User talk:Scope creep/Archive 9

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

Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations, you have successfully deleted my article. I think you are happy and got your reward. But you did avoid explaining me why you consider the article the structure of which i have followed as not promotional and why you are not deleting that. I wish your kind and considerate response will give me another learning opportunity. --Chiro725 (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiro725: I'm not looking for a reward or praise. I want Wikipedia to be a higher-quality product than it currently is, and hopefully that will happen. On yourself, why not stick around and create some new decent articles, that are not meant to be advertisements. We are always looking for decent editors. I saw that Administrator Jim Bleak has not indefinite blocked you, which I guess is good sign. scope_creepTalk 12:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, you still avoided answering my question. My question may have bothered you which was not my wish. Forgive me if you feel bothered. I really was willing to know what went wrong and thought you may have helped me to learn some more. But obviously it depends heavily on you. Fortunately most of the veteran editors here are very helpful and my expectation was high. Anyway, I only received unwelcoming satire and eyeballing from someone but thankfully my experience at Wikipedia overall is far more better and richer than this. --Chiro725 (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiro725: If your about, and I sincere hope your about eventually, I will find an article that is promotional and we will go through it. scope_creepTalk 12:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of new discussion concerning Marquita Bradshaw[edit]

You recently expressed an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marquita_Bradshaw. (That AfD closed Sept 4 with consensus expressed as "The result was keep. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect can happen after this AfD.") A new proposal, to redirect searches for "Marquita Bradshaw" to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee is being discussed at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee#Proposed merge of Marquita Bradshaw into 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceylinco Life/Insurance[edit]

I recently noticed that an anonymous editor has re-created articles on Ceylinco Life and Ceylinco Insurance, two articles which you previously redirected to Sri Lanka Insurance on the basis that both Ceylinco articles were not notable. Given this view has been contested you may wish to consider whether you take the issue of notability to an AfD discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dan arndt: How goes it? Thanks for that. With a bit of luck they have been updated. scope_creepTalk 05:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no change/no additional information or sources - they just reverted your re-direct. Dan arndt (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it is always the way or mostly the way, anyway. You get the odd one that try's to make an effort. They have their instructions. scope_creepTalk 05:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G11'd article recreated[edit]

Hello Mr/Ms Creep. Could I please trouble you for some advice again? On 20 September, I requested a G11 CSD for National Action Plan on Climate Change (India) and it was deleted by admin. The following day, its author re-created the article at India's National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC). Could you please suggest what can be done in this situation? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1292simon: It is Mr. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1292simon: I had a look at the article. It looks identical to previous version. It doesn't have any copyvio, which it did the last time. It has been reviewed already at NPP. The only to get rid of it, at a Afd. You will need to nominate it. The references have been tightened up as well. 4 out of the 7 are pretty decent. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you sir for looking into this for me, I really appreciate it. Hmmm, looks like I've stumbled across another loophole where people can recreate a deleted article with a slightly different name. Given that there are some decent references, I'll have a think about whether it's worth sending it to AfD. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They do that all the time. It is a common tactic by the paid crowd. That is why I was putting in these long descriptions at spam showing that they have created several times, then eventually salted for the worst cases. I wanting to find out how bad it is. scope_creepTalk 06:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Kesselring[edit]

Hello,

Actually, though I write on WWI military personages, I generally avoid WWII. Then, too, this is a huge article. I doubt I could do it justice, which is why I didn't start a review. You are most certainly welcome to review this, as you will do a better job. I wish to thank you for your courtesy in inquiring.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Georgejdorner: Coolio. I can make a start on it. Aye, its a fair old size. I know what you mean. I think that is what attracts me to then. I did a couple of reviews 3-4 months ago, and they were both big articles. One particularly , a Japanese boxer was massive. It took a couple of months to get it in shape, taking 80k off of it. I don't mind doing the big ones, and really enjoy it, as long as I can keep the momentum going. scope_creepTalk 14:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Orchestra (espionage), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages People's Court and Heinrich Müller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rose Tarlow[edit]

Is this just a referencing concern or notability concern? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41: How goes it. It is the fact it entirely unbalanced, in it the only 3 refs for a BLP, the rest for the work and has a slight POV Like much of her work, the house has a romantic character, slightly PUFFY, doesn't have a DOB, and doesn't say she is alive, or dead or if it s BLP and the quotes are less than salubrious. On top of the available references are passing mentions, or puff pieces themselves. I think she is probably notable, but it needs a lot of work, that could be copyedit probably. scope_creepTalk 00:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Makes sense then. I thought maybe it was because there weren't any links to references. I found a good AP article that was picked up [1] by a lot of publications as well as quite a few others so I think notability is fine. I will leave it for someone else to review then if they want to copy edit. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good reference. The references at the bottom of the article also confirm she is notable, which I missed. A good copyedit would do it. I'll do it this week, if nobody else works on it. scope_creepTalk 07:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuko Endo[edit]

Hello and thank you kindly. Existing sources are all from Japanese newspaper and book, do you have other suggestion? None are self source, most released after death of subject.Giocabene (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Giocabene: What is this regarding. I had a look at your contributions but couldn't identify an article. scope_creepTalk 13:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Giocabene: I finally found it. Please add more sources if you can. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, how many source do you think is good? I thought it was okay because all five are independent source and reliable. I know other source exists but I would need to hunt and buy very old magazine...it may be difficult. Giocabene (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I look again at your comment and it says about information without citing. All information in article text is cited except some part of project list but I can get credits for movie maybe.Giocabene (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hu Zhiying[edit]

