourself. scope_creepTalk 13:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have no particularly strong feelings about it. It just seemed to me that it wasn't on a par with the publications I'd expect of an academic or author, but perhaps I should be less harsh. I am still quite inexperienced about what is notable and what is not. Elemimele (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: Yip, that seems to perfectly reasonable argument. Normally I would remove it, as she is works at the company, she wrote it and she is interviewed when it is mentioned on the ref, all things not really going for it. As a pure WP:SPS source, I think it is probably should be taken out, but at the same time, in several sources that I found it states she writes for Unesco and UN amongst others, so it could be a notable report, academically notable that is. I'll definenly take a better look at it tommorrow when I'm more awake. It needs a better look. scope_creepTalk 16:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind support[edit]

Dear scope creep, I came here to convey my thanks and gratitude for your support at the latest ANI discussion. I am grateful to find that you and me, both share a common vision for Wikipedia. -Hatchens (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not paid?[edit]

Hi Scope. I'm not paid to edit Wikipedia. I've never heard of Tripp Smith or GSO partners and have no connection to them. As you can see from my edits, I have created several pages and made edits going back 12 years on various topics. I hope this is enough to sort this issue out. Queeninbriefs (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Queeninbriefs: I hope so, but you said almost the exact same words the last time, yet the article was reviewed at WP:NPP by another editor who found it to be non-notable and set it to a redirect and you reverted it. Why did you change it? scope_creepTalk 17:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March editathons[edit]

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Yonov Frederick Agah[edit]

Dear @Scope creep, I hope that you are fine and well? In Nov 2021, you moved the page of Yonov Frederick Agah, to the draft space. Your summary for that move was "incubate in draftspace, BLP for active diplomat that badly sourced. Great article apart from that". In this case, I wanted to reach out and ask for your help in improving the draft. Also, as drafts, which have not been improved may be deleted after six months - it was essential to request for your kind help or the help of any other willing editor. Thank you very much Planetearth285 (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Planetearth285: How goes it? The subject is notable as a senior civil servant but the article is a WP:BLP, which means it needs a reference for every sentence. There is whole sections that are effectively unsourced, that cover very large time periods. Update the article with at least another 30 references and it will be good. Unfortunately I don't have much time at the moment to help. scope_creepTalk 12:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Scope creep: I am great thanks for asking. Also, thanks for the very important updates/advice that you have given. I also take note that you do not have much time at the moment to help. However, as the draft might be deleted (say in 3 months) if no improvements are made, if you have time within this frame, please do helpppppppp. Until then, do take care. Planetearth285 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:, how are ya? So, thanks once again for the responses given so far. However, I just wanted to clarify one thing on "it needs a reference for every sentence/update the article with at least another 30 references and it will be good". In this case, could you please clarify what sort of/kind of references would be needed or acceptable? Thanks Planetearth285 (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Planetearth285: WP:SECONDARY sources are the best. People who talking about the person but don't know him. There is goodly number of google book references on him I noticed that confirms at lot of stuff, plus there plenty of newspaper articles that can be used for a reference. His time at the WTO should be well referenced. If you cant reference his teach career, remove it. The same with his time in the nigerian civil service. It would be hard to reference that is not primary. Remove that as well. The private sector block is the same. Your unlikely to get a reference for that, working for any private organisation for anybody, deatails aren't published. It would likkly be written by himself, so reduce it to a single sentence. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 13:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:, yes, it helps immensely and I am very grateful for the directions given. Do take care and until next time.Planetearth285 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
29 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Elisabeth Schumacher (talk) Add sources
17 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Robert Menasse (talk) Add sources
5,931 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Taliban (talk) Add sources
363 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA History of tuberculosis (talk) Add sources
2,437 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Gulzarilal Nanda (talk) Add sources
2,883 Quality: High, Assessed class: GA, Predicted class: FA Biology (talk) Add sources
437 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C National Disaster Management Authority (India) (talk) Cleanup
105 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Good agricultural practice (talk) Cleanup
411 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Community health (talk) Cleanup
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Germaine Schneider (talk) Expand
50 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Greta Kuckhoff (talk) Expand
451 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Social distancing (talk) Expand
4 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA George Schlager Welsh (talk) Unencyclopaedic
32 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Neuropsychoanalysis (talk) Unencyclopaedic
394 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Pharmacovigilance (talk) Unencyclopaedic
141 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Turk Shahis (talk) Merge
162 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Hindu Shahis (talk) Merge
33 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Frederician Rococo (talk) Merge
1,058 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Boarding school (talk) Wikify
459 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Human nutrition (talk) Wikify
26 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Edward Albert Sharpey-Schafer (talk) Wikify
3 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Mikhail Kuzovlev (talk) Orphan
1 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Mukhamed Tsikanov (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Sanzhar Mustafin (talk) Orphan
72 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Mooa (talk) Stub
7 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Order of Kurmet (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Thomas Phleps (talk) Stub
79 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Jawaharlal Nehru Award (talk) Stub
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Nista (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radical updating of the Wikipeida page "Multiple familial trichoepithelioma"[edit]

Scoop Creep, Since the WikipediaI page "Multiple familial trichoepithelioma" was made there has been a reclassification of multiple familial trichoepitheliomas: It along with Brooke–Spiegler syndrome and familial cylindromatosis are now classified as types of a single disease, CYLD cutaneous syndrome. I have ready to go a new page entitled CYLD cutaneous syndrome and would like to rename the Multiple familial trichoepitheliomas page as the CYLD cutaneous syndrome and fill it with my new page. Searching for the Brooke-Spiegler syndrome pulls up the Multiple familial trichoepitheliomas page while familial cylindromatosis has no page or linkage. I would like to have multiple familial trichoepthelipomas, Brooke-Spiegler syndrome, and CYLD cutaneous syndrome linked to the now named CYLD cutaneous syndrome. Alternatively, I could create the page "CYLD cutaneous syndrome" if you could show me how to convert the aforementioned linkages to "Multiple Familial tricoepithelioma" page and, perhaps remove this page as being redundant and perhaps confusing.For sure, I will do whatever you suggest to update the situation. Thank you. joflaher (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (←UTC)

Hi @Joflaher: So you want to do the following:
  1. Rename Multiple familial trichoepitheliomas -> CYLD cutaneous syndrome
  2. Put your content in the CYLD cutaneous syndrome
  3. Point Multiple familial trichoepthelipomas -> CYLD cutaneous syndrome
  4. Point Brooke-Spiegler syndrome -> CYLD cutaneous syndrome

Is that correct. If that is the case I would create the new article at CYLD cutaneous syndrome and redirecting the other articles to your new article. Would that be suitable. You can put your content in the CYLD cutaneous syndrome as it should be brand empty page. Once that is done I will do the other redirects. scope_creepTalk 17:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop Creep, the page CYLD cutaneious syndrome has just been created. In needs to have Multiple familial trichoepithelioma and Brooke–Spiegler syndrome unlinked to Multiple familial trichoepithelioma and linked to CYLD cutaneous syndrome and familial cylindromatosis (which was not linked to anything) linked to Multiple familial trichoepithelioma. Thank you. joflaher (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2022 (←UTC)

@Joflaher:

  1. On Brooke–Spiegler syndrome I've changed the redirect to CYLD cutaneous syndrome syndrome. Can you check that. You want the same redirect for Multiple familial trichoepithelioma. scope_creepTalk 18:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scoop Creep, The Brooke-Spiegler syndrome now correctly goes to CYLD cutaneous syndrome. Multiple familial trichoepithelioma should get the same redirect and "Familial cylindromatosis" (which had no linkage) should also now link to the CYLD cutaneous syndrome page. Thank you very much. joflaher (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2022 (←UTC)

@Joflaher:

@Joflaher: I think that it is. Can you please check each article to make sure the redirects are targetting the right article. That is a another beautifully written article. scope_creepTalk 22:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scoop Creep, yes, all linkages are in place. Again, thank you. joflaher (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2022 (←UTC)

March 2022[edit]

Hi Scope creep, concerning Josiah De Disciple, if I may ask, why was the article moved to draft space because in your edit summary you stated that the subject is notable and meet WP:Notability, and I've added that his single was certified Gold by the Recording Industry of South Africa (RiSA) here.Is the article now ready for the main space? Neo the Twin (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo the Twin: Thanks for getting in touch with me. There is two tags on the article, one for reliable sources and one for insufficient references. No new mainspace article should have those types of tags, particularly unreliable sources which is really serious gig. I will check the references on the rticle today. If it is good I mainspace it. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, thank you, please alarm me with your decision when you are done. Neo the Twin (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neo the Twin: The reason the article was tagged with the unreliable sources is due to the references. The first are made up of PR, blogs and profile. All them unacceptable as secondary sources. This for example: 10 Things You should Know About Josiah De Disciple. That is PR and illegal on Wikipedia. This here: Josiah De Disciple releases Spirits of Makoela, Vol. 2: The Reintroduction That looks like a blog reporting a press-release. Blogs are WP:SPS sources and press-release are Non-RS. You'll need to update the article with better sources. This is the same STREAM: Josiah De Disciple & Boohle new collabo album ‘Umbuso Wabam’nyama’. They are very poor references and unacceptable. scope_creepTalk
He is notable no doubt but an article that state is unsuitable in that state. scope_creepTalk 09:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I do believe the draft is now ready to invade the main space. Neo the Twin (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a linkage to Maligant acrospiroma[edit]

Scope creep, I just now greatly expanded the Wikipedia page "Spiradenoma" and included on this page its malignant form, Spiradenocarcinoma. I now find that searching for spiradenocarcinoma links to Malignant acrospiroma. I can find no reports that claim spiroadenocarcinoma is synonamous with or a form of malignant acrospiroma. Would you please redirect the linkage of spiroadenocarcinoma to the Spiradenoma page? Thank you. [User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (←UTC)

Hi @Joflaher: That is done, can you check and check the categories, to see if they're needing updated. scope_creepTalk 22:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I will check and check and check one more time the categories for updates. Thank you very much.[User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2022 (←UTC
@Joflaher:  :) You can use the four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message and this is converted by software into a full signature. Great article. scope_creepTalk 08:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your GA nomination of Gisela von Pöllnitz[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gisela von Pöllnitz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ealdgyth: Thanks. I'll take a look at your comments later this afternoon. scope_creepTalk 14:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Gisela von Pöllnitz[edit]

The article Gisela von Pöllnitz you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gisela von Pöllnitz for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 March 2022[edit]

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100,000![edit]

This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

Keep up the amazing work! 😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hi @ToBeFree (mobile): How goes it. Thanks for much. scope_creepTalk 03:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page haven't been reviewed[edit]

Hi Dear Scope creep Ji, This is Sams321 i have created artcle in few days ago have been reviewed but some artice are created before it, in the mid of the march month not reviewed till now

i pleased to you for review it, your review encourage to me for create more article and gives the best encyclopedia to the public and readers.(Thank You) Sams321 (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sams321: Thanks but I'm not really the person to review these at the moment. 23:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Leeds[edit]

Thanks for all the work you're doing on History of the Jews in Leeds; we're about halfway done, I think. Given that the article was formerly at 1000+ references, the fact that it's now under 500 is remarkable. Lkb335 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkb335: Its taken a lot of work to get it into shape and a lot more yet is needed. I was planning to delete the whole list as a WP:TNT. scope_creepTalk 23:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do really believe there is a lot that can be salvaged; the sheer scope of the current article is astounding, if often delving into non-notable territory. Lkb335 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lkb335: That is really the reason decided to keep it. I noticed a whole of bunch on whatever section I was on at the moment, seemed to be really notable folk. I've a removed a couple up until this point. I was planning to remove another oouple of entry today as I couldn't find anything on the people. Generally I think the editor has been pretty decent at picking out noteworthy individuals, but due to to the size there must be quite a lot of folk that perhaps that need to go. Do you want check each others edits to see if what is being deleted, if it is a person, to make sure they are non-notable. I'll do the same with you. Also I started to remove their post-noms. They only go in the source list, if there is one there. You never see them in listing articles. I've started to link them, if I think they are notable and don't have articles. Ones I've not linked i'm not sure, check it as well. scope_creepTalk 07:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that you're knowledgeable enough about notability guidelines to make the right choices; if you want to check my deletions, that's quite all right, and could very well be a good idea. Lkb335 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAN page edit[edit]

Scope creep, yesterday you removed three of your nominations by editing the GAN page directly.

They way to remove nominations is to remove them from the article talk pages. There's a bot that runs every 20 minutes, and once the nominations are gone from the article talk pages, the bot will no longer include them on the GAN page.

