User talk:Scope creep/Archive 8

Louise Patricia Crane

Hi Scope Creep, recently you deleted the page Louise Patrice Crane and moved it to Draft:Louise_Patricia_Crane stating that it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. Is there a way to appeal this decision as 3 months ago, after a lengthy review process, the page was deemed ready to publish by 1292simon (talk)? Was there any specific source that you had issue? Thanks Rustedinpeace502 (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

J. Yolande Daniels

This article is not undersourced. In fact there are 10 sources and scholarly books. Can you expand on why this was marked for deletion and moved to draft space? Siarus1074 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay I have seen your notifications

Citations added for [Elumelu]. Can you please help with the multiple issues tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adakanma (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for improving the project

I want to thank you for your recent AfD of Herbert Wigwe. I know it is a difficult undertaking to do an AfD and I commend you for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Johnpacklambert: Thanks. It seems to be harder now than it has been, even 5 years ago. So many UPE/Socks/Coi's coming in to defend and/or muddy the water, so it leads to no-consensus. It is hard going. scope_creep^Talk 20:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Changhong Zhu has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Changhong Zhu. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Reba Monness has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Reba Monness. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parminder Vir has been accepted

Parminder Vir, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marie Verhulst (August 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joseph2302 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marie Verhulst and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marie Verhulst, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Joseph2302 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Scope creep! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Joseph2302 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

AfDs and GNG: Business People

Hi, do you know if there are any specific guidelines for notability for individuals in the business/finance community like there are for authors, actors, politicians, military personnel, etc.? I've looked, but have not found official guidance on the matter. You've nominated multiple of my articles for AfD - articles which I built based on my understanding of WP:GNG and a review of similar articles. I'd like to get more perspective on this matter, as it seems like the barrier for notability and significant coverage are much lower for the more defined bio categories.

Also, if you're looking for AfD fodder, and you think my articles don't meet WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV, then I recommend reading through Category:American stock traders, Category:American hedge fund managers, Category:American financiers, and Category:American money managers. If even half of those articles meet your criteria then I'll eat my hat :) --TardyMarmot (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @TardyMarmot: Please don't get disheartened. I'm not looking for Afd fodder. I think that is a misrepresentation of what I try to do, really to improve the quality of Wikipedia. When I look at an article, I check the references, to see if they are valid, and if they are not and if can't find coverage, then I'll try and delete it. I don't take a left-wing academic viewpoint that business and businessman are somehow bad. Business and businessman generate profit that keeps the government going, in my instance anyway, the UK government. So I don't have anything particular against your three articles. Looking at those two articles, they have no WP:SECONDARY sources, that can satisfy WP:BIO, that is the gold standard, sources in newspapers, journals and so. That means folk talk about the subject who doesn't know the subject. For BLP articles, there must be coverage per WP:SIGCOV, i.e. independent, reliable and of of sufficiently deep level, i.e. not paid, or PR. Do you want to go through sources on one of the articles I Afd'd. E.g. Being listed at Bloomberg, is a paid service. scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I appreciate the feedback. Looking over my earlier articles with my current understanding of Wikipedia's definition of notability I can see why you'd nominate them. The sources I used for Sanjiv Das weren't particularly solid, and those that were from independent journals weren't focused on the subject. Jonathan Korngold is a stretch, too - I thought his notability stemmed from awards and such, but without independent sources to back that up I suppose he only qualifies as notable within the industry. However, I'd still argue that my most recent article for Remy W. Trafelet meets criteria. There are in-depth, independent, and reliable articles focused solely on the subject and the ups and downs of his career. Honestly, I only included his Bloomberg profile because I see it used in a lot of other finance professionals' articles - it's not even accurate, and I had to source other material for up-to-date info. Do you have any advice on how to improve that article instead of deleting it? I went for complete coverage, but maybe that introduced too many minor sources? I'm open to suggestions. --TardyMarmot (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Remy W. Trafelet has a couple of good references, but it is a BLP article, not a company article, so endless lists of company references, aren't useful. The article is at Afd, and it needs to go through that process. This article Sanjiv Das is junk. Not a single reference in the first 10 are worth the time to put them in there. None of them are BLP references, none of them WP:SECONDARY, i.e. references from good sources e.g. journals, newspapers, Google Books. There is nothing on the article to indicate why he is notable; he looks as though he is just doing his job. Being a CEO doesn't make you automatically notable. It also looks like a paid article. Are you being paid for this? scope_creep^Talk 20:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not being paid for this. Thanks for the notes on BLP articles - can you clarify a bit about not including company references? When I'm doing my own research on someone I appreciate finding a Wiki that discusses their business dealings. I guess I don't fully grasp how BLP articles differ from company articles, at least when the person in question is closely related to the companies they've worked for or founded. Or at least I don't understand where to draw the line between useful information and not. If you were writing the Trafelet article, would you only include the WP:RS sources and info, even if there was more (verified) information about the subject from direct and/or less notable sources? --TardyMarmot (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That coolio. Thanks. Well its a kind of balance. For many businessmen and businesswomen, their whole life is their business, they exist for that, but there must be clear differentiation between what is the business references and what is BLP references in the relation to the business. What they have done in that business that makes them notable. Having a whole ream of what the business did will lead to deletion. Looking at Sanjiv Das as an example. Ref 1 is a paid reference. You pay 24k and part of that gets you a profile. Ref 2 is an announcement. How is an announcement, proving that person is notable? In that aspect, it is context that counts. If it was announced he was winning the Copley Medal, it would be reported every newspaper on the world. So context really counts. An announcement doesn't cut it. Ref 3. A page of text? Ref 4. A business acquiring another business. How is that notable. It is completely generic. Ref 5. Another announcement. Ref6. All about the business, not the person. It looks like a press release. It states, his office is uncluttered, setting the environment for the reader. It doesn't report, it states. It states what his working days is like. It is WP:PUFF piece. Ref 7. "Military families face many unique obstacles when it comes to purchasing and maintaining a home," Sanjiv Das, CEO of CitiMortgage, said in a press release. They have the good grace to state it is a press release, and per WP:NOT, is against policy. The dude sends out a bunch of press-releases. If some really notable person is notable, they will be reported on in news/newspaper in seven continents, sometime 3 or possibly 1. They will be recorded in journals as secondary sources, books as secondary sources, archives as secondary source, and books of the period, and web sites that have editorial control, meaning the posted information has been fact checked. I plan to find somebody to check the Trafelet article, specifically those paywalled sources. A lot of these types of sources are often passing mentions in the context of the company, or a press release. scope_creep^Talk 23:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding sources behind paywalls - I don't know of any way to make pdfs accessible to other editors, but I could do so if one existed. I assume that could lead to some copyright issues for Wikipedia, though... are you aware of a way around that other than knowing someone with paid accounts or having one yourself? --TardyMarmot (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:V, sources must be verifiable. It is my understanding, it is assumed that WP:AGF applies, that the sources behind paywalls are valid, if the article has already been filled with sources that are valid, i.e. secondary sources that are intellectually independent and reliable, meaning the editor who created the article is assuming AGF, i.e. they are making a serious attempt to find valid, reliable reference that are secondary. Regarding the pdf's, I think it would depend on the licence that the company used. Often it is very strict interpretation, it can be used by that one person, other times anybody can view the document. Jstor is very open, whereas Taylor and Francis is restrictive. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Encyclopædia Universalis has been accepted