Hi Scope creep, I've added more secondary WP:SECONDARY sources to most chapters of the draft. There are 12 sources in the Life and Career section, only two of which are from his own books. Some sentences with promotional tone have been deleted. Part of the sentence was rewritten, keeping the tone as neutral as possible. Could you please review it again? I can continue to revise the draft. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jujiang: Sorry I couldn't find it there. I will take a look it tonight. scope_creepTalk 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks.--Jujiang (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scope creep, Thank you for your careful revision of this draft. I also made a little change. Can I resubmit it now? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jujiang: Yip of course. I still plan to work on it, to ensure it gets to mainspace. scope_creepTalk 11:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'll resubmit it when your modifications are done. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jujiang: I'll try and get it done over the next couple of days. I'm going out tree planting, so if I forget it, just submit it and see what happens. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Scope creep, Draft:Hu Zhiying The exhibitions section is just the names of the exhibitions. Can you explain the meaning of "issue with tone is the "Exhibitions"" in order to improve it? Because I don't understand the issue very well. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Forssell (graphic designer)[edit]

Dear Scope creep: sincerely I appreciate a lot your work. Wikipedia is a collective construction and controls are necessary, but I disagree with the edits in Carl Forssell's article.

If in my investigations I come across someone interesting, before I start editing, I do research to find out if that person is notable and then I look for the references.That's why I did the biography of Carl Forssell because he is a person who stands out in the world of design and because he has independent and verifiable references.

I believe that without a good reason you has removed important references that support his value as a professional. Not everyone is interviewed by Forbes. After doing these editions and clearing the article of content, the process of deletion began and other editors have read that, as it stands, it is not worthy, but I bet on it...
With all due respect and appreciation for your work, but also for the time I have spent on the article, I will add the references, change the wording and try to get the article approved by the community. Cordially --Fittipaldi92 (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fittipaldi92: Forbes is deprecated by the community, here at Wikipedia as it is low-quality content, re: WP:FORBESCON and as a result per policy we are instructed to remove it as part of NPP/Afc. So please don't add it back in. If you want to keep that article, then please make a case at the Afd, by finding extra sources that clarify the discussion by proving he is notable. By putting such references back, you prove it is an article that is needed deleted.
If you looking to create an article that is not going to be deleted, then create an article on architecture critic Julie I. Iovine. There is mountain of sources on her and it will not be deleted There is currently about 15 links on Wikipedia needing the articles. Its one of these jigsaw types, that links everything together. If your up for it of course? scope_creepTalk 11:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fittipaldi92: I know how you feel. I had several deleted at the beginning of the year, without a word from the nominator and it pissed me off severely but he was 3/4 right. scope_creepTalk 11:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep:: Thank you very much for answering me so quickly, and I appreciate the reasoning about the credibility of the sources. I went to the Reliable Sources list and found this regarding Forbes:


“Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable”

"Forbes collaborators: Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL"


I have seen that the author of the article is Alejandro Medina, an expert in new technologies, and he is part of the staff of Forbes Mexico. I have also seen that the interview is also published in the print edition.
I contribute as much as I can to Wikipedia. I will try to develop Julie Iovine's article as soon as possible .

When you have checked the reliability of Forbes, I would like to introduce it again, but always with your permission, of course.

--Fittipaldi92 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fittipaldi92: Forbes is deprecated on Wikipedia. Do not add it back in. scope_creepTalk 16:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: @Fittipaldi92: fyi, I've just created the article Julie V. Iovine.  JGHowes  talk 00:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Union générale des israélites de France[edit]

Hi Scope creep, and thanks for your recent contribution to Union générale des israélites de France. As you well know, policy requires everything to be verifiable, however your recent addition has no citations. Are you planning to add some? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mathglot: Fancy giving me a hand? scope_creepTalk 19:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty busy on several drafts (French topics, and others), as well as some other stuff, so can't right now. I can do one thing for you, though, if you can just tell me this, then: where did you get the information you added to the article? Not out of your own head, I hope. I will write the citation for you, if you tell me the book or article, and page number. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Are you always so combative? I got it from the French WP article, Jstor article and book article. How did you know I started the article anyway? scope_creepTalk 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Forget what I said about collaborating. I've had a look several of your recent articles and they are an absolute mess. All you have done is left a bundle of work for other people to do and you have the gall to ask me about references. scope_creepTalk 20:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, it isn't my intention to be combative, just to ensure that content you added is sourced. With respect to the French WP article, that is a self-published source, thus unreliable by definition, and cannot be used as a source. I'm still willing to add the sourcing for you, if you give me the book title (or isbn) and page number, or the article doi or title-author-year, or JStor id, of the book and the article you used. I did not think you started the article; I was only talking about this one edit of yours. By the way, if you are translating text from the French article, then a translation attribution statement is required in the edit summary. See WP:TFOLWP for a model attribution statement you can copy-paste into the summary. If you meant to add one for an earlier edit but forgot, see WP:RIA.
Oh, while I've been composing this, I see you've added two references; great! That makes this discussion moot; happy editing!
As a final point: I'm sorry you think that any articles I have worked on are a mess. If you would like to take the time to comment on articles I've worked on which need additional referencing or any other work to bring them up to Wikipedia standards, I'd certainly appreciate your feedback. Please add a section to my user talk page, list the articles you found defective, and what you think needs improvement, and I'll deal with it right away. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we will go through the three articles that I looked at when I get back in a couple of days. What source exactly are you talking about? The organisation is well covered in archives and gbooks and I see no problem in finding and selecting sources. The article is visible to anybody who wants to look at it, as it is being built. This is my 631st article. I know about the trans tag. I've translated hundreds of articles. Next time, it might worth looking at the editors contributions before you steamroller in. It doesn't leave the best impression at all. scope_creepTalk 21:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about this source and this one. But I see what the problem is, now. This is a brand new article, which you were in the middle of working on. I had no way of knowing that; all I got, was a notification of an addition to the article, and since it links to a watchlisted article, I had a look, and saw it had no citation. I should have just waited till you were finished, but afaict, this was your only edit on the article; none of the other edits caused a notification. In a case like this, if you put a {{under construction}} or {{in use}} template at the top of the article, then I would steer clear of it. Alternatively, if you create it as Draft:Union générale des israélites de France, then you can develop it in relative peace and quiet, and other users (like me) won't get notifications when you do stuff to it. (You can still move it to Draft space, if you want, even now.) Another advantage, by the way, of developing in Draft is that google doesn't see it there. If you develop it in main space then google will find it right away; that might or might not be what you want. In Draft space, you're incognito, till you release it. I also like editing in Draft, because you can juggle several articles at once, and if they're related, include content or links back and forth in relative peace, until you're ready to release them.
Sorry for the confusion; I won't say anything more about this article, until it's been stable for at least a week or two. Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[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. Nightfury 14:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Presley Deletion[edit]