As it happens, you did those talk-page removals for two of the three nominations. The third, Harald Poelchau, was not removed, so the bot came along and added that nomination back to the talk page. If you really meant to retract your nomination, you'll need to go Talk:Harald Poelchau and delete the GA nominee template. After that, all you need to do is wait a bit, and the bot will remove it automatically. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BlueMoonset: I thought I did. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 07:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote (company)[edit]

If you believe other editors are behaving inappropriately, by all means take it to WP:ANI, but don't make threats and observe proper Wikipedia:Talk Page Etiquette; specifically don't remove other editors comments. I tend to agree with your arguments about the article, and I can certainly understand your exasperation with the situation, but your behavior is borderline WP:BULLYING. That doesn't help your cause. It has made me back off voting for deletion while I consider the whole thing. Jacona (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: I don't have anything against folk who create paid articles and follow the rules. Being paid to write an article for some people is a good way to earn money; they need to feed their family and keep a roof over their head like everybody else. I am completely sympathetic to those folk. There is nothing wrong with it. But this dude, who has three seperate editors on the coin noticeboard saying he is an UPE, has no interest in supporting Wikipedia or following the rules. The greatest project of mankind since the enlightenment. This dude wants to WP:GAME the system for his benfit and the company which has been advertising for a paid article for months, at our loss. The previous edior was trying to WP:BLUDGEON the whole argument and fudge it. I can't say exactly how I feel about it, because it would get me blocked in a New York minute. I have no time for these folk. They are corrupt. scope_creepTalk 18:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep:, I have quite a bit of respect for people who are passionate about wikipedia, and so occasionally get a bit incivil in momentary frustration. So while I felt your reversion of my response to you in a deletion discussion was not appropriate, I wasn't going to make a fuss about it. In fact I came here now, a day later, intending to reach out via a friendly message. However, instead I find you apparently accusing me of corruption in a discussion about the situation with someone else. I'm afraid I will have to insist you clearly and unambiguously withdraw that accusation, here and anywhere else you may have made it. Unless of course you have something to back it up, which seems unlikely since I don't know anyone of the participants in the discussion (other than by seeing their wiki sigs go by) and have no relationship with Remote (company), in fact was not aware of its existence before the AFD. I merely feel nearly as strongly that we've developed a strong allergy against covering companies as you seem to feel that we have a COI emergency. We could probably find some common ground....but not if you throw around unsupported accusations like "corrupt" and "fudge it". Martinp (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: I don't have problem covering companies if the articles are sufficiently well referenced. Do you know about WP:NCORP policy, that was written four years ago, explicity for this type of article? scope_creepTalk 19:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Yes I do know about it, and have made edits to that policy in 2017, 2011, and 2008. See [19] and [20]. I believe in its original incarnation it arose in part due to a controversy about Arch Coal, where I participated in a DRV when Jimbo Wales deleted it in 2006 [21]. We've come a long way since then, both in the evolution of the policy as well as in the tenacity of spammers, so we could have a discussion whether I'm out-of-touch too lenient on all this -- there were definitely those who thought I was back in 2006! However, we need to start with you withdrawing your accusation that I am corrupt, which I understand comes from a passionate frustration on your part, but is still unacceptable in a discussion of which a permanent record is retained and accessible indefinitely. In addition, a recognition that your revert of my discussion contribution at the AFD was suboptimal (versus. eg. just commenting that you felt I was indeed bludgeoning but letting the comment stand, or strike-through the comment but retaining it if you felt strongly, or asking for an uninvolved admin to address) would be helpful. Given your strong contibutions to wikipedia, I'm sure you know well that AFD is a discussion, not a vote; but that means that the bar for removing comments dissenting with your own views needs to be very high! Martinp (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: That is really cool. I've never done any of that kind of stuff. Its interesting you have worked on it. I've not met anybody that has done that kind of work before. On the other subject, ff you felt that I was calling you corrupt, then sorry. I plan to stop working from Afd from this forward, as its driving me up the wall. If you want me to put the comment back I will. At the time I thought it was attempt at blugeoning. I woudn't have put a strikethrough on it, as that seems be against policy and severly annoys folk. scope_creepTalk 07:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: I have put it back in, in the same position. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 07:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Thanks, @Scope creep:. I accept your response here, and your statement at WP:ANI that you "weren't particularly discussing" me as an effective withdrawal of the accusation against me. And I appreciate your reinstatement of my comment. So you and I are cool. I don't think your withdrawal from deletion discussions and COIN is necessary, though if it's making you frustrated, taking a break from it and doing something else sounds like a great idea. That said, I don't think the overall treatment of Husond (in which I don't think he smells of roses either) is fully resolved, but that's being discussed at ANI. Happy editing, and I genuinely meant it that I appreciate your passion! Martinp (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI discussion[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. Húsönd 23:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grove House School.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grove House School.jpg, 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TTEC[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Just now realized you reverted some of my edits at TTEC. I tend to think that for non-promotional material like company structure primary sources are reliable. But I've modified the section a bit - removing double information from the history and intro - and added other sources as well. Hope you agree with it this way. Best --Tec Tom (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tec Tom: Not really, no. This is an encylopedia and secondary sources are standard. If the sources are primary then I will remove. Making the article like a native advertising article is explicity against wikipedia terms of use. I will continue to remove stuff I think is promotional. Any services, product, product lisings are promo by definition and fail WP:NCORP. You have added more entries into acquisitions list. Reader don't read them, this is show by research and they all backed by primary sources, so why add them. 9 of 20 references on that are primary and the rest are a mix of PR that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and other routine coverage scope_creepTalk 15:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tec Tom: It was already cleaned up in 2015, when complaints were made. scope_creepTalk 15:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. Obviously secondary sources are standard and I'm definitely not trying to add unnecessary fluff or turn articles into promotional spam. However I see a lot of good articles around that include a lot of background on products and NCORP actually states: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company." I also didn't add new acquisitions, just tried to create a better overview by summarizing information from the history. And I actually do read them ;) But I do take your point and hadn't seen the 2015 complaints yet. Thanks for your feedback! --Tec Tom (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tec Tom: Yip, it is notable, no doubt. It's not a bad article per se, its just the way it is on Wikipedia, they seem to puff over time. For a company that size I thought it would have been a much bigger article. I guess they never employed paid editors to expand it. scope_creepTalk 19:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Chess articles[edit]

Dear Scope creep! Please delete my chess articles without spam on my talk page. Thanks for your understanding!--Uldis s (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uldis s: I sincerely don't want to delete any of your articles. There is nothing wrong with them apart from missing references. I would like you to add secondary sources to each one of them. One or two refs per article would be enough. Then that would be it, back to mainspace. I only drafted a few to try to get you to notice there was a problem with your approach, but deletion was never on my mind, merely a slight change in approach. scope_creepTalk 16:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of surgery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Kurtz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Proposal to formalise and centralise the control and reporting of Undisclosed Paid Editing[edit]

I have created a discussion at WP:VPR to start the ball rolling. Thank you usernamekiran for your thoughts about WP:COIN, but I had already placed it, or set the placing of it in hand, at WP:VPR.

I have chosen a very simple proposal, knowhingthat the more complex a proposal be, the more it will be torn to shreds

Your thoughts and your publicising this proposal to such parties as you feel appropriate, perhaps by link to WP:COIN are welcome. Note that I do not seek your support simply your opinions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I will be glad to participate, and share my opinions :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran It is my hope that it will lead... somewhere. I expect any finished and potentially approved proposal will be widely different from the original. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: I just saw the proposal, but unfortunately, it looks like it will not lead to the results you were hoping to. The reason I wanted to discuss it on user talkpage first was to get opinions of few editors, going straight to VP was a little hasty. I will comment there soon. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timtrent - I am saddened that you chose to put it forward at Village Pump Proposals at the same time as I was trying to start discussion at the Idea Lab. You say it is a simple proposal. It may be simplistic, but it isn't simple, because your answer of an additional class of privileged editors doesn't seem to be the answer to any specific question about Undisclosed Paid Editing. It didn't look as though I was getting a positive response at Idea Lab, but I was about to suggest a few more thoughts. Well, now I think we will have to wait a few more months before anything new can be proposed. I thought that I didn't have a specific idea, and so would try to develop it at the Idea Lab. You had a half-baked idea that needed more cooking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon I am also saddened. I had already pulled the trigger. I had no idea you were discussing this. Wikipedia is so devolved that this can happen too easily. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Usernamekiran - That is also why I wanted to develop it at the Idea Lab first. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A simplistic idea can also be torn to shreds quickly at Proposals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Scope creep,

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

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

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 858 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

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

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

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

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTOBJECT to move of HighFleet to draft space[edit]

The article was created in 2021, my friend. Since it is not a new page, moving it to being a draft without going through AfD first is a violation of WP:DRAFTIFY and should be reversed. That said, neither AfD nor draftification are valid when an article simply needs cleanup. Instead of moving it to being a draft, the right move would have been to fix it yourself by removing cruft or adding reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zxcvbnm: How goes it. Yip, tt probably is a bit late in the day to draft it, but half that article isn't sourced. It is 2022 and it is unacceptable to leave an article in that state in mainspace. That is what is draft is for. If I thought it was non-notable I would have sent it to Afd and I would have tried really hard to delete it. I will happily promote it back out of draft once its fixed. My time is more valuable and im not wasting my time on this when there is other more important stuff to do. Lastly drafty is a guideline only. If the original OP was still about would have informed that needed more references. Why don't you add references and clean it up, and I'll promote it. scope_creepTalk 16:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DRAFTOBJECT, you are required to move a draft back into mainspace if objected to. I am objecting to it because the article is in need of cleanup, but is not, as you claim "unacceptable" to leave in mainspace. Just delete the unsourced parts if you must, but having sections that require cleanup does not merit draftifying it.
I might clean it up at some point, but that's beside the point. Until then, it shouldn't be a draft. That is preventing anyone from seeing or gleaning any sort of information from the article.
In any case, the attitude that some things are a "waste of time" on Wikipedia isn't a helpful one. That essentially implies anyone who works on this page is wasting their time. You can say that "I have other things I'd rather do" but in that case, don't kick the can down the road to someone else by making it a draft with an expiring time limit, just leave it as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am reminding you that per Wikipedia policy you have to undo your previous contested move into draft space, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. If you still don't do it, I will have to do it myself, but ignoring people is WP:NOTHERE behavior. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I've not been in the last couple of days except the odd look and don't reply to messages unless I've got time to do it properly. Take it back out and I'll take a look at it at some point. scope_creepTalk 13:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Sarah-Nicole Robles[edit]

Hello Scope creep. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Sarah-Nicole Robles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 16:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Security College[edit]

Please do not move to draft space long existing articles, especially with many incoming links and many redirects, and especially created by long-standing editors. You move into draft space dubious articles created by neebies who dont know Wikiperdia policies. See Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 May 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Creation[edit]

Hello Scope creep. When creating a new article on Generalbezirk Lettland, I encountered an existing draft that you sent to AfC in March 2022 as containing only one source. I inserted my greatly expanded draft that cites many in-line sources, and which I believe addresses the concerns raised. If you are so inclined, I would appreciate you reviewing the draft for approval. Many thanks.Historybuff0105 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

June events from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Secretory carcinoma Wikipedia page[edit]

Scoop Creep, I am finished updating and expanding the Wikipedia page for Secretory carcinoma. The page should be titled Mammary secretory carcinoma because other tumors have used this title (please read 2nd paragraph of the updated page. Would you please change the pages title to Mammary secretory carcinoma? And, if you agree, free the linkage of Secretory carcinoma to the revised page and allow me to start a page named Secretory carcinoma which would give a brief listing of the diseases once termed Secretory carcinoma along with their new names and linkages to Wikipedia pages. Thank you! joflaher (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joflaher: I'll do it now. scope_creepTalk 08:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joflaher: That seems to be it. scope_creepTalk 08:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scoop Creep, Thank you for the change. I will make a page entitled Secretory carcinoma to detail the different types of Secretory carcinoma.[User:joflaher|joflaher]] (talk) 11:44:27 UTC Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Know about Article Review[edit]

Hi dear Scoop Creep, this is Sams321 i have a question about review of the new article page, dear i can see last 2 months any page which i have been created did not reviews till now could you please let know what is major problem, if it will be like this how can i motivate for contribute and create new article page, specially i am intresed in bollywood cinema's articles. Thank you ! Sams321 (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sams321: At least tell me what article it is. scope_creepTalk 16:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Kumar Neeraj, Ritu Chauhan and major contribution another article Sidhharrth Sipani is also not been review please look at this, I'm planning to create another new articles releated to my bollywood subject but can't creating now just because fear of unreviewed :( thank you Sams321 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sams321: I sent those two other articles to Afd. They are junk. Both of them don't have coverage. Ritu Chauhan who is a real jobbing actor seems to be the real deal. Hope that helps!! scope_creepTalk 18:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sams321: When your looking for sourcing look solid outlets in Indian that you and verify as being substantial and worthy. Brand new directors and actors are not notable. Bollywood produces sheds loads of these folks, its a massive industry and many editors come on here, expecting to write article from a fan viewpoint and find out that what they are writing is just going to be deleted. If they're brand new and getting lot of press in India but nowhere else, then they are likely to be non-notable. If they are getting a lots of press in India and internationally then they are likely notable. scope_creepTalk 18:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mammary Secretory carcinoma Wikipedia page[edit]

Scoop Creep, the above page that you just finished correcting needs one further correction viz., the word Secretory should not be capitalized, should be secretory. When I link Mammary secretory carcinoma to other pages, the linkage is not recognized unless I capitalize Secretory. Thank you very much for you ongoing help. joflaher (talk) 2:22 PM Thursday, June 2, 2022 UTC

@Joflaher: Thats the move completed. can you please check. scope_creepTalk 16:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joflaher: I see the opening lede states it "Mammary Secretory carcinoma", should that not be "Mammary secretory carcinoma"? scope_creepTalk 16:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snoop Creep, you are right. Sorry for my error. joflaher (talk) 3:15 PM Friday, June 3, 2022 UTC
Hi @Joflaher: No need to apologise. I would have fixed it myself but wasn't sure at all. :) scope_creepTalk 12:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian theater in Great Turkish War[edit]

Hello,

I saw your copy edit tag on the article. What exactly is the issue? I'm not sure I understand it.

Thanks.

Franjo Tahy (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Franjo Tahy: How goes it. Great article. Excellent bit of work. The Turkish Croatia section has a link in it, which is illegal. scope_creepTalk 00:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I appreciate the feedback. The Issue is resolved. Franjo Tahy (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Articles for creation submissions[edit]

What is this, Scope creep? Are you reviewing articles that you created for AFC review and posting your own self-approval on your own User Talk page? That's a little strange. Shouldn't these notices go to the page creators? And should you be reviewing pages that you submit? Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were mistakenly sent to Afc. At the time I didn't understand what he was trying to do. It seemed unlikely the editor was going to update each entry with an article, as a valued piece of art they are better mainspace. scope_creepTalk 05:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Central Bontok language[edit]

Hey, Scope creep,

I hope you are well. Please do not draftify the same article more than once. Editors are allowed to object to a page being moved to Draft space and revert the page move. This shouldn't end up in a page move war. If you think the article is in terrible shape, you can always use WP:PROD or WP:AFD to mark the page for deletion. Thank you for your contributions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It's just another editor who doesn't want to reference the articles they are creating. scope_creepTalk 05:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to comment that I appreciate your work at AfD: our interactions are usually on those few circumstances when we disagree, but I see your contributions all the time, and rarely feel a need to contribute, because you're almost always right on target, in my opinion. I just recently stumbled around on the AfD on Ying Zhang, I had no idea it was such a common name. As I continued to look around, I noticed the article creator had a paid editing disclosure (that did not specifically mention this article). I placed a question on their talk page, because this article really looks promotional to me. Do you know of any other ways to follow up on questions of this nature? Thanks in advance. Jacona (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: It is a low citation field she is in. What link or name were you using? There is three Zhang's that seem to be notable, and she doesn't seem to be one of them. The quality of the source indicate this. If she had five papers with more than 100 citations then she would be notable, but the massive list of sources that event programmes, profiles and stuff like that are classic paid editor attempt to obfuscate the fact the person is non-notable by flooding it with dodgy references. It costs 300 quid to get an articles on Wikipedia now, so there is lots and lots of trash articles, or people who just doing there job. The young lady is massively intelligent, who is going to have illustratious careeer at sigularity, but it is case of WP:Toosoon. She wouldn't have been employed at that new university otherwise. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winter(l)ink group organigram(me)[edit]

I do not like to be annoying (no, really...) but should this beautfully clear file be renamed before some well-intentioned fellow-contributor copies it to commons and/or links it more widely?