Encyclopædia Universalis, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleting information on Universo Online

Hello Scope creep, may I ask why you deleted this section on Universo Online? It seems fine to me (aka I don't see the spam problem). Thanks in advance and greetings from Germany, --LH7605 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @LH7605: How are you? It is a spam. Take a look up at the coin noticeboard, specifically Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Refspam across many articles. The statement was flagged due to mdpi.com and bestref.net as spam sites, and link into a fake article, called Modeling Popularity and Reliability of Sources in Multilingual Wikipedia A paragraph containing these links was put into at 170 articles and from the latest from spam noticeboard, possibly more. They have all been removed. scope_creep^Talk 17:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Scope, thank you for the explanation. (I only saw the alexa-part first but you are totally right about mdpi.com and bestref.net). Keep up the good work, deleting links to fake articles seems quite important to me for the whole wikipedia-project. Greetings, LH7605 (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Derek_M_Yellon

See request for third opinion. Your assertion this person is eminently notable does not make it so. I have been science, medicine, and wikipedia for a long time and have never heard of him. Feel free to comment, dont make unfounded allegations of harassment, and refrain from suggesting user:block.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dudewheresmywallet: I apologize for that. I have left a message on the talk page of the article. I plan to get a couple of people to look at it, who are both academics and have a good grasp of academics. scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dudewheresmywallet: I have notified them and they should be along sometime today and they will confirm it is notable. While you think it maybe WP:PUFF, I don't know. I don't think it is. It's a stub article. Hopefully you will be satisfied by these two admin who are also academics. scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Belated welcome back

I mentioned you at WP:HD and I wanted to give you a belated welcome. When I typed the link to your username, it triggered a moment of recognition but at first I couldn't remember why. I'm glad you've returned. Best of luck and stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Eggishorn: Stay safe as well. scope_creep^Talk

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marley Rose (Glee) (August 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marley Rose (Glee) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marley Rose (Glee), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Zoltan Feher

Hi Scope Creep. You struck the comment of the SPA at the AfD for Zoltan Feher. Unless I'm mistaken, striking is reserved for socks (per WP:SOCKSTRIKE). The editing patterns are a bit suspicious, and taking Users Zoltanfeher, Jean-Michel Belmondo, and Anita Hernandez-García to WP:SPI would be a sensible step. But until an investigation comes back, I think you should remove the strike (and also the doubled spa tag). Unless there's some part of policy that I'm missing? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Russ Woodroofe: I have removed it. It not the first time it has been used at Afd in that manner. I think folk are starting to reach an internal limit on how much you can take from these UPE's. scope_creep^Talk 16:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Misha Kaura has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Misha Kaura. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 21:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Autodale has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Autodale. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 22:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Alma Mekondjo Nankela has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Alma Mekondjo Nankela. Thanks! MapleSoy (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Louise Maple-Brown has been accepted