Can you help me understand why this page is up for deletion? It appears that there are plenty of sources that Wikipedia considers reliable. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RedDirtRedBird: I don't think she is notable. She has been going for three years and there is no sign the explosion of coverage that new band/singer gets when they are successful, globally successful. The coverage isn't there. I understand how you feel. My first article was deleted. It does sting a bit, but you move on. The lassie isn't notable. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn’t create this page. It’s been up for a while I believe because it was already there. What I’m having a hard time understanding is why opinion is taken into account at all here. Per the guidelines, she meets the criteria...specifically #1 & #4 as someone pointed out on the deletion chat, then I read those as well and had to agree. I’m only asking because I’d like to learn because, to me, when I read those guidelines; it’s clear that she meets the requirements.

Also, unrelated, but thought you may have some insight. I understand if you don’t have time to answer. My question is how do you prove a person’s birth date? I don’t see references noted for any birth dates on Wikipedia, but the birth date keeps getting taken down on this page. I keep trying to add references but it still gets deleted. I’ve tried to find some public archive of a birth certificate but I don’t think that type of thing exists. So, why are birth dates included on most pages without a citation? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its difficult as it must be from a proven source. If the DOB is posted onto something like Medium, or Twitter or LinkedIn then it can't trusted. People lie, make mistakes, pick up the wrong information. Obituaries are one good way, or perhaps from a newspaper source, where their is editorial control. For example, if she did an interview with such a paper and it had an editorial control, i.e. everything is being fact checked, then it would be OK. But picking it blind off of some site, is not the way to do it. A google book reference is ideal, if the book comes from a recognised publisher. scope_creepTalk 11:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Hōji Shimanaka page - please review[edit]

As you requested, I updated Draft:Hōji Shimanaka to include additional information and citations and submitted the draft for review. When you get a chance, please take into consideration all the time and effort I put into this and have a look at it. Thanks! Ash-Gaar (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you've got 69970 edits, congratulations[edit]

If you want to do something silly for your 70,000th edit, let me know and I can set you up for the punchline :^) jp×g 14:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Thanks very much. What punchline are you talking about? scope_creepTalk 14:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you know, any old crap. What I did for my 9,998th edit was get a "this user has made 10,000 edits" userbox on my page, then with the 9,999th edit I rolled it back and the 10,000th I gave myself a {{uw-joke4im}} for introducing a deliberate error and then doing the joke of rolling it back. Very meta, but it would have been way funnier if someone else had set it up, though (instead of just adding it and then rolling myself back). jp×g 14:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is miles past it now. Its says I've done 70,849 edits. That's the first time I've looked at the edit summary for ages. scope_creepTalk 14:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibo van de Poel[edit]

You commented " The cites for published show up as copyvio. They need to be manually created via doi. " I do not agree. They may show up as copyvio, but the are uncopyrightable statements of fact. How they were made is irrelevant. If you want to standardize them further, there's no objection, but it's no reason to keep the page in draft. I've accepted the article, as he holds an named profesorship and is unquestionably notable--and, as has been pointed out by another editor, the page is CC compatible in any case. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DGG: I never the saw the public domain tag until later. I was planning to push it back in, but missed it. scope_creepTalk 11:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. there are many things like this that I ned to fix also in my own work; it is difficult to keep track, and I have a very long backlog. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC) ��[reply]
@DGG:. I've got more work on now, than when I started. I made this template a couple of days ago, its not completed as a template yet. Looking at the first one within. User:Scope creep/Sandbox B21. I never realised that most of these are articles aren't created yet. scope_creepTalk 17:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Texas[edit]

Hi Scope creep. The AfD is indeed closed. I don't understand what that has to do with anything, other than it might be taken as an opportunity to continue the WP:BATTLE problems around this and similar problems.