Thank you for thinking on it. Be well. Charles01 (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Hi @Charles01: Thanks for taking an interest in this. It is a real pleasure. What should it be renamed to? I think it certainly needs updated as one of the names if wrong and one of the terms is wrong. scope_creepTalk 09:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, I see what you mean now. Geez. I never would never have spotted that. I'll need to dig these out. Its about 3 years ago that I created this. Thanks for that. I must have looked at diagram a 100 times since then. scope_creepTalk 09:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Lucy Adeline Briggs Cole Rawson Peckinpah Smallman.

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

Hi, Really needs an image of the lassie.

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 14:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:. If I can find a photo of our many-named artist, I'll be sure to add it. (It'd be somewhat easier to obtain a photo of a plant that she collected, but that's not really the same thing!) Drechmeria-RBGV (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drechmeria-RBGV: I think I looked at the time but couldn't see much. Perhaps there is portrait of her. If you can't see much there might be one in google books, or some archive site that has a biography of here. scope_creepTalk 06:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With my luck, I'll find it while looking for something else. But I'll keep an eye out. Drechmeria-RBGV (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Katharine Jowett.

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

Hi, needs an image.

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 14:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Malika Moustadraf.

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

Hi, Need an image for this article.

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 14:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alert[edit]

I have replied on my talkpage--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenya Cuevas Fuentes[edit]

I usually agree with your AfDs, but I disagree with this one so strongly I wonder if there was a language problem that caused your BEFORE to be invalid. You may want to recheck it, maybe it was an accident, or maybe not. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: You could be right, i'll take another look at it. It was very late in the day when I posted it, was tired, and it could be right off the beam. I will be tommorrow though as I'm busy at the moment. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs[edit]

Thanks for your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire-Louise_Leyland. I would be interested to know your thoughts on this related AfD I started: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Cooper (politician).--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of Anne Casabonne[edit]

Thanks for moving the article to draftspace. The external links have been removed. Fulserish (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating The Human Predicament.

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

Great work so far.

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 09:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking to yourself, heh :-) I guess this message was intended for User:Yitzilitt. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loew Galitz: It looks like it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 20:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rote Kapelle tables[edit]

I see that images like File:Ozols Group.png are not in Commons. Is there a reason? I am asking because I am not good at licenses. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I run into Waldemar Ozols when I was fixing a sloppy translation of the occupation of Anatoly Gurevich. I gave an exact (in terms of meaning) translation (the general term "scout" sored my eye as grossly misleading), but since I am not a native English speaker, I am wondering whether there is a corresponding professional term in English. Resident spy, maybe? Loew Galitz (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loew Galitz: I think that is bang on, "Resident " was the name they used for the lead agent in the country. scope_creepTalk 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily lead: google say: резидент = 3. Тайный представитель разведки в каком-н. районе иностранного государства. (A secret intelligence agent in some area of a foreign country.) Loew Galitz (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what about my first question? I am asking thinking of the use of these tables in other wikis. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loew Galitz: Of course, please use what you need. I'm not sure why its not in commons. It should be. I've not really had time to look at it. scope_creepTalk 21:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otrium[edit]

Hi Scope Creep - I see you are trying to delete properly sourced info about Otrium's business by labeling it advertising. Every company article should have information about what a company does, and it's not advertising if it restates in a neutral manner what multiple reliable independent sources are writing about the company. I already tried once to revise the info, to find a compromise, and I think I did. You may not have read the new section before blanking it again, but check out the diff. I prefer to leave at least some of the info there, with the multiple reliable independent sources, to show notability and demonstrate how this meets WP:NCORP, and to paraphrase how the media describes the company. I'll WP:AGF, but the timing of the content deletion and the immediate nomination for deletion makes it appear that you are trying to weaken the sourcing to encourage more delete votes. But if it truly is a delete, in the shape you found it, others will surely agree without you having to weaken it. Please leave the revised business section and sources intact until the discussion is closed, or better yet, let's work together to do a proper WP:BEFORE and find new sources that are out there, some in Dutch as well, to improve the article even more. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {{[ping|TechnoTalk}} I work in article review, on WP:NPP. I reviewed this article first and removed that block not because it wasn't well sources, but because Wikipedia isn't a manual per WP:NOT. Anytime you see some kind of block that states stuff like operations or manual or work or business model or stuff like that, I remove it. Policy is clear on that. It wasnt my intention to somehow delete it or try to subvert the afd process with that block missing. I was only after I finished reading the references, that I decided to sent to the Afd. I have no interest in getting one over on another editor by removing their work, or by subverting the Afd in any way. The Afd will run at its own pace and I'm only interested if its fair. I do to many of them to bother to how going to come out. scope_creepTalk 05:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing New Page Patrol. That's a lot of work, and I'm sure you come across a lot of bad articles. I volunteer at the AFC help desk, and coach declined editors about how to improve their articles' chances of success. I'm trying to get the helper script so I can more easily edit on the article page instead of having to do it at the help desk. I was told by Primefac I need to have more articles under my belt to get the script, but as I do them, you and High King are nominating them for deletion. No hard feelings. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll get there eventually. After I have 25 under my belt, I'll also request autopatrol access and you won't be bothered by my articles anymore at NPP. ;-) TechnoTalk (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: Well I'll check the rest your content as well, if this is the quality of your content your producing. scope_creepTalk 07:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: I intend to have a chat Primefac when I get back. You have 25% of articles of the article have created been deleted, which is problematic for Afc. Many of them are native advertising, brochure type articles. Are you a paid editor per chance? scope_creepTalk 07:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty serious allegation, considering none of my articles have been deleted for 7 years. This sounds like it could be another case of revenge and disruptive editing. TechnoTalk (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: Not a allegation, just a simple question. Paid editing is allowed on Wikipedia once you disclose. Everybody has earn a living, put a roof over their head and feed themselves and their families. Are you a paid editor? scope_creepTalk 17:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a paid editor. It's insulting to me that you are accusing me. I know the guidelines about COI disclosures. You're on thin ice with your behavior. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: Thanks for that. That is coolio. scope_creepTalk 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons given for your new edits of 23 June 2022‎ on Sian Proctor[edit]

Hello.

After reading your more detailed edit reasons listed on the history page Sian Proctor, I full agree with most of your decisions, especially paring down her TV appearances. I do have a question about what to do about The Colony (American season 2) since some publications consider it a "Reality TV show" in which the producers basically throw problems out on the "participants" in which the producers film how the "participants" react to certain scenarios. Definitely less "science show", but more similar to Survivor (American TV series). What is your opinion? My gut feeling is to delete this like you did for her sole "acting role". -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @108.71.214.235: I'm not sure. I was wondering if your paid editor, as the article is pure puff, meant to promote. It looks like paid for article. All these astronauts do. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello scope_creep.
To answer your question, no I am NOT a paid editor and I did NOT create the article in question. Looking at the article's revision history, the article predated the "flight" of Inspiration4 by four years. I try to keep articles as much as possible but it is hard to do when there is not much (quality material) to work with.
Is Proctor an astronaut? In my opinion she is a space tourist who got to ride free on Jared Isaacman's dime. Although many publications claim she had "piloted" the spacecraft, I doubt that she is type rated to pilot a spacecraft on her own and may not be able to fly the spacecraft if communications with Earth is broken and the computer stops working even though she is a licensed airplane pilot. It is my opinion that most of the important work was performed by on-board computers with some input from ground controllers since the mission did not require any difficult maneuvers such as rendezvous and docking. Isaacman deserves an article for being rich. Not sure about the other two Inspiration4 passengers since both would fail to satisfy under most WP criteria.
Should all space tourists deserve articles? Does all aircraft passengers deserve articles. Although the first known aircraft passenger do not have an article, he does have a redirect while the first person to be killed in an aircraft has his own article. Proctor deserves an article based on her prior work.
Prior to her being picked for Inspiration4, she was known for three things: (1) teaching at a community college; (2) science communications (HI-SEAS, PolarTREC, ACEAP, NOAA Teacher At Sea, etc.); (3) media personality (The Colony (American season 2), Genius by Stephen Hawking, NASA's Unexplained Files, A World Without NASA, Strange Evidence, Phantom Signals)
(1) If teaching at a community college is her only source of fame, then such an article would fail per WP:PROF, her doctorate degree is in science education and not in any of the "hard sciences"; her doctoral thesis is a snoozer (it is available on the web) in the School of Education; she has not published in any peer review journals (which would quickly make her notable per WP:PROF); anyone with a master degree or higher can teach at a community college (the First Lady teaches at a community college).
(2) Being a science communicator for several notable projects would make her a notable person since those are worthy endeavors.
(3) Media personality. She is definitely not in the same league as Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, or even Bill Nye. Look at her TV/film credits on IMDb, most of those shows are third rate. (per WP:CITEIMDB, IMDb as a source is acceptable only for information for film/tv credits such as who was the first assistant director for a particular film since that information is embedded in the film/video, but not biographic information such as when and where the person was born; IMDb might be ok as external link per WP:IMDB-EL) If you believe that the inclusion of the awful video Emulator is not appropriate, then it is my opinion that The Colony (American season 2) should also be deleted since I consider it in the same league as a "game show". Did you bother to read the description of The Colony (American season 2) or at least look at the existing citations (both of which fails to support what the show is about in the current version of the article)? The show's basic premise is about having a group people (that were hand-picked by the shows producers) and include a community college instructor (I don't consider persons teaching at a "glorified high school" as professors since most of them don't write textbooks, peer reviewed journal articles, or produce graduate students), a professional model, an auto mechanic, a construction foreman, etc. and have them deal with problem associated with a dystopian world. (All your food disappeared, what do you do? Zombies attack the village, etc.) Not too much difference than a 1960's TV series about a captain of a small charter boat, his hapless first mate, a millionaire and wife, a movie star, a high-school science teacher, and a farm girl from Kansas trying to survive on a deserted island, although she plays herself during make believe events. If we restrict the mentioning of her TV/film appearances to "significant work that support either her teaching or science communications", then we might consider eliminate more of her work since including them could be consider PUFFERY. The alternative is to include ALL of her work even though she is not a successful actress.
Why did bother to keep her Twitter link in the External links section while deleting her IMDb link? According to WP:TWITTER-EL, we need to delete this while WP:IMDB-EL says we can keep IMDb in the External links section.
Do we need to know her personal "call sign"? Does any of the NASA astronauts use a call sign during their time in space? After the Mercury program, do NASA astronauts have personal call signs? Pure puffery, but others keep adding it back into the article.

.

Is it important to know that "She is an international speaker and has given several TEDx talks"? Did you bothered to look at the citations? Those citations do not support those claims. Why is this statement included under "2009 NASA Astronaut Selection"? Does she talks about being a failed candidate to become an astronaut candidate?
If you want to trim out more puffery, we need to determine which rules to follow, come to a consensus on edge cases, and do some more trimming. We need to define puffery that other editors can understand, since it may not be as obvious to other people as it is to you (you obviously have much higher standards than me). I was not aware of which rules you were following when I reverted some of your edits, but I will follow them if we can determine which rules to follow and state the reasons more clearly in the history on WHY those items were trimmed. So let us start trimming. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@108.71.214.235: Hi, How goes it. What article does this concern exactly. scope_creepTalk 06:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The article is in the title for this section, Sian Proctor. (I apologize for being too wordy.) -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sian Proctor article. Yip. Only one social media link per article. Peppering an article with many social media links reduces its quality drastically and makes it look like a social media article. Wikipedia is not social media host, webhost or forum. I reviewed four of the astronaut articles and they all look the same. It looks like NLP article with these dodgy section names. She is not an actor, the same as I am not an actor. It is non-notable. It is meant to PUFF the article. I've not sent it to Afd as I don't know if she is genuine astronaut or a space tourist unfortunately. I wasn't planning to take a look at it again. scope_creepTalk 06:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one. There is no rush in getting back to it right away. I do not plan to touch the Sian Proctor article for about a week, or two, or more, but I would like to "try" to keep some form of the article but have it trim further by about half (or more). It would go faster if we bounce ideas back and forth on the edge cases and explain in Talk:Sian Proctor why the trims would be severe or the puff will keep floating back. Looking at her many dodgy TV series appearances, even appearing as herself, some of those "reality" shows might be considered "acting". According to IMDb, she has appeared on a LOT of TV series, which would be hard for other editors to ignore. However, her science communication gig is real and might become the bulk of the remaining article when all gets done. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, she may be a presenter in science programmes which could make a good section or expand the section in there. She has done quite a lot, but not an actor per WP:NACTOR. The excessive section still need fixed. scope_creepTalk 07:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Scope creep,

Backlog status

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

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

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

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

Backlog drive

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

TIP – New school articles

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

Misc

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

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14055 articles, as of 08:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

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

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

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

Your GA nomination of Ian Donald[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ian Donald you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep re: Afro-Atlantic Histories[edit]

Hi! Just wanted to clarify re: your scope creep designation on Afro-Atlantic Histories. You flagged the excessive social media citations - totally agree that's normally an issue. However, the video cited is an official presentation given at the National Gallery of Art. The NGA hosts all of their lectures on YouTube - all the citations are the same lecture, but the times are specified to make the citations easier to access. What's your view on citing social media sites that host official content in video format? Would love guidance on how to fix here. --19h00s (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @19h00s:, the video is produced by the National Gallery of Art and your correctly citing each part of the video, like I would do. The script posts up the fact they are supposed to be unreliable references, where they are etc, but its from the National Gallery of Art, a talk. You know, just remove, or revert that cleanup tag I left. I think there are valid references. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Its a lovely article. scope_creepTalk 15:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the guidance! Appreciate the clarification on citing to an official produced talk that's hosted on YouTube, and thanks for the good feedback on the article! Have a good one :) 19h00s (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in July 2022[edit]

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235


Online events:


See also:


Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unkn0wnsep10l (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Other ways to participate:[reply]

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Syed Faisal Ahmed (June 29)[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 Gusfriend was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
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 after they have been resolved.
Gusfriend (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Scope creep! Having an article draft 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! Gusfriend (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Red WheelBarrow[edit]

Hi, i'm @Unkn0wnsep10l, i saw that you're reverting change to "The Red WheelBarrow" Page about popular knowledge of the poem, especially about television, i checked very briefly and i found out that the content DOESN'T violate any of the Wikipedia policies. Would be great if you stop undoing edits about it. Unkn0wnsep10l (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today[edit]

June songs

Today is a birthday. - Thank you for greetings! Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ian Donald[edit]

The article Ian Donald you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ian Donald for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on![edit]

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

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Buidhe: I thought it was on last month, and this was finishing. I've been working every day for the last two weeks on it. ;) scope_creepTalk 20:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would have run it last month but I was already committed to working on the GAN drive that month. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit flag for T. R. Otsuka[edit]