Louise Maple-Brown, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Thet Thet Wai

Hello Scope creep. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Thet Thet Wai, 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. Salvio 08:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Wolfgang Ockenfels has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Wolfgang Ockenfels. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wolfgang Ockenfels (August 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wolfgang Ockenfels and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Wolfgang Ockenfels, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Top 100 Weather Moments (August 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 2pou was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Top 100 Weather Moments and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Top 100 Weather Moments, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

2pou (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Weird... I noticed that you were the one that moved this article into draft space in the first place, but when declined, it was posting to your Talk page. Is there something in the script you used to send it to drat that auto-submits it? Or is that just something you do to get a second opinion on your move? And looking at the other WP:TV alerts, Draft:Weird Earth is another one that says you submitted it, but then there is a comment that it is undersourced. Just thought I'd ask or point it out if you didn't know why you're getting potentially unsolicited AfC notifications. -2pou (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @2pou: I don't like to leave them on their own, once they have been draftified. Its used to be that could submit them for review, based on a particular editor, but for some reason it has been removed by the WMF. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Dimitar Mantov

I believe I provided enough external links and citations to reliable sources that can be easily verified. Your moving to draft space seems like a petty jab and awful attitude towards this incredible Bulgarian historical novelist. You can check out the links easily by yourself and then if unhappy, you can ask me to find other external links and citations, than screwing my job in delivering good article for one of Bulgaria's most celebrated novelists in this field. That's all I can say. I'll put the external links as direct citations in line with the text, but you could've just spoken to me instead of drafting an absolutely ready article that's in Bulgarian and Russian. No other comments beside that. Search your luck wherever you can find it. Regards,

The Mad Hatter (talk)

@Mad Hatter: That guy is absolutely notable, no doubt, but it just needs some additional references. It went through the WP:NPP process, and the process is, as always, if there is insufficient references, then it goes to back to draft, for extra work. A single citation is not enough. Perhaps 10 years ago. Not now. External links aren't in-line citations. That majority or the article is unsourced. Also please use ~~~~ to sign your comments. scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I get the point. Check now. Really, the article was selftranslated from the Bulgarian Wikipedia and apart from Literature World (Literaturen Svyat) and what's written about Mantov in "Duma" newspaper it's very difficult to find other citations. Virtually, not to say impossible, I met th "Yogi author" as we say of him in humourous way, but Dimitar was gracious and lovely historical novelist that I came to respect, love and support as father figure, who was fantastic man. Check now. Other site "peoplepill" is directly porting from Bulgarian Wikipedia and that just doesn't work. Sorry, but I took it personally.

Regards,

The Mad Hatter (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mad Hatter: I understand. It is often like that when you translate an article. I looks ok at the beginning, and then when your well into it, you realise its short somehow. I'll do the work and try and find some sources. Have you checked archives like Jstor, archive.org, Taylor and Francis. I will crack on with it, in the next couple of days, have a go at fleshing it out. Its not going to be deleted as the guy is eminently notable. It really needs 2 refs so it makes WP:THREE, which is the minimum standard at Afc, and then it can sit there until some expert comes in. No worries. scope_creep^Talk 20:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I did check out. Unfortunately, no. Dimitar Mantov has mostly Bulgarian references and I don't know what else to crack. It has Russian article, which again is translated (not by me, this time) from Bulgarian and due to the close alphabetic proximity of the two languages is extremely easy (for me) to read it. "Димитър Мантов" in Bulgarian. As a matter of fact, I did the same for Tsoncho Rodev - selftranslated it from Bulgarian Wikipedia - person moved in draftspace as you, I tried putting "wealth of" references, but the waiting was too much and I moved it back as a legitimate article. You are free to look him as well and move it back to draftspace if you insist, but Tsoncho, Dimitar, Anton Donchev are mostly known in Cyrillic speaking countries, Cyrillic Web and, when at those archives there isn't much, I doubt anyone will find much about them anywhere else. I did it for Anton as well to be honest. :) I'd try doing it for any other I could think of, but truthfully, we don't have too many historical novelists including Fani Popova-Mutafova, Yana Yazova and our Grand Dame: Vera Mutafchieva. So, that's the truth about the Bulgarian historical novelist "invasion" as of recent: most are selftranslated by me. If you manage to crack down anything on reference side? Feel free to include it.

Regards,

The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Tsoncho Rodev

I hope you'll be able to do the same for Tsoncho. I'd love to see him at the category of historical fiction writers of Bulgaria. Check out about him and write here what you find out. He's basically at the same level of Dimitar Mantov, I knew him personally, he was like a father figure to me.