Please let me know if I'm missing something else about the AfD that's relevant. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you stated the article meets BIO and SIGCOV, can you quickly summarize how? My take on the AfD is that the notability is primarily ENT. Quickly looking over the first half of the article, I think ENT is correct. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: You have left some dead references. scope_creepTalk 21:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you made BIO and SIGCOV claims. Could you identify the refs that meet those criteria? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hipal: What are you talking about? scope_creepTalk 15:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[2] --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November edith-a-thons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


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) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacobus Kann (October 28)[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 Nightenbelle was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Article needs inline citations. Do not resubmit until those have been added.
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.
Nightenbelle (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Scope creep! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nightenbelle (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erwin Gehrts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Orchestra.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Deletion[edit]

Good morning, regarding the article I created which you nominated for deletion Genevieve Leveille It has reach almost eight days without any response whether the article is going to remain or delete on Wikipedia. Please can you help me to know the strand of the article? Because it has reached eight days now. Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abbas Kwarbai:, Sometimes Afd discussions go on for weeks, and it depends entirely on the discussion. The 7-days specified in policy are just a guideline. I think the admins have not closed as they are waiting for more people to interact with the discussion. I would just wait for it to finish. scope_creepTalk 09:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand you Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was That An Error?[edit]

Hello SC, Per this, when a page is nominated for deletion it is automatically marked as patrolled, i nominated that page for deletion so it was marked as auto-reviewed, I presume you made an error there, I think perhaps you didn’t notice the AFD template. I think you should mark it back as reviewed. Celestina007 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Celestina007: I think if they are being deleted, they are supposed to be left un-reviewed, I assume to drive to traffic to it. scope_creepTalk 17:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, Not really, no policy states that you should manually un-review a page you have nominated for deletion, I think for people with the NPP flag it automatically marks it as reviewed which has been the norm if I remember correctly, because either it is eventually deleted or it is kept in any case It would have then been reviewed. Celestina007 (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example you nominated this article for deletion & it was & still is marked as review/patrolled by you, honestly I think you should mark the article back as reviewed per normal protocol. Celestina007 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a mistake on my part, but I have been called out on before, a couple of times. Its the only reason you get to know about it... If been reviewed and then you come back later and then delete it, then it is ok? scope_creepTalk 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jan Bontjes van Beek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hohenzollernplatz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Solomons[edit]

Thanks for the input on this article - I’ve added more citations and a bit more detail. I hope that gives enough depth to meet BLP requirements. I’ve submitted it for review. If it still needs more, I’d value your further input Florapostewrites (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your outstanding contribution to the Wikipedia community. Can you review that article, if you will be able to? It just stalled all my work. I would highly appreciate this. Thanks! MarcusTraianus (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcusTraianus: I will take a look at it. scope_creepTalk 07:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcusTraianus: Thanks for that. That was good copyedit and reformat. I was planning to do it myself. scope_creepTalk 08:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Thank you for your review and contribution. MarcusTraianus (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcusTraianus: I will take a look. scope_creepTalk 11:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bamlanivimab[edit]

Hwaiting! --Annemaricole (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Annemaricole: What? scope_creepTalk 17:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceylinco Insurance[edit]

Ceylinco Insurance and Ceylinco Life never owned Sri Lanka Insurance. This two companies actually owed by Rubber Industries and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group. Mithila (talk) ) 07:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mithila Madawa Gunathilake: Both of them are written like profiles, not encyclopedic articles, which was same problem the last time. scope_creepTalk 07:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mithila Madawa Gunathilake:. I've changed the redirect as you suggest. Don't revert them. They have been reviewed as part of WP:NPP. scope_creepTalk 07:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akef Al-Fayez[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. You drafted the page Akef Al-Fayez and I believe it is now sufficient to be published as I've added 4 more sources I believe and more content. It was difficult finding English sources for this important figure as he lived in Jordan in a time where it was rare for a politician to get documented by English sources. However, this person remains important to Jordan's so I was able to find more English sources on him. I'm not entirely sure what the process is at this point, but if you are able to please review the drafted page and see if I need to further expand or validate it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LINFAN01 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mikhail Makarov (spy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, that is sweet of you. Bob. That was a nice picture of the Beeches you took at the crossroads in Ehrenbach scope_creepTalk 13:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (sorry about a misclick, - they shouldn't have "thank" and "rollback" so close together ...) - Last day for that calendar image --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Hu Zhiying has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Hu Zhiying. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted move[edit]

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have reverted your move at Ayaz Rasool Nazki because I think AfD is the best venue. Please feel free to AfD this. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

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

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

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

NPP Technical Achievement Award

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

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

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

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ink wash painting[edit]

Hi Scope creep, Thanks for your promoting Hu Zhiying into name space. Recently, I expanded the article "Ink wash painting" by three quarters. Please review it when you are free. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Katrine Philp[edit]

Hello Scope creep, Thank you for reviewing my article on Katrine Philp. I would like to improve the article has it has been mentionned the sourcing were not enough but I'm having issue understanding why the different references are not good enough, knowing they are been wroten by third party and independent journalist. As Philp won the main prize at SXSW this year, which is one of the major film festival on earth, so I did found many interviews connected to this award, but how cannot this be accepted as a independent references? The differents journalists who wrote the articles and interviews were not promoting the film itself, but giving information of who is the director behind the film who won the award, and this is the kind of articles we can find about filmmakers online. That's why I'm sorry but this really confuse me... As well another contributor mentionned to me that I may be affiliated to Philp but I ain't have any affiliation to her, except the fact that I like her film and discover her work through her last film. Thank you for your time and your precious feedback, best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocojackie (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the editor instead of the arguments[edit]