Hi, I see you've added a copy edit maintenance template to the article T. R. Otsuka. Could you please be more clear as to what you believe needs improvement? I'm new to article creation on Wikipedia, and I don't see where the article may need improvement. Thanks, Bethcody1 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bethcody1: The references first. They are not exactly standard, they are not exactly non-standard, but they are a wee bit of a mess. For example ref 6, you seem to have two book references here. The page number aren't apparent and the google books link doesn't work. Ref 26 is another example that doesn't seem to work. Ref 7,11,12 and 22 are Non-RS, meaning they are not reliable sources and really need to be removed. Looking at ref 24, I would have done that as wp:cite book and filled in the fields. I understand the difficulty of doing these big references, they are nippy to learn, but once you learn how to do it. Looking at ref 23, as an example, <ref>{{cite book |last1=Campbell |first1=N. Margaret |title=Keith's magazine on home building |date=1 January 1899 |publisher=M.L. Keith |location=Chicago |page=419 |url=https://archive.org/details/keithsmagazineon31minnuoft/page/418/mode/2up |chapter=Suggestions from the Japanese on Interiors, Decoration and Landscape Gardening|volume=31-32}}</ref> Try that and see what you think. WP:REFB is good for describing how to create a references. Refs with archives are a bit of a pain. My user page has some templates for book chapters in book, refs with an archive. There is also missing templates from the infobox, the circa 1950 death date doesn't have a reference, the articles layout needs work and I found a spelling mistake, so all good fodder for the copyeditor. Hope that helps. It probably needs about 10 hours work and that will be it. scope_creepTalk 15:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the sources you found are excellent. scope_creepTalk 15:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for listing those -- I agree, I have no idea how to put sources in correctly, and I'll try to fix the ones you noted. Did you fix the spelling mistake? Or what was it so I can do so? Thanks again, Bethcody1 (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bethcody1: I will give you some help. It needs work and try and fit it in, over the next few weeks. Ref 6 needs fixed. I don't know why there is two url's on it? scope_creepTalk 23:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some new information over the past few weeks and may be able to re-write some of the sections which use those references you referred to. As far as sources like ref 22, I'm not sure why an official death certificate that can be freely found online isn't considered reliable. Would a direct link to that page make it more reliable? Thanks again for your help. Bethcody1 (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cipher Department of the High Command of the Wehrmacht[edit]

Cipher Department of the High Command of the Wehrmacht[edit]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my change on the above-mentioned page. While I'm aware that both spellings are appropriate, even the Oxford dictionary says that "cipher" is used much more often these days. It's also mentioned on the WP:Cryptology page

The page title spells it as "cipher" so the core of the article should do the same, save for the use in name of bureaus or books. The article switches between the 2 a number of times, with "cypher" appear between 20 and 30 times and "cipher" well over 140.

Additionally, the ci/ypher spelling wasn't the only change that I made, as I also corrected a number of other spelling and grammatical errors that would need to be redone. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lindsey40186, the original sources uses that spelling and they were all "cypher" originally but multiple edits by folk have changed it, over the years. Your edits were excellent apart from that. Up to this point, nobody has mentioned the page title stuff. I'll need to look at it. I've not seen that WP essay before. It is suprisingly old. Its funny how I never came across it. I'll fix the sp's I knackered. Sorry I reverted. scope_creepTalk 16:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing anything. Thank you for the reverts on the other bits :) Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lindsey40186: Don't let that put you off. There is plenty of other espionage article I wrote that need work. scope_creepTalk 08:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lindsey40186: I reverted on the article. I read the WP essay. It makes a lot of sense, and its seems to be worldwide consensus now that "cypher" is no longer used and hasn't been for an age. scope_creepTalk 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion[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.TechnoTalk (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalls[edit]

In your comment here you mention that you were unable to view the content because of a paywall. If it helps, using this addon for Firefox I was able to view the content behind those paywalls, it also works for most other paywall sites that I've come across so far. It helps me with verifying information in sources so I figured I'd share in case it might help you as well. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoidh: Thanks very much. That is very nice of you. I've added it. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aoidh: I just tried this. It works perfectly.;8) scope_creepTalk 13:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hmm[edit]

I was very surprised not to see a a paid warning here because it's fairly obvious. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PRAXIDICAE: Do you think so? I did ask the editor, in a exchange above, and they told me they weren't a paid editor. I accepted it, but it was before it kicked off. I thought it was odd at the time; the large number of very poorly sourced articles that are all private businesses, all the articles that have been csd'd/afd in the last year or so, the pushback against accepting the policies, getting access to the helper script, helping out at afc . Why would they need to access to the helper script? I think I will open a coin entry. scope_creepTalk 21:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't believe anyone who writes that level of promotional corporate spam about mostly non-notable or barely notable companies is unpaid... PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
right. scope_creepTalk 21:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15 day rule[edit]

Hi you mentioned a 15 day rule at AfD as being the time limit for draftification of new articles. I thought we had 90 days. Where is the 15 day rule written down please? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Neither are hardline rules (to my knowledge.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was something I read about a 15 day rule. Allowing a new article to develop for at least 15 days before it could be drafted. I thought it was in but couldn't find any policy that stated it, so never mentioned it again. I don't know if it was discussion about some potential new policy or some idea being kicked about at the time. Yip, consensus is 90 days for the time limit for drafting articles. I'll will have a look for it. scope_creepTalk 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need Suggestion[edit]

@Scope creep: Hi. I just dropped the message seeking your assistance/suggestion on the Draft:Sajid Mir. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: fixed as you assisted. can I use Circa template in his DOB as per FBI wanted page? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: fixed, used Circa template in his DOB as per FBI wanted page. Final edit done. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for your opinion[edit]

Saju Chackalackal was deleted in 2016. Do you think the subject is any more notable now than it was then? Jacona (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peronally I don't think he is notable as the conditions, re citation count are roughly the same as that when the article was deleted in the Afd in 2016. I'll ask an academic expert, who attended the Afd for a better idea. Hi @David Eppstein: Do you think this philosophy professor is notable. scope_creepTalk 14:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again the page is leaning towards AfD. All refs are subject's own books. 1 dead link. Possible UPE is also a concern. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 02:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: Let me get back to you, this afternoon. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not enough citations for WP:PROF#C1. But editor-in-chief of a bluelinked journal, Journal of Dharma, makes a clear case for WP:PROF#C8 notability. If there were multiple published reviews of multiple of his books then there might also be a case for WP:AUTHOR but I didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Thanks. I couldn't find any reviews that would take it past WP:AUTHOR either, but I think that is more than a weak keep. So @NeverTry4Me: to answer your question, the subject is progressing in his career, and has become notable enough for an article. scope_creepTalk 16:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep From the Journal of Dharma: The editor-in-chief is Jose Nandhikkara (Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram), not Saju Chackalackal. I searched for his book reviews, but found nothing. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 17:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: The editorship is claimed in his article, with a source. It doesn't have to be the current editor-in-chief; past editors-in-chief are equally notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Isaac Wayne (1699-1744)[edit]

Thank you for the note on my talk page about Isaac Wayne (1699-1744). It was not so much a new page as reversion of a re-direct by @50.45.170.185:. This has been happening across several Van Leer family pages with 50.45.170.185 blanking the page and re-directing to Anthony Wayne. Please give me some time to improve the page because I do agree it is relatively poorly referenced. Even in the case that new/better references cannot be found - I do not believe that re-direct to Anthony Wayne is the correct move. It should be listed for AFD and discussed. Thank you. Dwkaminski (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dwkaminski: The page seems to be listed at Issac Wayne. The double redirect is due to naming with the bigger dashes between The big dash is defined at WP:MOS, so even the two redirects look the same, they are not. The article seems to have been reviewed by another editor, but the references are very poor. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Aashir Wajahat[edit]

Is Aashir Wajahat notable? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 12:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with Draft:G Bidai[edit]

Yet I'm unable to figure out what's wrong with the draft. It's pending for last 2 months. I have undid submission several times, and improved and then resubmitted. Many reviewers visited, edited but not declined. I'm expecting your opinion how more I shall improve. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 13:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Syed Faisal Ahmed has been accepted[edit]

Syed Faisal Ahmed, 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.

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!

Missvain (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Singer Kovács Prize[edit]

Hi Scope creep, 

I see that you re added "prestigious" to the lead sentence. Also, I changed the spelling since I just noticed it now through spell check. I started a discussion on the talk page. Not sure if you edit a lot of prize articles but it doesn't seem like this typical. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)ps oh, I guess the article is written in a "British" version? with English spelling? Is that right? I didn't change the spelling, cheers!--Malerooster (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casuarina Senior College[edit]

Hi Scope creep As I have mentioned earlier that I'm with some restrictions, I have tried hard to cite the concern page. But I don't get any WP:SECONDARY yet. I usually don't like nominating AfD, but this page created extreme pressure (in my Special:Homepage) on me coming as a daily suggestion to add resources. I'm not going for any further discussion on the AfD as the discussions by the page creator led to several controversies like UPE, COI which are declared by them on the AfD itself. But none is even noticing the UPE, COI issues with the page creator user's all the edits. I would like to request you to focus on the point and take action as per rules of Wiki. I request you with good faith, as you are a more experienced editor than me. Regards- - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NeverTry4Me: The main criteria for notability for schools was changed in 2017 as defined in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Up to that point they were considered notable. Now there is not a standalone notability policy for schools after that 2017 RFC. What that means is the coverage on the school must satisfy the WP:GNG standard Secondary sources are defined as people talking to people about a person they don't know, so it is independent. It makes it harder as this school is less than 50 years old. My high school is around the same age, built in the 1960's and I wouldn't consider it notable. For schools, I would look for stuff like newspaper reports, analyst reports. I can't offer any more advice. I tried to save some of them back in the day, but it very very hard. For Casuarina Senior College I looked at the quality sources, and they weren't there. An that is often what it like. scope_creepTalk 08:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep thank you for updating my knowledge about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COIN[edit]

No. I prevented them from using WP:OUTING against you. If that user (and I assume you have seen their talk page) saw it they would have used it to the fullest. You were part of the people looking at BI. Please don't say I am making it harder. SVTCobra 08:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Why are you going 3RR? I thought we were allies against UPE and COI editors. SVTCobra 08:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: What are you talking about? We are. Is it the Katherine Singer Kovacs Prize article. You have removed the prestigious term in a drive by edit without due consideration of the sources. I've left a bundle of there. The article is barely started. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I think you can see the history of the article and the initial cited source didn't justify the superlative as per my edit summary. But I will give you some room and time to work it out. Not sure why you put an incomplete article in main-space. But I will admit, I was a bit paranoid because of the oversight. I don't like doing that to people and and I don't like it when it happens to me (so I thought you might have some animosity towards me).
Nevertheless, I was not the first to dispute the "prestigious" term. But now you brought some more sources. Cheers, SVTCobra 09:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yip. I've not replied to the talk page discussion as the article has barely began. There seems to be few prizes on that scale, although I've not done research on it, but at the time I did notice on the other Katherine Singer Kovacs Prize article that everyone of the sources mentioned it as prestigious. It is probably in the top ten with a Nobel prize at the top and other like the booker prize, pulitzer prize and so on futher down. I did notice a while ago that these other articles don't mention it, but it is assumed by everybody in the industry that is prestigious, perhaps because they are well established and quite old, for example the Booker prize, been going for 60 odd years, Pulizter is much older. The Katherine Singer Kovacs Prizes seems to be known in the industry, but much less so, outside it. That may be the reason why its mentioned as being prestigious. Its not so well established as the others. We could hold an RFC on it at some point to determine if it goes it. I intend to expand those articles out to 60-80k at some point in the future, so its not set in stone by any means. scope_creepTalk 09:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am persistently pedantic, but I noticed the article says "to any book that is published in English or Spanish in the field of Latin American and Spanish literatures and cultures" ... surely it must be to the best book or something, it can't just be any book. That would make it random or every book gets the award. You might also have a problem with putting literature into plural. Cheers, SVTCobra 09:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: I don't know the criteria for any of that, or even who the lassie is to be honest. The articles were only split out from the main article at the beginning of the month so I'm no sure. I've not done any research yet. scope_creepTalk 11:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability about some pages[edit]

Are these notable Disrupt Asia, Lanka Graphite, Wireless Technology Industry Association, Asian Institute of Digital Finance? I have seen that all are cited primary sources, press releases and passing mentions. I have strong reason to believe that user Eesan1969 is paid to create all the corporate articles under his Articles. What's your take on the issue? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 11:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: Lanka Graphite is notable as its public company. Think tanks and industry associations generally don't get sent to Afd. The Disrupt Asia is problematic as a private industry group/conference that is covered by NCORP. It has a notabilty tag put on more than 2 years ago. I work on the cat:nn and would send that for deletion. scope_creepTalk 12:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep understood. But what about the user's COI/UPE? Someone should bring the issue to ANI, as I am with restriction to not to land there unless I'm asked for any reply. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 12:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I have a strong belief that the user is a sock and creating pages taking money (tons of such examples in freelancer sites). Their edits in the pages are like doing in a hurry which resulted out several issues. But at the AfD, they change than the page editor one. At all the AfD, they don't sound like a newcomer, but hammers with strong Wiki knowledge which never reflected on page creation. Thus, I suspect a sock as the language and tone of the page creator and the same in AfD are having fast difference. Have you noticed that? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 13:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: Not really. Generally you have to have very good evidence before you take an editor to WP:SPI. scope_creepTalk 13:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will find the sock with evidence someday for sure. Thanks for your precious time for the discussion. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 13:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Lelio Bonaccorso moved to draftspace[edit]

Hi! Following up on your move of the page on Lelio Bonaccorso to the draft space due to lack of sources, I added 32 new ones to the page body and to almost all the prizes mentioned. What do you think of it now? Do you believe it is ready for the mainspace? If not, can you suggest where it could be improved? Aethelfirth (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aethelfirth: That seems much better now and it seems to prove the individual notability but can you please let it sit there until it is reviewed by an independent editor. scope_creepTalk 12:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep thanks, yes sure let's wait for the standard process to unfold. Aethelfirth (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aethelfirth: You made a statement that several short films won awards. Can you put a reference in for it. scope_creepTalk 13:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep  Done, now all awards are referenced. Thanks for the suggestion! Aethelfirth (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Narayan Singh[edit]

Just came across the newly (re)created article for Ganga Narayan Singh which I tried to draftify to find (to my great surpirise) that it was already there so I AfD'd it instead. The draft version Draft:Ganga Narayan Singh looks pretty decent to me so I put the draft up for review. The sources support the text and seem to be reliable. Anyway could I ask that you tak anoher look at the draft and then proceed from there? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren: The process for this is to put a redirect to the draft and inform the user. If you want to close the Afd we can do that. scope_creepTalk 07:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, redirect in, will withdraw AfD. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2022[edit]

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello[edit]