The Mad Hatter (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Parry wearing at least two socks?

I think Posen607 and CambridgeGraduate are both socks of David William Parry; thought I'd let you know given that you just AfDed that article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: I have informed an admin who works at WP:SPI. scope_creep^Talk 20:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, follow the instructions at SPI to file a case and make sure that you present your evidence. I don't have time to look this evening and not sure about my schedule tomorrow so it may be someone else who looks at your case first.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.5.208.162, in case either of you are interested. I apologize for any errors! This is my first SPI request. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. @Berean Hunter:. scope_creep^Talk
• @AleatoryPonderings: That's a solid SPI rationale I've not spent much time on it at all, but it looks decent. scope_creep^Talk 23:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dimitar Mantov has been accepted

Dimitar Mantov, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

scope_creep^Talk 21:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

James Harington Evans

Hello, you recently placed a note on article James Harington Evans requesting additional citations

. No problem, but some of the suggested sources, including NEWS and NEWSPAPER would be primary source and I got told off before for using this type of information:

and

. Not sure now which of these takes precedence? Not too much of a problem but confusing.

All the best Ted Sidpickle (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Sidpickle: How are you? It was mainly due to some sections not having sufficient e.g. the James Harington Evans#Robert Cleaver Chapman isn't fully referenced. In that section, you have a letter quote, which is not referenced either. Original research probably takes precedence in this instance. It usually appears, if the editor reading or reviewing the article doesn't see sufficient references to verify it, so its deemed WP:OR, as its no verifiable per WP:V. At the moment, it is badly undersourced. You should try and aim for at one reference per line, if possible. The gold standard is secondary sources, WP:SECONDARY, which simplified is people talking to people about the subject who are not conntected to the subject. But you can only go what is available. Taking them straight from the memoir is ok I think. I see you not using ref tag, which is of the format <ref name="evans"><cite book.....> and then tag can used in other sentences or paras e.g. <ref name="evans"/>. It certainly needs more inline citations. It could do with having a Bibliography sections on this books and using full cites, by making a full book references and removing the ref ends e.g. here is one from the Joseph Lister articles * {{cite journal |last1=Lister |first1=Joseph |title=XXXI. On the early stages of inflammations |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London |date=31 December 1858 |volume=148 |pages=645–702 |doi=10.1098/rstl.1858.0031 |publisher=Royal Society |issn=0261-0523}} Apart from that more in-line citation would be the watch sentences, word, I don't know, more. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. I realise that the book references are missing but I ran out of steam. I have about 70 web sites BOOKMARKED on my computer from research plus others from newspaper web sites but the effort in relation to the interest from readers in J H Harington seems disproportionate (see page view history). I even contacted Grayson Carter, author of "Evans, James Harington" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and got him to agree to correct his work regarding Evans' second marriage. Ref Robert Cleaver Chapman, he was a VERY modest man and it was difficult for anyone to find out about his life, he even refused to have a photo taken and apparently only one exists. There are two books about him, one is from the Brethren and you have to make a judgement about using this as a source, but the quotation can be referenced so I'll get this done. Re Ref tags, I agree and will consider this but due to building the article over a period of weeks, confusion is a problem with referencing. I am currently trying to write an article related to the second wife of J H Evans and this is proving rather time consuming. Anyway, good to "talk" to you and all is well this end, hope you and yours are safe and well.

Ted Sidpickle (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yip. @Sidpickle: It often happens, you think there is enough but it comes up short at some point. If the sources are not there, there is not much you can do. You sound like a decent researcher, which is really cool. I understand where your coming. I'm working on getting Red Orchestra (espionage) completed. It was mess at the start, and took a long time to research as it was such a huge subject. Now I have reams of documents and sources. There is a phenomena that when you create an article, google, a real friend to WMF, updates its graph, and gathers all the stuff it can for that subject. If its available anywhere, it seems to appear in GBook and searches and whatnot. Zotero is good for tracking and punting sources into the WP. Its keeps track of everything. Booksmarks are very slow. Dont lose heart regarding page views. In the scheme of things, its not important. scope_creep^Talk 11:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cessie Alfonso (August 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cessie Alfonso and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cessie Alfonso, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For this. Appreciate your taking the time to put that together. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Thanks very much. scope_creep^Talk 21:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, how long are we going to have to keep this up ……… AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you. Probably another week at least, until somebody else turns up. I don't intend to comment again. It doesn't really add anything, but when I saw the comments this afternoon, I thought another attempt to fudge the issue. It got right up my nose. The subject is desperate for recognition, and it helps him by being on Wikipedia. The guy is as vain as it possible to get. You just need to read his blog. His list of imaginary achievements is longer than Napoleon. If it is not deleted, I will probably have another go in 6 months. I don't usually do that, but the article is rank. scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. When I saw that bogus FRSA claim in particular it just made me so mad, since it could easily confuse someone who didn't double check. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MikeM2011 (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Buffer investment strategy has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Buffer investment strategy. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 18:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Chen Qianyuan has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Chen Qianyuan. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 18:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Kyna Fong has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kyna Fong. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 18:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cent Langidrik (August 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cent Langidrik and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cent Langidrik, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Misha Kaura (August 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hoary was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Misha Kaura and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Misha Kaura, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hoary (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wood