I have been noticing that you address the editor, making personal attacks, at AfD. A recent, prime example is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toba Capital (2nd nomination). Just because someone does not view NCORP the same way you do does not mean they are disruptive, nor does it mean they are violating the Terms of Use. It is a personal attack, it needs to stop, AND it frankly weakens your arguments. Please desist. You consistently make some of the most cogent arguments at AfD in all other respects except the personal attacks, and I hate to see your reasoning sullied. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: Thanks for the warning. I will tone it down. But there is a problem here. They don't follow NCORP, particularly when it is so clearly written with very little ambiguity. I also truly believe they are breaking the spirit of the terms of use. scope_creepTalk 10:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. You have no idea how much I dread sending a message such as this to a long-time, highly productive editor whom I respect. When looking at the Wikimedia Terms of Use, it would only violate the ToU if they were undisclosed paid editors. I don't see any editors in that category, and most certainly not the long-time editors with widely varied contributions to whom your comments seemed directed. Civility, however, is explicitly laid out in the Terms of Use. Please note that I greatly appreciate your concern regarding spam, and how much Wikipedia is under siege by bad-faith actors who would turn our project into a promotional tool. NCORP was developed to help us fight this tide. However, in Toba Capital, those who argue for inclusion make some strong arguments as to why this particular topic is not spam, nor particularly inclined to become so. I am not trying to convince you this is an encyclopedic topic, but I do hope you can view those who are taking an opposite side in this discussion as those who are trying to build the encyclopedia by including notable topics, even when there is disagreement about where notability lies in individual cases. Anyway, I hope I've been slightly helpful, and happy editing! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas Scope creep

Hi Scope creep, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and healthy New Year,
Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,
   –Davey2010Talk 20:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Scope creep, 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 2021.
Happy editing,
Neils51 (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas[edit]

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg Merry Christmas Scope creep

Hi Scope creep, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness.
Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas ![edit]

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Luminarias
Luminarias
 Happy Holidays!

Hi Scope creep, May your holidays be merry and bright,
and hope you have a happy and healthy 2021

Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Hope you had a great day today. Merry Christmas to you and yours. Celestina007 (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Hi Scope creep, thank you very much for the card, and all the best to you for the holiday season. SarahSV (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A New Year With Women in Red![edit]

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

DRN[edit]

Dispute resolution noticeboard/Dunoon discussion - Seasider53 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year!
Hello Scope creep:


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

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

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Scope creep![edit]

Happy New Year!

Scope creep,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010Talk 00:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joseph Lister[edit]

Hi.

You are using the incorrect infobox for the Joseph Lister, simply because you have changed it from "officeholder" to "scientist". This results in the below warning messages appearing when previewing edits;

  • Warning: Page using Template:Infobox scientist with unknown parameter "honorific-suffix" (this message is shown only in preview).
  • Warning: Page using Template:Infobox scientist with unknown parameter "honorific-prefix" (this message is shown only in preview).
  • Warning: Page using Template:Infobox scientist with unknown parameter "predecessor" (this message is shown only in preview).
  • Warning: Page using Template:Infobox scientist with unknown parameter "successor" (this message is shown only in preview).
  • Warning: Page using Template:Infobox scientist with unknown parameter "term_end" (this message is shown only in preview).
  • Warning: Page using Template:Infobox scientist with unknown parameter "office" (this message is shown only in preview).
  • Warning: Page using Template:Infobox scientist with unknown parameter "term_start" (this message is shown only in preview).

These parameters do not exist in the scientist infobox, and so never appear on the article. The changes I did fixed this, without losing anything.

I would also point out that issuing insults in edit summaries is a breach of Wikipedia policy in regards to civility and assuming good faith. You should also read this essay regarding the rude practice of using warning templates on experienced editor's talk page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just saw you reply. Apology accepted. And Happy New Year. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Escape Orbit: Happy New Year Escape_Orbit, may your kith and kin have a great new year. That infobox and indeed the whole article is a work in progress, so I assume it will be updated more fields in the future, although I don't exactly what. If I give you a shout nearer the time to check it. Up until this point, I've never actually used the Preview button. I'll check it out. scope_creepTalk 14:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Konstantin Jeffremov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franz Schneider.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Andre Waismann[edit]

i Remove the WP:PUFF, please have a look אור פ (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @אור פ: Thanks for getting back to me. Please get rid of the unnecessary bolding in the references, and in the body of the article. Get rid of the external links in the body of the article and take out the cv like entries in profession. It is not a cv. That field is linking to profession, e.g. paediatric surgeon, or Neurosurgeon. Slim down the award in the infobox to the top ones, and remove ref 32. Names of organisation, if there isn't a linking articles should look like this. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Scope creep:! I checked your remarks and here is what I did:
  • Bolding and professions removed
  • Awards taken down to 1 from the Texas University
  • Youtube reference removed (previously #32 reference)
  • External links removed
Thank you for your suggestions and let me know if anything else needs to be corrected. אור פ (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @אור פ: Thanks for doing that. Good work. However, I can't verify if is the guy in notable. There is no Google Scholar links in the external links than can show the papers he has written and how many cites they have, nor what what the h-index is. There needs to be at least 5 papers with more than 100 cites to qualify as an academic. This [3] might be useful, if you can provide the whole cite, using WP:REFB and put it in the lede it may help. I know it is extra, but it will help stop it from going to Afd as there is no clear indication that he is an academic. If you can find more of that type of ref, then it may help. Hope that helps! scope_creepTalk 11:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