I’d like to know why my article was deleted as it contained verifiable documentation? Finnohanl.4 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Finnohanl.4: Your article as it currently is non-notable. The references are not reliable references and the article doesn't include anything that is not already present in the band article, making the whole exercise redudant. The article was reviewed under page review, specifically WP:NPP. If you revert on it and start edit warring I will take you to the edit warring noticeboard. I would suggest creating the article in a sandbox in your own user page and working on there, because at the moment you don't have clue what constitutes notability. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 01:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnohanl.4: It takes a bit of time to learn a constitutes a good source. Stick with it. There is a list wp:musicrs which lists the sources which are good for music articles. Unfortunately good referencing, is it not something that can be taught. I comes with experience. There is many sites on the web that talk about stuff, but a lot of it is transitory and very poor and makes for poor references for example clickbait sites, PR, press-release sites, framework articles, social media sites and stuff like that. Book and newspapers and sites which have an editor and a copyeditor team, tend to be quite decent. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 02:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:GT-MU[edit]

Your move is against Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT - please undo it. But you might also please break down for me how this meets Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY, so we can assess how best to fix any concerns. Spokoyni (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spokoyni: How goes it? More than 90% of the article is unsourced. It has a couple of reference that prove it exists, but its not enough to remain in mainspace. The main central block doesn't have any references. Please add some more prove per WP:V and it will be set. scope_creepTalk 08:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, but this isn't really adequate for Draftifying requirements. There are sources present, and while it would be good to have more citations, the article does not meet Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY. But more importantly Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT - "A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc." It has been objected to, and you cannot redraftify this. Spokoyni (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spokoyni: Are you one of these people think because its been pulled out of draft, then it will somehow remain in the state. It is 90% unsourced. If it goes back to mainspace without sources, I will copyedit it down to stub. I will take out everything that is not sourced. Is that what your looking for? I have no time for anybody that uses policy to foist unsourced content onto mainspace, and somehow thinks thats ok to use unsourced content. The policies WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, WP:N overrides any secondary structural moving in the draft system. The consensus is that the article must be sourced to remain on mainspace. It is worth pointing I've had the same argument several times with the train folk, chess folk and the cycling and sports folk and the radio folk. In the last months since the WP:NPP push has been on and the month before when I was working on it, I've seen dozens of the these military articles that were unsourced. I don't understand the reason for it, but it is unacceptable in 2022. Its not 2008 anymore. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm sorry you feel that way, and for what it's worth, the fact that you tagged it has brought it more to my attention. I was in the process of looking for sources when you moved it back to draft space. I've added the cites to the existing refs to bring more of the text into being cited. I've also been looking up Russian-language sources which have more coverage. So thanks for that. But:
You absolutely must not ignore Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT. You moved it back into draftify despite it clearly stating that must not be done. Being upset with the state of the articles does not allow you to override that. I have no objection to you tagging or cutting it down to the bare minimum, nor for you nominating it for deletion. Those are the options that remain allowable under DRAFTOBJECT, and I agree that a bare stub can often be better than a large amount of unsourced material. So please AGF and don't assume that I am "one of these think because its been pulled out of draft, then it will somehow remain in the state" - but draftifying has requirements that you violated several times here, including failing to adhere to DRAFTOBJECT and 'there is no evidence of active improvement' when you could see that I had both objected to the draftify and was editing the article. I think you're doing some good work, but a WP:NPP push doesn't allow you to override that. I've added cites where the refs support the material used. I'll ask again, please restore the article to draft space, and by all means, tag away or edit the article as you wish. It'll help to indicate areas I can expand. Again, thanks, but I will escalate this if I see that you're not following WP:DRAFTIFY properly, and I have some concerns from this that you're not. Spokoyni (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have referenced it. Normally that wouldn't happen. Thanks for that. Please submit it for review. scope_creepTalk 09:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and please feel free to bring articles on Russian subects that you are concerned lack sourcing to me. I can usually get access to a range of sources, though not always immediately. Again, per Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT - "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." I have tagged it for review as a courtesy, assuming that you will now accept it and move it back. But objections, either to your talkpage, or that of the article, or other edits to reverse a draftify, do require it to be returned to main space and then further action be taken if neccessary. A review is not required. Spokoyni (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is rank. It like the rest of these, are articles are effectively copied from other sites. There is no encyclopeadic analysis in the article. Its merely a reflection of the other sites, that looks like blogs. That is best you can say about it. Its the exact same as the railyway folk, the radio folk, the cycling folk. scope_creepTalk 09:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Edits[edit]

Hi @Scope creep Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. However, I do not think that I made any edits that are "not constructive" on Rasaq Malik. Could you please let me know what exactly you picked an issue with. Thanks. WheelHelms (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WheelHelms: External links in the body of the article. Can you please not add in any external links that are not in the ext links or bibliograhy/sources section. They are illegal per policy and uncontrolled, meaning they are dangerous. The other reference was dead, so the section was unsourced in a BLP and I removed it. It can go back once you source it. Apart from that, it is a great wee article. scope_creepTalk 09:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep: Thank you. But I was not the one who added the external link. Another editor did. WheelHelms (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WheelHelms WS: There was two links in the article when reached the revision 1088347161 on 15:03, 17 May 2022 to [[22]]. The edit history shows that you added them. It is not cool. scope_creepTalk 05:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Scope creep,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb[edit]

Regarding this edit, the reference you removed was a link to a picture, not a statement that was in violation of WP:RS. -- James26 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @James26: IMDB is a social media site. Wikipedia isn't. IMDB is non-rs in the main body of the article. Linking to a gallery of images that are not hosted in Wikipedia may not strictly break the terms of use, re: questions about copyright but it certainly breaks the spirit of the agreement. Don't do it. The image folks really wouldn't be happy if they knew you were doing it, hence the reason that you don't see it done anywhere on Wikipedia. If the images are hosted on WP, you could use a gallery, otherwise avoid. scope_creepTalk 21:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. This wasn't a copyright issue or a hosting issue. I wasn't attempting to make an image from IMDb visible on this site. Did you check to see what you were removing before you removed it? The article claimed that the actress won an award. The reference you removed showed an image of her holding the award, thereby verifying the claim. That picture was the clearest method of verification available, so I used it. I'm fully aware of the policies, but just because a link says "IMDb" doesn't mean it's a automatic violation of policy. -- James26 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@James26: Of course I checked. Why would I not check it? That kind of linking is not used on WP. You never see it used anywhere, and i've reviewed thousands of article. If it was IMDB itself you were commenting on, then would be fine, but its not. Find a newspaper that reported the award being given, not a social media site source. Showing the person holding the award, that is not any kind of reliable context. It makes no sense. In the scale of things it would be quite a low quality reference as you can't draw real meaning from it. She could have made the award. I would suggest there is too much ambiguity in such an image, used as reference and its not a good thing. Don't do it please. Find a better reference from a newspaper, or some other source. scope_creepTalk 22:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@James26: Fandango Movieclips and scherlcreative.com are Non-RS. They are all really good articles that you write. Excellent really. scope_creepTalk 22:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I altered the references. I know that your edits were made in good faith, and I appreciate the compliment. I haven't done this full-time for years, and don't really plan to again. James26 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion here. Do you think the article deserves to be deleted, or do you think the sources are reliable and independent? -- James26 (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @James26: She is a bit of a bit-part actor but I wasn't planning to send it to Afd. I'll need to look at the references in the morning. The articles you write are quality. I would be a shame if you stopped. Do you fancy doing something else? The problem with doing bleeding-edge BLP's is that they are often questioned, sent for deletion and so on, as they have often not proven themselves to be really notable, as yet. However, there is ton of women biographies that are needing done of writers, botanists, poets, actors, in fact every subject under the sun at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red (Wir). I write these types of articles for Wir, for example I've plan one on Elisa Mercoeur, a French poet. There is a French WP article on her, so it should be straightforward. It would be breeze for you do these types of articles. scope_creepTalk 04:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely look into WiR. For now, I want to keep the Andrea Hickey article around because I don't believe it's in clear violation of policy. I definitely see your points about this sort of thing, though. -- James26 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hickey Discussion[edit]

When you get a chance, I'd still appreciate your input on the discussion I mentioned, and whether you think the article violates WP:GNG. -- James26 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @James26: I had a look at the article over the weekend after you mentioned it here. I think I would probably pushed for delete. I thought she was more than borderline but I don't think it would have made much difference. I know what its like to get an article deleted. Its hard going, to say the least. scope_creepTalk 10:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your input. I've no real issue with it being deleted. Also, I moved the text to another site. James26 (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award[edit]

The New Page Reviewer Bronze Award

For over 1,000 article reviews during 2021. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable?[edit]

Is Draft:G_Bidai notable? None is caring. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 15:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NeverTry4Me: Its not that at all. There is just a backlog of new articles getting worked through. The Afc process is a critical part of maintaining quality on Wikipedia and as a result it is quite busy. Yip, it is notable. scope_creepTalk 06:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Thank you for your kind response. Notable, so it should be likely accepted. Keeping hope. :) -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 06:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Chapian[edit]

thanks for this. Should have caught / removed that when I closed the AfD. Star Mississippi 13:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I never noticed either. I didn't even realise I'd sent it to Afd in May this year, until now. I see it went through a Heymann update, a lot of good work has went into it. scope_creepTalk 15:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message[edit]

Hi Scope creep,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2020[edit]

The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award

For over 1,000 article reviews during 2020. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion[edit]

Hi @Scope creep, I hope you're doing well! It's been a while since we last spoke but i wanted to reach out because I am interested in getting involved with Articles for Deletion but not quite sure where to start. Was wondering if you could give me a bit of guidance or direction on how I could get some experience and get more involved with it!

--RealPharmer3 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RealPharmer3: How goes it? Right, first learn the policies. When you going into Afd, first thing you do is look at the article. Generally you might want to specialise in a particular type of article and its Afd, so you might see the see the type of article and get good at recognising what is a well written one. Firstly you would have a quick read of it and you would examine the references. Generally I look at each block, so if there is a block of 3, you will look at the first one. The first few references should pass WP:V on the article and prove its notable for what particular subject it is, and pass WP:SIGCOV. For example if it is a bio article it would show it passes WP:BIO, or a part of it. When you look at the reference, you might need to translate some of those, Deepl is good for that as is Google Translate. Evaluate each one and make your judgement. Next you do a WP:BEFORE. You look for sources if they're are insufficient in the article. Look in Gbooks, archives. Finding good sources starts as an art when you begin and becomes a science after several months, as you known where to ferret them out. archive.org is good one for older stuff, universities archives, there is loads. Once you have done that, and you've found 3 sources that proves the article is notable, then you would, I would assume, state a keep. (It is not a vote, merely a discussion, your looking to build consensus). If you don't find sources, try and delete it. Push back on arguments that its on WP, it should be kept, particularly for very large articles. You may find an article is already being up dated. You will often find the sources going in for contentious subjects, for example billionaires, where they editors are in a group, spas who are meatpuppets or are organised spammers, or an agency updating it with poor sourcing, looking for quantity rather quality, shorter in number. With WP:SIGCOV, you can take the view on Heymann that if there is quantities across several different domain(s) for example a particular industry, or grouping, that shows significance, then that quantity can become notable. When you have many people discussing it, often a source analysis table is good. The table should focus for each decent reference, whether it is secondary, independent, and in-depth (significant). WP:SECONDARY sources are the gold standard, newspapers, university and medical archives, tv reports, government reports, google books and so on. If each ref can fufill those criteria, then you may have your 3 refs to prove its notable. If all in the table is cross marked and it doesn't meet any of them, then its not notable. When your in the Afd, try and keep in mind its a discussion and focus on content not on people. You will find there is folk who have an agenda, from simple WP:SPAs to long-established editors who want to keep all articles. Try and be cordial, even though you lose your temper, but always focus on the references. If the references are bad, then the article is bad. When you talk about some policies, for example WP:NPROF have particular requirements. You need to know these. WP:NCORP is another one, for example it has its own definition of what constitutes a source at WP:SIRS Alternatives to deletion are often posited. If you think the article is really bad, try and delete it, otherwise offer a redirect or possible merge. If the article is really bad and kept, have a go at deleting it again, sometimes within weeks if you think it is really bad, other times within months. Quality is the watch word. On the rationales. There seems to be a mindset that its worth keeping them small, better chance of deletion. I think it is more of case of time available. Quote the policies that fails and a quick reason why it needs to go, for example, if no references, then say "No effective references". On the 2nd Afd, put a bigger rationale in. You need to explain why either in the lede or body. Do be afraid to sent to an article to Afd queue. If your not really sure, try a prod on it. An editor may show up and update it. Sometime when you send an article the 2nd time, it will be updated quickly. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a comprehensive response, I really appreciate you taking the time out. I'll dive deeper into everything that you mentioned and if any questions arise - youll hear from me soon ! Thank you!! --RealPharmer3 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2019[edit]

The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award

For over 360 article reviews during 2019. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in September 2022[edit]

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Reviewer Barnstar
Dear colleague,
Thank you so much for your wonderful help in double-checking the 150+ citations in my recently published List of candidates for the Man in the Iron Mask!
I have now fixed four of the six you had highlighted, and have also double-checked that the other two were correct. Please know that your forensic assistance is very much appreciated, and thank you also for all your other contributions to our encyclopaedia.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 17:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pdebee: Thanks. There is still a couple, ref 126 and 137. Kudos for fixing the other ones so quick. scope_creepTalk 17:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once more for treble-checking for me; I fixed them shortly after seeing your post, above. Done
I wonder: do you use a tool or a bot to detect these citation link errors? If so, thank you for letting me know, at your convenience. (I use CitationBot, which doesn't report these.)
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 20:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska[edit]