Hi Scope Creep. Despite the best efforts of yourself and others to whip this article into shape, IMHO it is still too promotional and under-sourced for an encyclopedia article. So I was thinking of Draftifying it. What do you reckon? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @1292simon: Yip you could do that. I wouldn't be rejected as its a new article and it would have a chance to be reviewed by an independent editor. It would almost certainly be copied back to mainspace by its main editor though, almost right away. It has been G11'd once already. I think your best bet would be to take it to WP:Afd. That would bring out folk who could verify the awards and if one or two of them were notable, it would be kept. It hasn't had a good shot at a discussion, to see if it really notable. Your rationale would be based on WP:NCORP, as a lot of refs are they own stuff. 10-12 of them are junk. The whole notability hinges on the awards. Try that, and its decided there and then. scope_creep^Talk 08:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for your advice. Sure, I'll roll the dice at AfD. Just wondering, if an article is draftified, it doesn't seem right that the author can just move it straight back without addressing the concerns. Do you know of any policies/procedures aimed at preventing this? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. No. It a continual pain. It supposed to help established editors who pull stuff out of Afc and update them, but in reality, it is heavily used by UPE and paid to bypass the whole review system. An example is Chen Rui. scope_creep^Talk 08:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Haneefah Adam

They sure don't make it easy to keep the spam out! Could I get your advice about another article please? On this one someone (who hadn't edited the article previously... although they have been blocked for sockpuppetry in the past so who knows...) twice removed my CSD A7 tag. The reasoning given was "The article does not meet CSD criteria". In the end I sent it to AfD, but can you suggest any other options in this situation please? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it probably has a pretty slim chance of being deleted. As a wee seed article it is ok. There is coverage on three continents, which is difficult to deny. It certainly passes WP:SIGCOV but it looks like WP:BIO1E. I wouldn't have deleted it. With CNN, Al Jezeera, BBC and the Guardian Nigeria it is probably notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. To spare the drama, I have withdrawn the AfD. Just wondering if you have any advice please for situations where an editor (other than the original author) keeps removing a CSD tag? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yip. It is a learned experience, and its something I haven't learned yet. I think by design it is difficult to csd an article, unless it is absolutely junk. I don't use them much, unless I am absolutely sure. If there is any kind of coverage, then somebody will likely remove it. There is only two I use, which is G11 and A7 and they are easily recognisable as junk articles. It is often the case that an admin will remove it, but the majority of admin's don't have much content creation, so you them removing the tag, with a reason which is mostly or usually subjective, and very rarely applicable to the state of the article. If it is continually removed, then take it to Afd immediately. Often it will be paid or UPE editor who is looking to preserve the bosses profile or company profile. A discussion is always a good thing, as you will get experts looking at it. Often it will be updated and cleaned up, so that a WP:HEY becomes possible. The specific WP:SNG are the ones to use. WP:GNG is barely used these days. Specific notabilty policies for specific articles have been the way for more 10 years. If somebody is arguing for WP:GNG, then there is something wrong. scope_creep^Talk 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll give that a try next time. Thanks for all your advice. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cinzia Bomoll (August 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cinzia Bomoll and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cinzia Bomoll, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Timothy Todd Anderson (August 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Otr500 were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Timothy Todd Anderson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Timothy Todd Anderson, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Otr500 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rikki Stein (August 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MapleSoy were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rikki Stein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rikki Stein, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MapleSoy (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Orchestra (espionage), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franz Jacob.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177 Online events: New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter van Tour has been accepted

Peter van Tour, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Poaching edits

Hi @Scope-creep, you removed the section on Sea Shephard on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-poaching but I saw you left the section on KWS. I think it is important to note that sea Shephard is an anti-poaching organization because often people associate anti-poaching with terrestrial animals only. If you are okay with including KWS why do you want to remove Sea Shephard? Would you mind if we undid the removal of Sea Shephard? Many thanks for the advice and time once again! I'm learning a lot! - MichaelDubley (talk) )08:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ron Lieber has been accepted

Ron Lieber, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Noahfgodard (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Stefan Dübel has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Stefan Dübel. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 18:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stefan Dübel (September 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Noahfgodard was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stefan Dübel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stefan Dübel, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Noahfgodard (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Page move