ScopeCreep, if you think that user has no COI, after they have uploaded the same content promoting the same subject, to 44 different wikis, well, I question your judgment there. With respect, of course. Possibly (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScopeCreep, the creator almost certainly has a COI, and there are no independent RS that I can find. Yet you moved the article from draft space, and now you remove a COI warning from his talk page. Can you explain? SarahSV (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SarahSV: I think SC was just exercising an excess of good faith towards the user. Possibly (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Possibly, just FYI for the future, I noticed you added a ping after the fact. Pings only work if you sign at the time, which means you can't go back and add a ping to a post you've already signed. See Help:Fixing failed pings from "If you forget to sign your post". SarahSV (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has stated they don't a have COI, after a long conversation with the editor and assuming AGF, then you must believe them. You can't have it one way then another. They explicitly stated it. I thought the original article, while a bit puffy was perfectly valid. It is worth pointing out that there is a class of artists, sculptors and whatnot, that don't fall into the notability policy of WP:NARTIST, they are not well known, almost obscure, or even invisible, they don't exhibit, yet their work is absolutely coveted and valued. They are lots of these boundary cases and unfortunately, our notability criteria don't really serve them, that well. I did found a reference for that article about a year and half ago, maybe two years, that clearly detailed that artist was notable. So as far as I'm concerned, the artist is notable and was worth an article. scope_creepTalk 17:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ScopeCreep, clearly that artist was remarkable. As far as I'm concerned, the artist is remarkable and an article was worth it.
I suggest to retrieve the item,

SarahSV deleted the article and protected for its creation, I cannot contact SarahSV because she has died and I cannot recover the article. I suggest recovering the item in some way.

WP 20[edit]

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. - Nice pic on your user page, seems familiar ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gerda Arendt: yip, a lot of time has passed. The image reminds me a place I used to pass, when I was nipper on the way to school. Two choices, it seem quite dark at the time but it is absolutely beautiful. Are you talking about this Oscar Fritz Schuh, that you were singing? It has been a long day. scope_creepTalk 00:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, no singing mentioned there, - I was singing with Frank Stähle, mentioned in 2016. - Today I think of Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Elizium23. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Why did you remove this comments? scope_creepTalk 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, per WP:BLPREMOVE Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: How it is contentious when they're is plenty of references that supports the facts? scope_creepTalk 20:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't provide any references. Elizium23 (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a talk page, references could have been provided if you had asked. You know what you done is a form of censorship and whitewashing. No wonder most articles of America cultural icons, politicians, people in power, look as thought they have been written by a child. They are completely devoid of contentious material and make them look like the person is a angel. I plan to get the references and I'm going to post it in the article myself. scope_creepTalk 20:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Andre Waismann[edit]

Hi, Scope Creep.
I updated information about Dr. Waismann in the Infobox and Lead Sections. He doesn’t have many publications, so I re-defined him as a doctor and medical practitioner in the field of drug addiction treatment. I still believe that Dr. Waismann is notable because he’s been practicing for decades and his medical practice related to addiction treatment has been covered by many sources that you can find in this article and online. Let me know if it works or how we can proceed with this.
Thank you אור פ (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @אור פ: It is a pretty decent article now and I think he is probably notable, but I think it is probably better if somebody else review's it. That is the normal way in Wikipedia. You could post a message to the Afc noticeboard talk or at better still at the Afc Help desk. Somebody will take a look at it. scope_creepTalk 16:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
like this Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#13:17:12,_21_January_2021_review_of_submission_by_אור_פ? אור פ (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @אור פ: That is ideal. I think it should go. I'll explain why I think it is notable. I've left a note up there, so they can see what exactly notable for. It is not immediately visible from the article. Lots of folk don't understand the importance of some of these procedures. I'm not a doctor myself but I've written a mountain of physician articles to know some seemingly obscure point is life changing. Hopefully they will see it. scope_creepTalk 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! אור פ (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scope Creep! Thanks for helping and consulting! It looks like the draft still needs some work according to User:chicdat. I definitely understand the need to add additional sources or remove the information with the "citation tags" but this is not clear: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." Do you see any non-encyclopedic words or they just relate to the information which is not confirmed properly? אור פ (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @אור פ: I don't think the tone is wrong at all, unless it is a specific part. I've sent the editor a message. See what they say. Can you put Reference 16 into external links and finding a substitute reference. @Chicdat: has obviously checked the reference. If you can supply the ones that are needed. Try and find in newspapers articles. I found three news articles, there is bound to be more. I found one from the Sydney Morning Herald, so the stories on 4 continents, so there is more out there. Reference 12 is poor. It is academia.edu. If you can find the original location. It comes up as yellow. Here is the original. I will replace it, myself. scope_creepTalk 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are citing an academic article and it has a DOI, you can click cite at the top of the edit button, select Templates->Cite Journal and put in the doi and click the search button and it auto populates it for you. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 14:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Therming (January 20)[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 AngusWOOF was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Woodturning. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please discuss at the Woodturning talk page whether this should have its own page.
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.
AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scope creep, if you feel that your edits make it stub-worthy you can go ahead and push this into mainspace. I wasn't seeing enough of it compared to its listing on the woodturning article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AngusWOOF: To be honest, I never took that into consideration when I started work on it. It was something I'd heard about years ago, and thought I'd improve it. I'll post a message to the Woodworking talk page, but I'm not holding any chance of getting a reply. I don't think anybody has touched the article since 2012, apart from the Gnomes. I'll give it a few days and see what happens. scope_creepTalk 20:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Skye settlements[edit]