I find the reverts shocking. A long time ago, it was redirected as a G4 deletion ATD. When it was salvaged with Great Norwegian Encyclopedia sourcing, i.e. the most reputable soruce available anywhere, instead of a "Thank you", it was redirected again with the flawed reasoning was "Most of new article unsourced". It was pointed out exactly which part was unsourced, i.e. half a sentence. Not willing at all to debate the issues constantly brought up by the article salvager - the article talk page is untouched - a new redirection rationale was instead added: "one source is not enough to establish notability". Another source was added, and then the new redirection needed no rationale at all, just: "Restore". This is completely mindblowing. It's just so completely mindboggling to me why someone chooses to spend their life fighting some IP rather than adding up the following reasons why the article must exist: (1) Throughly sourced with Great Norwegian Encyclopedia (2) Spellemannsprisen award (3) Very good sales and 4th in Norway's official chart (4) Album reviews are henceforth added, starting with one from Norway's largest newspaper. 2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2 (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2: How goes it? It can be frustrating. The sources you added to the Jonas Alaska may be laudable from a process viewpoint but they were pretty byzantine from a physical viewpoint as I couldn't make head nor tail of them. They must be verifiable from a WP:V perspective. The consensus is that you must assume WP:AFG when dealing with this and I made an attempt to find them, but couldn't. Those I even left a message on Jalenfolfs pages, saying so, so if he reverted, he could fix the references. Can you take a look at WP:REFB, which is a small tutorial on creating references. I understand you have had pretty it rough but fans tend to be at the sharp end of page review as they tend to not care about the basics. If you think Alaska is notable, please send me 3 urls that verify the information in the article and I will update the article accordingly. scope_creepTalk 10:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What did you not find? Did you not find the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia which was linked directly? Were you not able to process this through Google Translate? Adding the fact that both the biographical details (Åmli, Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts etc) as well as the accolades (VG-lista, Spellemannspris) can be glanced from there verified even without translating? Was it possible to consider other online sources verifying the basic info, such as All Music Guide? Were you not inclined to detail any of the issues on the talk page? Lastly, is a tutorial really needed here with the way the references are formatted? 2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was working on article review at WP:NPP. I have worked about 40-50 article this morning. allmusic.com is a profile service and insufficient to prove a WP:BLP is notable. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words the content was not given much consideration. You just had to robotically redirect the article, owing to the large number of articles to patrol. And still you ask me to give you dozens of album reviews to add to the article... 2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is consensus. The article must have valid references, or it goes to draft if it is under 90 days old. If older and it you can't verify it, then its redirected. If you think there might be case for the article to be notable, you might sent to Afd, but Afd is not cleanup. You also expect the person to come to back to you, to at least make a case as you would in any face to face meeting. The content must be verifiable per WP:V. You can't have a non-referenced article in mainspace. scope_creepTalk 12:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its nothing to do with the number of articles that need reviewing. scope_creepTalk 13:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who brought up the tally of 40-50 articles, but I take your word for it. However, considering all of the above, as well as the state of the article which is pretty plainly visible in the history; if you still contest that it meets WP:V, then I guess this conversation is a lost cause. I have described in pretty minute detail why the article does not only meet WP:V, but WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:THREE (though the addition of more references is unwanted), WP:NMUSIC etc etc. 2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@2A01:799:199D:F500:D44:EAF8:6D99:24E2: You can still work on the article in a sandbox in your user page, or in draft for example and its the case that nothing in Wikipedia is lost, if they have even a hint of notability. The very worst articles on some subject are deleted and recreated further up the road, all the time. So what I can do is revert it and sent to Afd for a wider consensus view, if you can show a couple of good references that show he may be notable. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which tool or bot did you use, please?[edit]

Dear colleague
Thank you once again for helping me a couple of days ago (see #A barnstar for you!, above). Please would you let me know if you used a tool or a bot to detect these citation link errors? I regularly use CitationBot, but it doesn't report these. Thank you very much for letting me know, as I would like to adopt the same tool or bot, thus saving time and effort by future reviewers such as yourself.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 13:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pdebee: Try CiteHighLighter. scope_creepTalk 14:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pdebee: There is one that check for harv links. Let me check to see what one it is. It the HarvErrors [23] one by Trappist the Monk. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 14:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, @Scope creep: I have now installed both scripts; please would you kindly point me to the instructions on how to use them? When I installed Twinkle, my user page was updated with the TW task bar, but there doesn't seem to be one such for these tools. I apologise for troubling you about such trivial things, but I could only find instructions on how to install, and none about how to activate or use them against an article. Thank you for your helpful assistance, whenever convenient.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 14:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdebee: The Harv script shows Harv errors, an error message next to the citation in grey. Its automatic. You fix the error and the message is removed. The CiteHighligher is automatic as well. There is a help for it. Citations in red should generally be avoid and if present in the article, should be removed as they are likely Non-RS. scope_creepTalk 16:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @Scope creep: I have just seen your latest reply, above, and tested the two scripts by introducing an error and checking the results. I had no idea they run automatically, which is why I was wondering how to invoke them. These are most helpful; thank you once again for your patience and teaching me about them!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 21:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another barnstar for you![edit]

The Guidance Barnstar
Dear Scope creep,
Thank you so much for finding the time to teach me about citation verification scripts of which I was unaware, and thank you for your always patient assistance.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 21:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Pdebee: I've never seen this barnstar, which makes the event unique. Thanks very much. They are very handy those scripts. scope_creepTalk 22:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees election[edit]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Information icon

Dear Scope creep,

I do not expect any money from anyone to promote anything on Wikipedia. Rather, I work for the development of Wikipedia. I wanted to create a new page instead of redirecting to Buddhism in Ecuador. I wanted to enrich Wikipedia with this work. But you didn't allow it. You should have corrected my mistake and written it. Anyway, forgive me if I made any mistakes. Nice to meet you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojer Aurther (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rojer Aurther: Coolio, your not being paid. But why did you put two spam links in, one to advertise a Soka Gakkai Center and another to directory site listing phone numbers. Your article is effectively a promotional advertisement. Not a single part of it constitutes anything akin to an examination of the history of Buddhism in Ecuador. scope_creepTalk 07:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roads4117[edit]

I notice you've recently reverted this user. I have mentioned them at ANI, as has somebody else [24], [25]. As I said at the last thread, I've disagreed with them on a few things so I probably consider myself WP:INVOLVED in taking any action, but since they seem to be giving short and terse answers to suggestions on how and what to edit, I'm wondering if another thread might end up being created anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ritchie333, the reason why I use short, sharp answers is because it is part of my personality. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Roads4117: I plan to pass it to WP:ANI and let them deal with it. scope_creepTalk 16:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep OK then. Roads4117 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I also do it so I have more time to edit articles. Roads4117 (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2018[edit]

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

For over 100 article reviews during 2018. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sianis[edit]

Hello Scope Creep, regarding Billy Sianis. I was not finished writing his biography, I want to expand much more on it. I just posted the start of the biography, because I needed to leave the PC for a while, and now I found that you reverted it. Billy was not just known for one event, as the previous user mistakenly stated. The event itself was pretty well known on its own as the often referred Curse of the goat on the Chicago Cubs, described by all sports journalists, who wrote about the Cubs and Chicago for 76 years until 2016. His tavern, his life and family were written about in Chicago Tribune even after the end of the curse. His tavern was also frequented by journalists from the Chicago news agency, journalists and writers from 4 different newspapers in the area, including Pulitzer winner Mike Royko and screen writer for SNL Don Novello, as well as local Chicago actors Bill Murray and John Belushi. Don created the recurring sketch Olympia cafe on SNL based on Billy and his tavern, with Belushi and Murray starring in it. Even the catch phrases of the sketch were copied directly from Billy and his Greek staff (the yelling in broken English "cheeborger, cheeborger, cheeps, no fries" by the cooks etc). Besides the SNL show, Mike Royko wrote many articles and columns about Billy, his tavern and his goat, including his obituary article, when Billy died. I am able to source and document all that. There is also at least one book written about Billy and that curse on Cubs. This curse also became a staple part of Chicago city history, as well as Billy himself. Wouldn't you agree, that he is notable enough for a biography if both his bar and his curse have articles?

In comparison, someone like bartender Ada Coleman has her article, because she invented one cocktail by adding Fernet to an already existing sweet martini. Her cocktail is not really known anymore today, as even its only reference is a book called Vintage Spirits and Forgotten Cocktails. If one vintage cocktail is enough for notability of a bartender, isn't the well documented 76 years "curse" on a sports team, recurring columns by Royko and a recurring sketch on SNL also enough for notability for a bar owner? Looking forward to your answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Sianis&oldid=prev&diff=1109023450 Wieszczy (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wieszczy: The guy is known for a single event (and it all comes from that one event) and the supposed ultra-local news meaning he fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. Three of those references are non-rs as well. That was the reason it was reverted before. Its a 1E event. And trying do a like for like comparison between this article and others that look similar, when they are fundamentally different does not help. They are not the same. Please work on another article, on something that is more notable. Please take a look at WP:REFB. It will show you how proper references. scope_creepTalk 15:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. What exactly do you mean by "ultra local" news and non-rs? Which 3 non reliable sources do you refer to? Do you mean that the Chicago Tribune or the Greek American media outlet GreekReporter are not reliable, ultra local news? Sure, the GR journalist is writing in extreme superlatives about Billy like he was the next Messiah, but I never would copy that extreme praise word for word, I just used it to source the data - the factual small details of his life.
I can find all the reliable, secondary source articles referencing him, including the book and the Royko columns, all reliable, published sources. I used 4 references just to find his DoB, DoD, and his early life before he even got the tavern. The tavern, the goat, his other events, the SNL sketch, and of course the curse have so much more references and I am willing to find the most notable of them all.
If I write the full article in my Sandbox with all the reliable references, would you then mind reviewing it? Wieszczy (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wieszczy: Yes, but you have to be careful of creating an WP:1E article as folk will try and delete them all down through the years. I think you should create a draft article so an indepedent reviewer in good standing can review it. scope_creepTalk 10:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wordpress[edit]

@Scope creep: Thank you for your message regarding Athalmer, British Columbia. I appreciate that apprehension once widely existed regarding the reliability of Wordpress, but over time its adoption has become quite common for well researched articles in North America. I assume this was the reason why the Wordpress update confirmation was removed from WP quite some time ago. In this instance, the platform is used to display online back issues of the respective museum's monthly newsletter/magazine. You tagged one such edition as unreliable and deleted the extract. Where sound content is being published using Wordpress, a WP editor can either show the online reference or merely identify the magazine article. The former allows a WP reader to confirm whether the WP content aligns with the magazine and also provides further background material. What are your thoughts? DMBanks1 (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DMBanks1: I think around 37% of all websites are wordpress sites. Is it a good references, do you reckon? scope_creepTalk 22:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DMBanks1: There wasn't any kind of publishing meta data on it to confirm where it came from. A lot of these types of information documents are prepared by local historical societies that are attached to local museums. I know experience from experience working in one of these societies in place called Lochwinnoch that it tends to be folk like us that run then. They are not neccessarily academics, although you get those types. So that makes it similar to a SPS source. I wouldn't say its massively valid as a source. You could take an alternate view, by assuming AGF, you assume the source is correct, as its going to be, because somebody has done the work, and because its not needed to prove the article, you could take a view on it, if your confident it was valid information. If your confident its good. scope_creepTalk 22:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: When researching, I do not assume the reliability of ANY source. If content survives through to my final draft we can assume it has been carefully weighed up as to accuracy. DMBanks1 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DMBanks1: Bung in back in, if your sure. scope_creepTalk 22:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Dawson[edit]

Hi, if you don't agree with a close, you take it to the closer and if that doesn't satisfy you, then take it to WP:DRV. You don't change the close unilaterally. This is something that may get you blocked, so consider this a warning. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: I did take to the closer. Did you not check? That was classic WP:BADNAC, simple as that. I asked the editor to fix it, the editor didn't do it properly, so I fixed it, so it not a warning. I followed the process exactly. I didn't need to go to DRV. I'm not contesting the close. scope_creepTalk 15:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I saw that you had talked to the closer. What I wrote above is the procedure to follow in case you don't agree with a close. Your "fix" was highly inappropriate. If talking to the closer is not satisfactory, you go to DRV, you don't unilaterally "fix" things. The warning stands, if you do something like this again, you'll be blocked. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who[edit]

Hi SC. I closed your AFD as keep. I laboured over this decision for a while. I would like you to please let me know if you agree with my closure and reasoning. As a NAC - I typically avoid anything potentially controversial but you and I have interacted at AFD before and I am hoping you will (grudgingly perhaps) agree there was no merit in the discussion continuing further. If you want the closure undone, please ping me. Have a nice day! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta: Can you open it again. That is a WP:BADNAC and you no rationale to close it. That discussion isn't even done yet and are not an admin. scope_creepTalk 07:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: The two editors that that have made keep statements are WP:ARS member. They make keep on everything. I guess you didn't know that. scope_creepTalk
I will definitely undo, because as a non admin, I honour all requests to undo. However please do not state falls undo a WP:BADNAC.
I do not have a COI, it was not a close call, I am experienced at AFD, and the action did not require action by an administrator.
Undoing now though, per my personal stance on NAC to avoid DRV disputes. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep I really do understand. I do. I put my head in my hands over many discussions that get stacked one way or the other, but I saw no grounds to invalidate their votes. While it is not a vote on numbers alone, when keep outweighed more than 2:1 there clearly will not be a decision made to delete the article. Have undone per your request, and I will be interested to see whether someone else can come to another conclusion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: I wouldn't worry about it too much. It is a symptom of the decay of Wikipedia and the fact there is simply not the numbers on Wikipedia any longer who are interesting in removing this junk. Those who do, have mostly given up on doing anything about it, due to vast amount of it there. Most of it is just copied and pasted from somewhere else. scope_creepTalk 08:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bays of the Shetland Islands, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sandwick and Skaw.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARIA certification[edit]

Hi Scope creep. I am enquiring/explaining regarding this edit. I understand that this may be unusual, but ARIA chose to publish their certifications on their "official" dropbox account. You can see it by going to their website and clicking "Latest accreditaions(sic)". To avoid the issue the apparent problem of looking as an non-RS, I suggested that all usage will be through the template {{cite certification}}. You can be assured that this template will only use the official account. I am enquiring whether you removed that source on other pages. --Muhandes (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC) PS. There are now 7,577 articles using this source, it's not a new thing and it reflect the long time consensus.--Muhandes (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Muhandes: How goes it? I never reviewed other articles where I've seen this before. It was reviewed as part of the WP:NPP process. But if I did review another article, where this was, I would remove the section as the reference is non-RS. How ARIA chooses to publish their information is their business. But even that method of publishing is highly irregular in any situation, in any industry. Who does that.? Really. I suspect its designed in that manner as they know it will be used by Wikipedia editors, and that is why its now non-RS. Do not put that back in. Find another reference. scope_creepTalk 08:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we remove it from the 7,577 articles in which it is used? --Muhandes (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to find out today or tommorrow how valid it is a source. scope_creepTalk 09:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no rush. I can say that the folder is maintained regularly with monthly updates. I am also in private correspondence with the ARIA employees responsible for uploading the charts, I helped them locate some historical errors. They assured me that this is their secured account. Let me know if you need any details. --Muhandes (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniël Goulooze[edit]

Hello! I edited the Daniël Goulooze article a bit because you thanked my for my first edit on that article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani%C3%ABl_Goulooze contains the words: "In 1927, he wrote De grondslagen van het communisme, de taak van de". The task of the what/who? According to the translation it is the communist youth but in Dutch the subtitle is incomplete.

This file should be renamed from Winterlink to Winterink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winterlink_Group.png because it is named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Winterink

Then I looked at some other articles you've written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schl%C3%BCsselger%C3%A4t_39 contains the word "activing". Not sure if that's a word tbh.