Why did you not create a redirect when you moved Sophia Poznanska to Sophia Poznańska? Surely we provide redirects from (a) previous titles of pages and (b) common misspellings, especially when the correct version is difficult for most readers to type? Leaving a red link at the original title is inviting a future helpful editor to create a duplicate article. I've re-created the redirect, but I'm interested to know why you suppressed it in the first place. Or was it just an accident? PamD 07:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi PamD. How goes it? Thanks. A mistake probably. The move script came back with some kind of error and error guid. I thought it had failed, but it moved the page anyway. Sophia Poznanska is an identified name that is used in several book reviews by e.g Yehudit Kafri amongst other, and I did select it as a redirect. I have no confidence that the utilities and script actually work. scope_creep^Talk 08:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Fancy helping to write it? scope_creep^Talk 08:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear it was just a glitch - I was baffled when a red link turned up in my watch list! PamD 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stefan Dübel has been accepted

Stefan Dübel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Noahfgodard (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Lister.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chen Qianyuan (September 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chen Qianyuan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chen Qianyuan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 06:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent revert of FanDuel

In this edit to FanDuel you reverted an edit by Sportsbettor on the grounds that it was undisclosed paid editing. Sportsbettor has deniend, in a [[WP:TH#Bringing a page up to date|post at the Teahouse] that this is paid editing. May I ask what makes you think that this is UPE? It doesn't look particularly promotional to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @DESiegel: Adding the word diversified into the lede along with a press-release reference. I've not done the work, but it certainly look like all the companies that the editor has worked at all in the same company group, indicating he is probably a UPE, or at the very least has a coi. Its moved from being fairly even lede, to be more like a company profile. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alfons Grieder (September 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nightenbelle was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alfons Grieder and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alfons Grieder, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nightenbelle (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcus Marr (September 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marcus Marr and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marcus Marr, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Matilde Girasole has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Matilde Girasole. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 20:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matilde Girasole (September 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matilde Girasole and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Matilde Girasole, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Yolanda L. Gaskins has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Yolanda L. Gaskins. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 20:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Pascale Sablan

Why did you move the article Pascale Sablan to draft space? Siarus1074 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Siarus1074: Can you read WP:TALK. Talk page messages go at the bottom the page. The article is insufficient referenced for mainspace and the lede needs a rewrite. There is no real secondary sources that are independent, in-depth and reliable. scope_creep^Talk 21:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: There are 7 in depth reliable secondary sources from sources like the NY times, AIA and Architecture magazine. All are authoritative in the architecture profession. These sources also follow the verifiability guidelines for Wikipedia and [reliable sources]. There are no grounds for deletion of this article.

@Siarus1074:. It is not deleted. It is in Draft. Add some additional secondary sources, somebody will review it and if well sourced, it will be passed back into mainspace. I reviewed it as part of the WP:NPP process. If it was really bad I would have posted it to the Afd queue. scope_creep^Talk 21:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Naimah has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Naimah. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 22:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your review of Bibliography of United States Presidential Spouses and First Ladies. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  23:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC drafts

Hi Scope creep. I've noticed that when you're reviewing pages and moving them to AfC to incubate, you're also submitting them. Wouldn't it make more sense to move the page to draft, and allow the person to submit when ready? (I think that's what you intend to do.) Otherwise we are reviewing incomplete drafts at AfC. In the code, you can also change the username to the draft creator so that they can the notification about their draft, and not you. Does that make sense? - MapleSoy (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@MapleSoy: Is it fair though? Is it policy? I feel as though if they are not submitted, they will be end up as G13, as when they're moved, a lot of editor lose the plot. The submit function to select another person doesn't work me. For some reason it disappeared. I used to use it back in the day, but for some reason it dissapeared. Yip, I see your point. It is self defeating. Fair enough. scope_creep^Talk 23:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I am definitely not an expert on policy, so I have no idea about that bit. But in terms of what makes sense -- it doesn't seem helpful if you are moving it to draft because it's not ready for main space, and then it's going straight to AfC without any improvements, leaving an AfC editor to decline it again. Especially if you are not changing the username to the original editor, then they are not going to get a notification when the article gets declined. (You can go in and edit the username manually after you've moved it to AfC, just FYI!)

I can see what you're saying about not wanting drafts to end up deleted if an editor loses interest, but doesn't that happen with declined drafts at AfC, too? I wonder if it would just make sense to move pages to Draft, give the editor the option to submit at AfC when they're ready, and suggest that they contact the Tea House and WikiProjects for help with it. - MapleSoy (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@MapleSoy: I think that is probably a better approach. It makes more sense I think in the long run, than draft/submit. I started just doing it last night. scope_creep^Talk 08:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

FanDuel edits

Hi Scope creep. Got your note on the FanDuel edits. So firstly I'm pretty new to editing on Wikipedia so still figuring it all out. I got some useful pointers over on TreeHouse including NPOV. So I do work in sports and I bet on sports (including on FanDuel) but I'm not paid by them or anyone else to edit their page. (Also, I just added a bunch of stuff about lawsuits against them so I don't think they would really want to pay me to do that!). I'm largely finished editing the FanDuel page and had planned to edit some other pages in the industry. Let me know. Still learning.Sportsbettor (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep!