I have created a list at User:Crouch, Swale/Isle of Skye of settlements (and similar) and I'm wandering how many more could have articles since you created many of them over a decade ago. I have also created Draft:Vatten, Skye and Draft:Uig, Duirinish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Crouch, Swale: I'll take a look at them. The ones that went in before, had more than 10 houses and were linked to a post office. Do you want to fill some details in? It is a good thing you have done. I think I created one of Uig or somebody did and it was redirected, vaguely remember. I'll check them all. scope_creepTalk 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where I would get the details of the number of houses unless I check Google Maps and that's probably not the most important thing, I'd look at if they have enough sources. I don't think an article on Uig (unless its been deleted). Would you like it if I split the list to User:Crouch, Swale/Isle of Skye (missing) and only list those that don't have articles? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google Earth will show you the number of houses. Every house on Skye has a an shed/garage or byre as a separate building, so they can't be counted. Some have more than one. It would be easier if you put coords in, to the missing articles and I will check them. These can be retrieved from either bings maps on OS Maps mode or Google Earth.
If you would like I could move put the missing ones at User:Crouch, Swale/Isle of Skye (missing) (for the OS settlements) and split the list between those that have an article on the Gazetteer for Scotland and those that don't and note a rough estimate for the number of houses and add coords for those that don't have a GFS or Canmore entry and then ping you when done. The easiest way to locate the places is by typing part of the name into Geograph (the "near" box) for example "Vatte"[4] for Vatten and "NG2843 Vatten, Highland, Great Britain [Other Settlement]" is returned. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on a roll at the moment. Could you let me carry and I will try the first block? I think I can get it done fairly easy. scope_creepTalk 13:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: I hoping to get the rest done today. scope_creepTalk 12:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Fish-Harnack and the Wisconsin Literary Magazine[edit]

The article states that she became a co-editor of the magazine. However, she is not listed once as an editor of any issue from 1921 to 1925 nor can I find anything in Brysac that supports that assertion. Perhaps the info is apocryphal? 32.218.108.106 (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @32.218.108.106: Co-editor of the university magazine. I probably missed it. I'll give you one. They did mention it somewhere. Thanks for finding that. It could be dodgy. I'll post it up and see what you think. scope_creepTalk 22:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Harnack[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at 32.218.108.106's talk page.

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Fitwrite[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Fitwrite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GPL93 (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Hilde Coppi.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Hilde Coppi.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newsblogs[edit]

I noticed you removed a source saying it is a blog. However, WP:NEWSBLOG allows such newspaper blogs to be used and it's available on the Internet Archive here. Isn't it better to use such a source rather than leaving it unsourced? Fences&Windows 20:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think it is a pretty low-quality source. Did you look at it? scope_creepTalk 21:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the same article, you've removed a lot of sources that aren't low quality, such as a Financial Times one, a WP:FORBES one, and a Reuters one. Admittedly, the Reuters link was dead, but it was easily accessible on the Wayback Machine and I have reinserted them. When you see "malformed refs", please WP:DIY and try to sort it out instead of just deleting them. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sdrqaz: Are you a paid editor for Blackstone? I see you have never edited that article before and out of the 6 million articles on Wikipedia you decide to edit that particular one, which is curious, to say the least, and then chin me about what is clearly low-quality sources. Even if you had 10000 articles on your watchlist and one of them was Blackstone, it still a remarkably low chance of selecting that particular article to edit. It is about 10% of the probability of getting hit by lightning. It is fine to say you are a paid editor, they are no chance of getting sent to Bastile these days. A simple message on your talk page is all that is needing. scope_creepTalk 09:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a paid editor, nor do I have a conflict of interest for Blackstone. If you look in the page history, I actually have edited the page before; most recently in January. Before accusing people of being paid editors, please research your claims more thoroughly. It is alarming that you have jumped to that conclusion upon being engaged in a discussion by another editor in good faith; by that logic, is Fences and windows also a paid editor? Moreover, you have not explained why you think they are low-quality. Given that they are all considered generally reliable at WP:RSPSOURCES and do not seem problematic to my eye, I don't understand why you've removed them. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can tag lower quality sources with {{better source}} or tag deadlinks with {{deadlink}} rather than removing them, or even better you can find a better source - like I did, adding a Reuters story - or find the link on an archive site. Of course I looked at the reference, I found it on the Internet Archive! On the other hand, you hadn't assessed its quality beyond saying it was a blog post.
It's tempting to accuse other editors of COIs on business article, but it needs a basis: ironically, considering that you said Sdrqaz hadn't edited the article, them getting taken to COIN for no good reason recently was why I was looking at the article in the first place. Attempting to be neutral on an emotive company like Blackstone can be perceived as bias by critics. Fences&Windows 15:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, even if I had not edited the page before, that still would not have been sufficient grounds to accuse someone of being a paid editor. I hope you will be more careful in the future. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueFace[edit]