Please check my most recent 50 edits.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polygnotus (talk • contribs) 01:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Polygnotus: I missed Winterink diagram name change. I've changed the name in another article but I've not done it here. scope_creepTalk 07:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Polygnotus: A thoughtful and well executed copyedit. If you see anything that fixed in any of these articles and you have time, please fix it. scope_creepTalk 07:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: I only checked a percentage of the updated articles but I think your skills at grammer and spelling and copyediting are more polished than almost everybody I've met so far. I noticed your username, does it mean "Known to everybody". If it does, you've made an excellent start 8:).

Thank you, that is very kind. I wish it was true! Polygnotus (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Joseph Lister[edit]

Hello Scope Creep. Sorry to say the above article popped up on the feed at CopyPatrol as a potential violation of the copyright policy. Comparing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3744350/ with Joseph Lister shows quite a bit of overlapping content that needs to be paraphrased, when comparing using Earwig's tool. Please don't go by the percentage which the tool states as 78.2%; it's distorted because of the bibliography. Nevertheless it requires quite a bit of work to become compliant with our copyright policy. I am hoping you can quickly get this cleaned up in the next few days. If not, please let me know, and I will list it at WP:CP. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Diannaa: I will do. I will try and rework it somehow. scope_creepTalk
Hi @Diannaa: Most of that wording comes from Godlee, which is the public domain and taken into the Howard document There is conversational descriptions from Howard, where it uses his wording and that will need changed, but I can use the original Godlee and/or reword it somehow where necessary. That last block "Lister's paper was able to show that capillary action is governed by the constriction and dilation of the arteries" uses Howards words and I will change that. The majority of it comes either straigh from Godlee, Sir Rickman John (2009). Lord Lister. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1333634315. or from Listers papers. scope_creepTalk 21:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Any PD books or publications that have matching content need to be marked with {{PD-notice}} and include the original publication date. I've fixed this one. — Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Yes, I thought it was already done. Something been changed in the interim as Godlee was the one of the first ref I added. I've never used that orig-date parameter before. Its really handy. I will start working on it tommorrow, line by line as I have an earwig report. I was worried about the language as I'm not a doctor. I will need some effort. scope_creepTalk 22:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am super busy with CopyPatrol at the moment or I would have done it myself. Sorry for the extra work. — Diannaa (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Thats fine. That CopyPatrol stuff is a massive job on its on. I admire the time and effort, the sheer effort you put into it. I known from experience when wee did that wee training block a couple of months ago, how hard it is. I know what to do, now. scope_creepTalk 05:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2022[edit]

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_experiential_dynamic_psychotherapy

I have tried to clean it up a bit but this needs more work. Thank you Polygnotus (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Polygnotus: I will take a look at this now. scope_creepTalk 13:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MSIG Can this page boast wiki move to meta-wiki site[edit]

This column is my English encyclopedia compiled in the sandbox for the draft to be submitted to Wikimedia campaign strategy-2030project report，I just meant to get out of the sandbox moved to metawiki MSIG application page Can you help me?I'm because I'm offline use app When you are done, you can link to the report uploaded to Wikipedia Just move the draft of the application out and integrate it.I also just found out that I can't move pages across wikis，I copy the content to my device first, then I delete it myself thank you！🤗🤗Jc.Mandy 12:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @J.zht: I don't how to do it unfortunately. You will need to ask an admin. I'll leave a message on @Primefac:. He's really good in this area. scope_creepTalk 12:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@J.zht: I've take the Db notice off. Contacting primefac now. scope_creepTalk 12:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@scope_creepThen I'd like to say thank you here first.Although I have been browsing Wikimedia for almost 10 years But they just want to read and find information don't know how to edit、Accessing websites from mobile devices is inherently unsuitable for programming Phone screen size is too small Virtual keyboard for touch screen software Fingers often mistakenly touch options other than the target.bye bye🤗🤗🌹🌹Jc.Mandy 12:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@J.zht: There has been long conversations on here about how woeful they are. I hope you get your grant. scope_creepTalk 12:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
J.zht, if you want to make a post on Meta, you have to go to Meta itself. Hopefully, as scope creep has said, you can find the correct location and get your grant. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Primefac: The article will need to be deleted. Will I just put a csd tag on it? scope_creepTalk 13:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page is currently in their sandbox, why does it need deleting? Primefac (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Its a grant application on mainspace. I see you have deleted it already. That excellent. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2022[edit]

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galați steel works[edit]

Hi. If I may ask for a bit of advice: how does one deal with a situation like this? Thanks. — Biruitorul Talk 14:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Biruitorul: Firstly, you must be careful about the WP:OUTING policy. Never expose somebodies real details on Wikipedia, it can expose you to the harrassment policy and get you blocked. It will need to get it redacted. scope_creepTalk 19:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, sorry about that. Now, second, can we address the substantive issue of what to do in order to safeguard the neutrality of an article from, shall we say, people who aren’t here to improve the project? — Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Primefac: when you have a minute can you please redact this. scope_creepTalk 19:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what am I redacting? Primefac (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit — an honest mistake on my part. — Biruitorul Talk 20:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Biruitorul posted the details of linkedin details of user:GeorgianaCostea who has made two two edits Galați steel works. Its now been removed from view. Thanks scope_creepTalk 07:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right, thought you meant something at the article; didn't see this conversation had been altered.  Done. Primefac (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I apologies if i did something wrong, but i don't understand what the problem is. Can someone explain it to me, please? I just updated the information about the company, after the takeover by LIBERTY Steel Group. The Galati Steel Work is a very important firm from Galati, it's like the biggest company in the city and its support a half of the Galati community... GeorgianaCostea (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has strict rules against coi and promotional editing without sourcing. scope_creepTalk 08:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. I will add the source. GeorgianaCostea (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in December 2022[edit]

WiR Women who died in 2022
WiR Women who died in 2022
Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name,
    like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Super Biton de Ségou has been accepted[edit]

Super Biton de Ségou, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 17:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M41 (Durban)[edit]

NPP is not a trump card for redirecting articles. Per WP:BRD - please take this to AFD if you want these articles gone. Rschen7754 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: No of course it not, but neither does an article with a single google maps references validate the subject and make it notable. The consensus now, since the summer RFC, is that articles must have more than 1 reference and must be able to verify the information in the article. That is not happen here. Do you plan to go against established consensus? There has been a continual push by folk writing road article against proper references, for months now, which is outside consensus. Articles of that type, can no longer stay in mainspace. I urge you to reference them properly. I plan to send them to Afd. scope_creepTalk 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "effective reference"? A term that you made up in order to discount Google Maps? And please link to this RFC. There has been a continual push by folk writing road article against proper references, for months now, which is outside consensus. Please also back this accusation up. Also, I will point you to WP:BEFORE before you send to AFD. --Rschen7754 19:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look for it. I've began the process to send them to Afd. Since the WP:NPP call back in August, when it was close 14000. I've spoke to about three folk about it. scope_creepTalk 19:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't show me this supposed RFC I will not abide by its results. Your last two sentences are borderline nonsensical. --Rschen7754 19:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: I really enjoy working with maps and geographics systems, more than more, but a Google map link, isnt a reference in anybody's book. I know from a 2010 decision. It verifiable information, not something that is copied from a map. I truly understand how hard it, but just copy-and-paste isn't the way to do it. Look for it. scope_creepTalk 19:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one redirecting, so shouldn't the onus be on you? WP:BEFORE. I will say that in 90 seconds I found a source for M25, so before you submit AFDs that boomerang, you might want to try that too. --Rschen7754 19:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: Thats a good start!! In the mean M1 (Durban) is now at Afd. scope_creepTalk 19:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Films India Ltd.[edit]

was it an accident? Doesn't look like much. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Usedtobecool: I don't know. I don't think so. I found a reference that were going since 1988, which makes it a 35year old production company. There must be some kind of references there for that length of time. That combined with the number of viewers they have is more than borderline. If you think that is wrong, send it to Afd. scope_creepTalk 09:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Sounds like you've reasoned it deeper than I have. Let me think about it. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: Afd would test it, to determine if they were notable. scope_creepTalk 09:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Elephant Whisperers" moved to draft[edit]

Hello, a stub that I created 'The Elephant Whisperers', based on a movie which is about to be released has been moved to draft. Can you please advise on the changes that need to be done to qualify it for a wikipedia article. Dg432 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dg432: The Elephant Whisperers is just a WP:CRYSTAL article that has no place on Wikipedia mainspace. It is advert and non-notable. Reviews are the gold start. If it comes into mainspace without at least favourable reviews then it can be promoted. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dg432: If any decent reviews turn up after its released, put them in and give me ping and i'll promote it. I'll keep eye on, in the meantime. scope_creepTalk 08:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morning @Gerda Arendt: I didn't realise that three years had passed already. It doesn't seems like that time has passed. They say as you get older it moves faster, flashing by. I read if you talk about it too much it seems to go faster. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robby Starbuck[edit]

hello, the entry is linked to that page on it.wiki so I have no idea why it's deleted.. SURDUSVII 15:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SurdusVII: The standards of notability are much higher due to the large number of different languages of folk. A lot of junk is created that you don't neccessarily see on other wikipedias, which has slowly pushed up the criteria over the last decade. The references that are on that Italian WP are mostly interviews, dead or X of Y (40 under 40) which are non-rs. You need better references than that if its to stay. It will be either reverted or sent to draft. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 15:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
from what you have written to me I think I will ask my fellow Wikipedians about a PdC for the voice.. good job wiki!! SURDUSVII 15:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SurdusVII: What is a Pdc? scope_creepTalk 15:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is PdC!! SURDUSVII 15:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SurdusVII: Has it just be deleted this second on the Italian WP? That is weird. scope_creepTalk 15:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no, I applied to delete the entry.. SURDUSVII 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SurdusVII: An Italian speedy delete tag. I see. scope_creepTalk 15:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
exact!! SURDUSVII 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants in Portland, Oregon[edit]

Hi Scope_Creep. Hope you don't mind me seeking your advice/views here as I see from your username and talkpage that you have a great deal of experience in the AfD area.

Recently I started looking at AfD discussions as a means of understanding Wikipedia's notability and advertising policies. I somehow came across this article (not AfD listed) Dime Store (Portland, Oregon) which has achieved good article status. While the article is very well written the subject matter is a restaurant in Portland that was only open for about a year. I don't understand how it fulfills WP notability and thought that if it was still open it would fail advertising/promotional rules, but was probably allowed because the place had closed. I was tempted to put it up for AfD as a 'test case' but discovered that it's written by a very experienced editor so backed away!

I then opened the Restaurants in Portland, Oregon box at the bottom of that article and was frankly astounded to see so many eating places in Portland listed. Some are stubs but others have been developed. Those I've looked at were started and largely written by the same editor. The sources used are mainly reviews in the local press/websites/inclusion in top 10, 50 lists etc.

Presumably, many AfD nominations originate from long standing article tags challenging notability/advertising/sourcing but the articles I've seen above are not so labelled.

What do you make of this? Aren't the articles advertising/promotional? Does this mean that if I can find 3 reviews of say my local fish and chip shop it's good for a WP article?!! To your knowledge have any Good Articles received an AfD nomination? Rupples (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Found WP:REST, a failed proposal to set separate guidelines for restaurants. Seems to me that restaurant articles operate in a similar way to albums and so long as there are, say, 3 or more independent reviews can pass notability and are not seen as promotion/advertising (point 1 of WP:NALBUM). Rupples (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rupples: How goes it. Seems to be. I think the editor who is writing the articles is either a paid editor, paid to write about all of them or probably more likely a bon viveur who feels its important to have all the restuarants in Portland including the the defunct ones on Wikipedia. I would suggest sending one of the defunt ones and one a live ones to Afd and see what happens. Looking at them, a lot of coverage is generic reviews, created by content writers on the web to draw traffic to specific websites that offer either coupons or reviews. It is effectively creating a directory of restuarants in Portaland and is an attempt to replace something like Fodors or the Michelin guide with something that is both less technical and accurate as a Wikipedia article. They are crass and inaccurate and mostly rank that is base advertising. scope_creepTalk 09:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples: I've sent defunct Bit House Saloon to be prodded. If its removed I'll send it to Afd. scope_creepTalk 09:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. Your thoughts mirror mine.
There looks to be a proliferation of this type of article. Restaurants in Seattle looks to be going the same way as Portland. The Eater website from which many of the "reviews" are taken has offshoots in other places including, yes, Seattle. The local newspaper reviews referenced are there to promote local businesses.
I enjoy writing about places but certainly wouldn't add a paragraph, let alone a whole article on a cafe/restaurant I'd visited, even if I'd thoroughly enjoyed the meal! Rupples (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I think the editor who is writing the articles is either a paid editor, paid to write about all of them or probably more likely a bon viveur who feels its important to have all the restuarants in Portland including the the defunct ones on Wikipedia." I'm not being paid to write these entries. I am addressing a content gap. I've promoted ~50 restaurant articles to Good status. I'm very familiar with notability criteria and what sort of coverage is needed for restaurant entries to be promoted. Feel free to share your concerns on specific article talk pages, please, instead of jumping to AfD or prodding. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your an editor who is fundamentally turning Wikipedia in a directory of restuarants. You must have 50 defunct restuarant on the template. Even Fodors or the Michelin guide doesn't support defunct restuarants. When I think of somebody creating that many articles on Portland, I wonder if it is a paid editor. You've said your not and that is fine, but your creating all the restuarant in Portland, which to me seems as if you creating a directory on Wikipedia, which is equivalent to Fodors or the Michelin guide, or the US equivalent, but it will be, if want your doing is taken to the natural conclusion. 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel a need to respond further. Take care for now, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Martt draft page[edit]

@Scope Creep: Hello, i've added a bunch of newspaper citations to the Mike Martt page i was working on, let me know if that works? Thanks

Innerturmoil (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Innerturmoil: How goes it. I don't think the article is notable at the moment. The coverage is all passing mentions, just the name, nothing of significance. I've copyedited it a bit and submitted it for review. You might get an editor who passes if think it is notable. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 09:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created category[edit]

Hi, here's a new category that I created that you can add to your userpage. Category:Wikipedians who have earned the 100,000 edits award. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: I've added that in. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Gerdner[edit]