Thanks for the clarification around the article Amanda Bouchenoire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ferthewriter#Teahouse_invitation, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ferthewriter#Amanda_Bouchenoire_moved_to_draftspace.

I am improving the article (although I am somewhat short of time) and I hope to improve many aspects of it.

¡¡And thanks for the invitation to the Teahouse!! Sincerely Ferthewriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferthewriter (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

B-Dienst Thetis Cipher Net

Hello Scope creep. I am the user who edited the B-Dienst article yesterday about the cipher table. Since you messaged me, I figured it would be easier to make an account to respond. I am currently working on a project dealing with Enigma, the Battle of the Atlantic, and Bletchley Park's role in it.

According to what research I have done, I don't think the Thetis decoy device should be on the B-Dienst cipher table. There are, I believe, two distinct entities: the Thetis radar decoy device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetis_(decoy) and the Thetis Enigma cipher net used by the Kriegsmarine. They use the same name, but are different. My reading of the detailed information about the Thetis radar decoy (like here: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/Ultra/SRH-025/SRH025-2.html#s6) does not indicate it broadcasted any actual coded messages.

Thetis is a less-studied Enigma net, which sources seem to agree was used by the U-boats undergoing trials in the Baltic Sea before their first deployments. However sources do not agree on a number of things, including if the cipher net was ever broken, or even it's spelling. It seems to sometimes be spelled Tetis, other times Thetis, but they always appear to be referencing the same Baltic Sea training Enigma net. According to experts I have corresponded with on this subject, Thetis is the correct spelling.

With that information, I believe that the current Thetis row on the cipher table should be removed entirely. I do believe, as long as the scholarship supports it, that the Thetis decoy device should go somewhere in the article, but I don't personally know where it would be best to do so. I also think the Tetis row should be renamed Thetis, since my sources say that is the correct spelling.

Let me know what you think of all this. I can provide some sources for this information if you would like them. I also would like to say that the B-Dienst article has been a very helpful resource for having a lot of this naval intelligence information in one place! Aquilapolonica1 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Aquilapolonica1: Good to see you!! I'm glad somebody else is taking an interest in the article. Post some sources and lets have a look. I know the Thetis cipher net is referenced in the Bauer book which is the standard reference and a British document of German naval codes (can't remember the name it) lists as well as something that was identified by the British. They are two good sources, so I would need to see some definitive evidence. Ive seen that alternative spelling in couple of places, but couldn't verify it. Post up what you have and lets have a look. I've planning to update B-Dienst with section on Naval Enigma, its design, evolution of changes to increase security and info on cipher nets were setup and selected. I found the person who did the work. Created an article the dude. scope_creep^Talk 18:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, most of my current study is on the Thetis Enigma cipher net side of things, rather than the Thetis radar decoy. Patrick Beesly talks about the Thetis net in two instances in his book "Very Special Intelligence, The Story of the Admiralty’s Operation Intelligence Centre 1939-1945" (Barnsley, Frontline Books, 2014). On page 65, while listing some of the KM's nets, he says "TETIS. This cipher was the one used for training U-boats in the Baltic." He does use the Tetis spelling in his writing. On Page 112, in two paragraphs Beesly describes how information was culled from Tetis. This information allowed the OIC to track each U-boat from the moment of commissioning, through their working-up and training, and finally their first operational cruise out of the Baltic. Ralph Erskine did an Afterword for the modern reprint of Beesly’s book. In it he says “Some naval cyphers, such as... Thetis (a special cypher for U-boat tactical exercises in the Baltic), were never broken by the Allies.” F. H. Hinsley in his Volume II of "British Intelligence in the Second World War" says on Page 664 "Not Broken. Used by U-boats during exercises in Baltic. Called U-boots-übungsschüssel, later Thetis, by Germans." Someone at my company has also been corresponding with the aforementioned Ralph Erskine via email, and he is very confident that the proper spelling of the Enigma net is Thetis rather than Tetis, and that the Thetis net has no relation to the Thetis radar decoys. He also sent us a few scans of a German document entitled "Zuteilungslifte für Kenngruppen zum K.Buch-M.Dv.Nr.98." which says "Schlüsselbereich M 'Thetis'. Der Schlüssel M Thetis wird bei den takt. Übungen der U. Boote angewandt. Die Benutzung anderer Schlüssel für diese Übungen ist verboten. Es gibt Schlüssel M Thetis Allgemein und Offizier, die in der Regel monatlich ausgegeben werden. Die Schlüssel M Thetis wechseln um 0700 Uhr DGZ." If there is a convenient way to share these with you, I would be happy to. So those are the reasons I think the article should be changed to remove the radar decoys from the cipher table and rename the Tetis row to Thetis.Aquilapolonica1 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Right I'll take a look. scope_creep^Talk 21:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Good publisher. Good author. Seems ok. Could you upload the document to Google drive, so I can take a squint at it. I'll send you an email. scope_creep^Talk 21:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aquilapolonica1, Solid find!! That's core documention. Crack on, they are both excellent sources. Looking forward to seeing what it will look like. That data could go in as well. scope_creep^Talk 22:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Glad it is useful! For now, the only changes I desire to make are fixing the Thetis stuff. The change to the Tetis row will be easy. For the Thetis row with the radar decoy information, do you think it should be relocated anywhere else in the article? Aquilapolonica1 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Its been a while a wrote it. scope_creep^Talk 00:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Aquilapolonica1: I don't think so. I was thinking about it last night and this morning. I can't remember if it been mentioned in any documents and they are now archived on my server. I think its better to remove it. I'll take a look at the decoy stuff again, when I update with the Naval Enigma stuff. If you fancy posting a message on the talk page, which I always refer to, before I edit, to remind. scope_creep^Talk 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will edit the B-Dienst page then. Right now it will just be a simple edit to remove the current Thetis row, rename the Tetis row to Thetis. The Thetis decoys have their own wikipedia page, so it's not like the information will be lost from the website. I will also put a reminder on the talk page. If there is any fine tuning you would like to do with those changes, feel free to implement them.Aquilapolonica1 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Zofia Poznańska for DYK