Thanks for joining in on the discussion. Since you think that this person is a notable academic, I'd really like to help facilitate the creation of a well-sourced neutral article about her. However, I don't think she realizes that I had requested that she be the one to initiate a WP:REFUND of the deleted content. Can one of us request it on her behalf, or does it need to be from her? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drm310: How goes it? I found several book reviews. I read that. I'm not really sure. I've not refunded an article before. If your up for doing it? I'll follow behind. I never saw the original article but I can certainly help with copyediting and so on. If you fancy doing it today, I think it should be pretty quick and its posted to draft. I think its a quick process. We can do most of the work on today. scope_creepTalk 10:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: I'm just back in from a walk. I had a look at the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion but couldn't see it. I'm going to make a request now. See how it goes. scope_creepTalk 16:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: I've created an entry at WP:REFUND. scope_creepTalk 16:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I will be intermittently online today so I'll check back in whenever I have a chance. Thanks for making the refund request. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: The article was refunded User:Scope creep/Linda Gerdner but they're is barely anything there. The book reviews are about shamanism, it looks like and they're is barely any kind of valid biographical details. It is just research and they're isn't enought for secondary sources. I'm thinking of G6'in it. scope_creepTalk 21:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be easier to WP:TNT it. Question for you, what does the citation to the Handbook of Asian American Health support? It's not clear to me. Also, I think putting a brief outline of her education back in would be good. I saw they used a primary source, which would be fine but it didn't actually list her degrees. I found a page on the SCIRP site, but now I see that it's considered a predatory publisher... so scratch that. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: Yes, that site is rank. They're is profiles in several gbooks that list oddments. The handbook verifies Gerdner's position at Stanford certainly. I couldn't find anything that verifies Gerdner's education. How do I WP:TNT it. I was also thinking of going to UtherSRG and asking for it to be deleted. scope_creepTalk 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe TNT was a little over-dramatic on my part. Gutting it and completely rewriting it from scratch is a more accurate description. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: I think she is notable, but I can't take it forward or I would have added it to my todo list. I'll move it to draft, which will give some months to work on it and keep a watch on it. Suitable references may show up in the meantime. scope_creepTalk 10:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I can pick away at it in the draft space. Even if we can get it to a stub for starters, it's something. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: I've now sent that article to draft here: Draft:Linda Gerdner. Hopefully something will come of it. I've G1'd the page here as its not longer needed. scope_creepTalk 14:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniël Goulooze[edit]

Daniël Goulooze is an interesting article. I have one question so far: what is the "(NLR)"? The Banner talk 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The Banner: Excellent work!! I'll check it out. scope_creepTalk 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of the substantial risk of disinformation. Both by the group around Paul de Groot and by government agencies like the General Intelligence and Security Service (BVD). As far as my limited knowledge goes, it was a power struggle later on. With Goulooze with his contacts in de USSR a risk for De Groot who as leader of the CPN went into hiding for everybody, including his own party. The Banner talk 16:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: Are you talking after the war, or during the invasion? I know they're was a lot of rancor after the war and Goulooze was effectively banned from the CPN, but don't know much about it as yet. Can you clarify it a bit, so I can zero on the particular period? I'm using the Harmsen book, apparently a comprehensive biography of Goulooze. scope_creepTalk 16:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: That starting to worry a wee bit. Any documentation, source, archive docs and so would be most welcome. scope_creepTalk 16:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have my books available but largely since he started the radio connections with Moscow independently from the CPN. Harmsen is, as far as I know, a reliable source. The Banner talk 16:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I've been thinking about this last night. I'll look at it again. scope_creepTalk 10:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far the article is okay to me. Is the book in Dutch or translated? The Banner talk 10:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch. scope_creepTalk 10:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine. scope_creepTalk 10:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you speak/read Dutch. :-) So you can use Delpher (www.delpher.nl) to back up some fact, like his first trip to the Soviet Union here. The Banner talk 11:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I picked up some while working there in the late 90's, early noughties putting in software. I'm not fluent in any manner. I take a look. scope_creepTalk 11:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Digital engineering necessary?[edit]

I suspect that you see Digital engineering as a plug for digitalengineeringgroup.com. If so, and it were to be proposed to fold any salvageable content into an existing article, I'd support that. Engineering design process may be appropriate, I'm not sure yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this wake-up edit after a 15 year hiatus is very sus. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bri, I did only see the cambridge university book ref and the ext link and i've heard the phrase before and assumed it was that, but it does have three refs to pivotpoint technologies which are spam links and two wiki links which are WP:SPS. I never caught it. I really really wish just once, for it to be a normal academic article on a new subject. To answer your question, no, its not. Well done for catching it. Could merge. It is a valid term and a valid engineering domain and there is a couple or three good refs that could be expanded. I would happy for a merge. scope_creepTalk 18:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: The PivotPoint article has been updated by the other editor and cross-linked to here. scope_creepTalk 18:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: And they have removed the notability tag as well. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling[edit]

Please check the edit history of the pages you are patrolling. You tagged Holliswood, New York for deletion when actually a new editor had blanked the page. The vandalism should be reverted, the page shouldn't be deleted. Please look beyond the surface and look at the history of the pages you are considering tagging for deletion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 09:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I came back and thought was experimenting. Take a look at this: Unconscious bias. scope_creepTalk 09:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I later saw that you handled a similar page appropriately but I had already post this notice. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi Sir Scope creep (talk · contribs) i hope you are fine, But i have a question can i create 2022 Zambales local elections??? — Einahr (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Einahr: How are you? Yes, but you need to create references. Please take a look at WP:REFB which is a small training video on how to create references. Create the references before you copy to mainspace. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 09:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help sir Scope creep (talk · contribs) — Einahr (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Ohara Shoson (Koson), Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
Ohara Shoson (Koson), Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
 Have a wonderful holiday season
filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder.

Hi Scope creep, Thank you for all your contributions during the year.
I've learned a lot by observing your work here throughout the year, and wanted to take a moment to share my gratitude and appreciation.
May your 2023 be filled with creativity and good health.
Image: Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927

Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers
Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers
 Seasons greetings!

Wishing you joyous holiday spirits,
Scope creep!
and best wishes for the New Year


Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes
Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes


Beccaynr (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Hello. Regarding the Roy Sebag article, it was not my intention to advertise, although I can see where you were coming from. Atrahasis01 (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atrahasis01: If he is an author, look for two or three book reviews in independent journals and magazines and newspapers, not a social media cite. That will prove he is an author. Folk tend to say they are many many things, because they're company or their people do it for them, and they assume the role, but its not really true. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 13:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I will do my best to be judicious with my choice of references in future. Atrahasis01 (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro) for Disruption, NPA vios, bludgeoning.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Why I am I blocked? I never made any WP:NPA attacks against anybody on any of these Afd. What WP:NPA attack explicity? I have not replied to any other editor regarding bludgeoning. Not once. scope_creepTalk 20:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I'm not going to do any more of these defunct restuarants. scope_creepTalk 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You must know MJ isn't a COI editor simply because they work in the industry. And twisting the knife at the Toledo train thing? And then pinging me back to the AfD just in case I hadn't seen the PA you removed?
All I really want is for you to not disrupt AfD with bickering and baiting of other editors. Unblocking now since you've said you won't go back. Valereee (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just the Toledo train station article, scope unreviewed (Special:Log/Scope_creep) FOURTEEN articles MJ has significant contributions to, some almost a decade old. That's an egregious abuse of NPP perms, and they should be immediately removed. That message I sent you a bit earlier was meant for you, scope_creep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, I'm not sure your block of SC here was fair or justified, just as a random third-party non-admin observer.
For clarity, I have no recollection from where I know @Scope creep and I think I may have followed their page to actually see if they caused further disruption, not because I agreed with them. And I have absolutely zero involvement in that situation, in defunct restaurants in general, etc. So I would count myself as probably a good neutral non-admin party on this.
If you examine that thread, it's clear @Scope creep was trying quite hard to avoid NPAs. They are mainly commenting to post sources and justify their argument like here where they just do a source review of the restaurants. Here they just justify how they got to these pages (via NPP), demonstrating (despite others saying the contrary) that they are not WP:HOUNDING.
  1. There are numerous comments there assuming SC is acting in bad faith, themselves violating WP:AGF, such as "You're just assuming there's no such thing as a notable defunct restaurant in Portland? Yikes"[26] and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess nominator hasn't done extensive research here [27] and there's also an editor who has begun to believe any restaurant stub I've created is problematic and/or any defunct restaurant is non-notable [28] and Like it or not, the nominator is clearly engaged in wikihounding. This can't go on much longer [29] and You had offered to put together a thorough source assessment demonstrating non-notability for Beast but you "didn't find anything" so I guess that's complete [30] and nominator and friends are bad-faith targeting useful entries, and have astonishing misconceptions about the importance of the restaurant industry in society and to historical narratives [31]
  2. Plus comments like these which are clearly not civil: If you don't think a fucking doctor can write about fucking hospitals hundreds of miles away I can't even with you.. [32]
  3. And through all of that, Scope creep was able to keep their cool, and not escalate tensions.
Why would that merit a block?? Is it for BLUDGEON? Because even then, the user was mostly responding to others describing their actions and in other ways addressing them. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't really the point or heart of BLUDGEON. The user wasn't responding to everyone who contributed, being hostile, or repeating arguments, etc.
Humbly, truly, I know being an admin is a hard job and it's really hard to deal with these situations where it's so unclear who is in the right. But I firmly believe this should not be one of those situations where a kid is getting bullied, and the school suspends both the bully and bullied. I hate those! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how it looked to me:
14:05 12-19 Special:Diff/1128316303 accusations of bad faith from MJ
17:42 12-19 Special:Diff/1128348802 accusations of COI from SC
18:24 12-19 Special:Diff/1128355002 SC ups the ante with a PA: You seem to be incoherent.
18:31 12-19 Special:Diff/1128355882 MJ fires back with namecalling
18:44 12-19 Special:Diff/1128357805 SC removes MJ’s namecalling
18:56 12-19 Special:Diff/1128359630 MJ removes an entire exchange among multiple people in order to rem SC’s earlier PA. We now have a discussion that can’t easily be followed.
19:44 12-19 Special:Diff/1128367066 I ask MJ to stop making personal attacks and assuming bad faith
19:46 Special:Diff/1128367355 MJ pushes back on that, makes further accusations
19:50 Special:Diff/1128367960 SC pings me to let me know they’ve removed a PA, possibly thinking I hadn’t seen it
20:25 Special:Diff/1128373102 I get to the end of my own personal rope. Both editors have made their positions clear. All they are doing here with their various personal attacks, namecalling and assumptions of faith, and retaliatory removals of each others’ posts is generate heat. Valereee (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a discussion that can’t easily be followed.
Yes, I think this befell me as well, I didn't see the incoherent comment. I can see why that is absolutely "commenting on the contributor" rather than the content. I respect your decision and your seeing this as a tit for tat was clearly done in good faith, even if I think one party's actions were decidedly more severe than the other. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get it. To read the thing as it currently reads, I can see how it looks like an overreaction. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable[edit]

Hello, Scope creep,

An editor brought your recent actions to my attention. It is unacceptable to mark older articles as "unreviewed" as some sort of strange payback to an editor you are in a dispute with. If you do this again, it could result in your privileges being revoked. So far, I've stayed out of these AFD discussions but I see bad behavior on both sides of all of this.

Remember, if you take this dispute to ANI, your own conduct will be reviewed. If I were you, I'd be sure I didn't do anything that would justify a boomerang. Remember, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to get even with editors we disagree with, even if we feel provoked. Personal attacks and misplaced accusations of COI are completely out-of-place in an AFD discussion. Focus on the articles, not the contributors. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It wasn't payback and I'm not interested in any kind of revenge. Please examine this article: Toledo and Ohio Central Railroad Station. Ref 17 to 32 are barelurls that evaluate to a login page. I put a bareurl tag on the article and the editor removed it. That mechanism is being in dozens of articles. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SC, I think Liz is referring to multiple articles by MJ that you marked as unreviewed? Valereee (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EEng: Thanks for your help at the Afd. That small group decided to subvert it from the get-go and turned it into a complete farce, even though they're was pushback against it from several folk including yourself, for which I thank you. I don't intend to send any more of these articles to Afd. I've had my fill. It is a complete and utter waste of time. I think probably if a notability tag is placed on each of them, likely within 6 days to six months they will be taken off and the whole thing will be quitly forgotten. I think it is probably a waste of your time. Nobody's mind has been changed. And even that disgraceful dounut article looks as though its coming back. scope_creepTalk 23:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Scope creep (talk · contribs) can you help me add source/references in my new project 2022 Zambales local elections? — Einahr (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Einahr: I don't enough about the 2022 Zambales local elections. scope_creepTalk 12:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clozee[edit]

Hi looks like you removed information on an independently sourced performance? Artedm (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-afd[edit]

Hello Scope Creep, I wanted to let you know I closed out the multi-afd as no consensus without prejudice. NAC. Bruxton (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page move mess[edit]

Hello, Scope creep,

I am very upset. You chose, for some reason, not to leave a redirect when you did some recent page moves and now we have 133 broken redirect pages that need to be fixed. Just look at this list!.

Please go back and create redirects when you decided to leave none. You really should clean up after your bad decision. ALWAYS leave a redirect when you move a long-standing article to a new page title or you are likely to end up with a lot of broken redirects that shouldn't be deleted because they are valid redirects. Please go and create all of these redirects where you decided to leave none so another editor doesn't have to go and tag all of these valid redirects as broken when they should not be. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The folk that are working on RFC at Talk:First ladies and gentlemen of Kansas will fix them in due course. I've left a message the editor who is running the RFC. I don't have much experience in creating valid redirects at scale. The reason the RFC was created in the first places was 50 odd article had names that weren't valid per MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:NCCAPS. The RFC is finished and these have to moved their correct names. scope_creepTalk 23:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: If they don't get them done, I will work through the list in the next few days. I will need some help to determine what needs to go in. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 23:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I have created the redirects en masse using my alt account.
SC, redirects even if it is contrary to the MOS is inexpensive and help at least the search engines to pick up the changes on their end and not having the readers being surprised at arriving at a 404 page when they follow the redirect. If anything, my experience working on mass moves is that editors, even at a collective effort, will take weeks, if not days to clean up everything according WP:POSTMOVE. A couple of Rcats should do the trick in informing those who are looking at the redirects. – robertsky (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: @Liz: Thanks for being so prompt and fixing that problem. scope_creepTalk 13:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas, Scope creep

Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice!
As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to
recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia.
May this Holiday Season bring you and yours nothing but joy, health and prosperity.
Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers
Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers
 Seasons greetings!

Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, a Merry Christmas, and a very Happy New Year
Scope creep!
and best wishes to you and your loved ones. Have a great time.


Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes
Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes


RV (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 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.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please archive your UTP[edit]

Hi Scope creep. Would you be able to archive your UTP? It is current approaching 360KB, and the archival guideline recommends archiving at 75KB. Thanks and happy holidays, HouseBlastertalk 20:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Balderdash. EEng 04:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2023[edit]

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scope_creep/Archive_11&oldid=1131507464"