I suggest you nominate it there, it is the last day :) Use this cool script if you haven't seen it yet, makes DYKing much easier. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Blech Effect has been accepted

The Blech Effect, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

2pou (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Scope creep/Archive 8. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ~ Amkgp 💬 15:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Your submission at Articles for creation: Weird Earth (September 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheAwesomeHwyh was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Weird Earth and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Weird Earth, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheAwesomeHwyh 15:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jean Constantin (songwriter) has been accepted

Jean Constantin (songwriter), 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

scope_creep^Talk 16:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maria Josefovna Poliakova, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Robinson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Joseph Coats.png

Thanks for uploading File:Joseph Coats.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andre Waismann (September 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nightenbelle was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Andre Waismann and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Andre Waismann, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nightenbelle (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Noon khe

Hi, can you clarify what's happened / is happening with this draft? It came up at AfC but was blank. It seems it was blanked by the creator here but still submitted for review; so I declined it as blank (not at that exact point realising the history). Another (quite new) editor then seems to have restored the content, together with my declinature notice without any explanation. I subsequently restored it to the version I declined; which it seems you've reverted with an ES 'gaming the system'? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Eagleash: I think that editor is gaming the system and not following the rules, particularly for an article that has been rejected at Afc, and a csd put on it with no work been done on it, as far as I can see. scope_creep^Talk 12:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eagleash: reverted it. I think it is just another paid edit job. It doesn't seem to be updated though and it seems to be notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I pretty much think you are right and that there is some sort of 'work-around' being attempted. And that's why I put it back to the version I did and which you've now also restored. Still, you seem to have had a handle on this from early so will have a better idea than me. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

October editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179 Online events: Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebration: Women in STEM Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Zofia Poznańska

On 24 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zofia Poznańska, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Zofia Poznańska, cipher clerk to the Red Orchestra espionage group, was captured in Belgium by the Abwehr in 1941 and hanged herself in prison in 1942? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zofia Poznańska. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Zofia Poznańska), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

David Attwood (physicist)

On the article David Attwood (physicist) you tagged it for cleanup with the reason of 'refs'. Could you be more specific? Work has been done on the references but I don't know if the problem has been (sufficiently) addressed. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@RJFJR: That bot seems to have fixed them. I removed the external links in body. I don't know why folk keep adding external links in the main part of the article. scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Elise Ecklund

Hi, as per WP:Draftify this should not have been moved to draftspace as I had already done so a few weeks back and then the creator moved it back to mainspace. Can you please restore it to mainspace and if it's not notable take it to AFD or I will nominate it if you don't wish to, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Atlantic306: It is a BLP with no effective references. I'm not moving it back. If you wish to nominate it to Afd, please move it yourself. I've nominated quite a few articles yesterday morning, and have no wish to do more. I can't keep track of them. I think she is probably notable although I have not looked at the referencing. scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Did you managed to get that article sorted out? scope_creep^Talk 23:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, but yesterday the creator moved it back to mainspace and then an unrelated now blocked sockpuppet moved it back to draftspace and submitted it for review where it was declined. Prior to this iteration it was deleted as G13 for being an abandoned draft,regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Atlantic306:. Coolio. That is a good outcome. It might show up again in mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 00:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Improper draftifications

Hi, in case you weren't already aware, established articles cannot be draftified. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolve_the_inconsistency_between_WP:DRAFTIFY_and_WP:ATD. (You draftified Bentgraben.) Also, if an article is moved from draftspace to articlespace following a draftification, it cannot be moved back to draftspace. Instead, you must use WP:AFD. See WP:DRAFTIFY ("Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD."). (You draftified Draft:Elise Ecklund.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Calliopejen1: I missed it. I thought it was newly created. Thanks for checking it and picking that up. scope_creep^Talk 23:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)