Hi there - I'm trying to understand why the page for BlueFace, the UCaaS company keeps getting merged into the main Comcast Business page. Blueface was, and remains, an Irish communications provider which still operates globally from Ireland under the Blueface brand name. While Comcast Business is the ultimate owner of the company, it oeprates indepenedently. It is similar to NBC, SKY and a bunch of other 100% Comcast-owned companies which continue to operate under their own brands, and have their own wiki pages. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.180.244 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@79.148.180.244: It was reviewed by an univolved editor who found it to be non-notable, so at the moment it is staying as a redirect. scope_creepTalk 15:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your outstanding contribution to the Wikipedia community. Can you review that article, if you will be able to? It just stalled all my work. I would highly appreciate this. Thanks! MarcusTraianus (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcusTraianus: There is no doubt that the guy is notable, but it needs better references than blog site references it already has. It needs academic sources. Hope that helps! scope_creepTalk 14:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Thank you for the comment. I have added academic sources to support the information in the article. Can you review it again? MarcusTraianus (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcusTraianus: Your still using blog references for the first four sources. These sites are laudable and ideal to determine the overall life structure of a particular person but cant be used to satisfy WP:V or WP:SOLDIER. Newspapers, archives, academic sources, google books, university sites are best but at the moment they need to be removed. If it is promoted to mainspace, somebody else will just remove them, and it was be back to scratch, i.e. back to draft as being unreferenced. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I understand this, but general sources for his biography are contained in secondary sources. I nevertheless found the primary sources, which reflect the basic information about the object of the article. Also, the Chronos encyclopedia is usually valued highly as a source for Russian and Soviet politicians. MarcusTraianus (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcusTraianus: The 2nd ref has a editorial board is probably ok, but the 1st and 4th have to go. They are the work of individual folk and are not reliable. I'll check if the chronos site is ok. scope_creepTalk 19:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Done. Added two more official sources about his biography. MarcusTraianus (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MarcusTraianus: I have posted the Chronos reference up to the Reliable Sources noticeboard to see if is worth using. scope_creepTalk 10:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Hi! What was the RSN's conclusion? MarcusTraianus (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcusTraianus: Don't know. Ive posted an RFC to get it to a wider audience. The fact it is Russian, makes it diffucult. There has been two opposing views so far and it will be likely the Request for Comment will be divergent from them. You can never tell what will come out of it. The whole world is here, so you can never tell. It will take 7 days. scope_creepTalk 12:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Good, thank you for your help and organization. I will wait for the results. MarcusTraianus (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MarcusTraianus: There is nobdody replied to the RFC up at the reliable sources noticeboard. I've asked the Help desk to determine if there is any Russin experts who can take a view. If nobody turns up in a few days, I'll assume it is notable and post it to mainspace. scope_creepTalk 15:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Thank you for all the attention you have given to my article. Considering that more than two hundred articles are citing hrono.ru, I think there will be no problems for now. Thanks again for all your efforts! MarcusTraianus (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short description[edit]

Regarding your revert at Japanese occupation of Singapore where you changed the short description from "Military rule during World War II" to "Japanese military rule over Singapore, including massacres of Chinese Singaporeans", that does not seem in line with WP:HOWTOSD. Short descriptions should avoid duplicating information that is already in the title. Given that "Japanese military rule over Singapore" is already effectively covered in the title and the "massacres of Chinese Singaporeans" was not even covered in the lead, inclusion of the latter seems WP:UNDUE and I hold that the former short description was better and more in line with short description guidelines.

Sdrqaz (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: I thought it was maybe a bit generic, particularly since it was missing the bit of the massacre. Massacres tend to be quite important to folk but you could right, if you doing hundreds of these short descriptions, seeing the bigger picture. scope_creepTalk 11:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think by their very nature, short descriptions are generic. The short description for Tom Cruise, for example, is "American actor and producer" and does not mention his movies like Top Gun, Mission: Impossible etc. As for the massacre, like I said above, it wasn't mentioned in the lead. Given that the short description can be viewed as an ultra-condensed version of the lead (usually just the first sentence of it), the inclusion in the short description seemed excessive. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review[edit]

Hi Scope Creep, thank you for recently updating the Association for Psychological Therapies Wikipedia page.

We think our page has been targeted by someone with a malicious intent. See the sentence: APT is not accredited by any UK governing body. It has also been accused of editing it's Wikipedia pages in order to hide this fact.

We are proudly independent and have never sought to be accredited by a governing body. It is also true that no governing body has ‘dis-accredited’ or criticised us. Similarly, as far as I know no-one has accused us of editing our page to ‘hide this fact’, except I suppose the author of that sentence!

Can you please advise the best course of action? Maybe to delete those two sentences and replace with details of our transparent self-accreditation procedure? (So answering any question of accreditation.)

There is also stuff in the Talk section – presumably from the same person? – which is similarly factually incorrect and defamatory. It says the NHS wouldn’t use APT, whereas in fact the NHS has been using APT for forty years. Maybe we should list all the Trusts who have used us and do use us, but how do we get rid of the misleading talk? Your advice would be very welcome! Mark Stuart Betts (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2021 (GMT)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Scope_creep reported by User:Bamberini8 (Result: ). Thank you. Bamberini8 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Stanton-King[edit]

Hi! Is there a reason you removed this source? Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Grandpallama: It is a fairly low-quality source as readers can't tell the difference between contributors and Forbes staff, adding a level of ambibiguity that is not necessary. Also, the article suffers for WP:CITEKILL issues at that point and it seemed the logical choice to remove. Finding a better source would likely be a better choice between the two. I'm sure there is more out there. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. While a Forbes contributor is admittedly a low-quality source (to be removed on sight), WP:RSP consensus is that Forbes is green and generally reliable; I see no consensus it is considered a low-quality source, or that there are considerations about its use. I also think the claim being supported is, from a BLP perspective, one in which we need a variety of sources for support, especially since the article subject is allegedly behind some of the recent text removals around the QAnon stuff. I'm going to restore the source, but you can certainly open a discussion on the talk page about any concerns you have regarding this use of Forbes. Grandpallama (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Grandpallama: I have taken out a whole bunch of additional references. The Forbes reference was in it. If you want to add in back, and you think it is more important than the current ref on the sentence, then please add it back in. You can perhaps add Bibliography section as well since it needs it. scope_creepTalk 17:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. Some of the other references can easily go, but I really think we need to leave the overkill of references around the QAnon claims, at least for now. Those are potentially controversial claims that have been challenged by other editors, so multiple sources is the way to go. Grandpallama (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of new discussion concerning McKinsey & Company[edit]

Hello Scope_creep. I am not directly or indirectly or in any way compensated for performing edits on the Mckinsey page. I am a new user who has been using Wikipedia for reading for decades but never edited any article. I use to read about MBB firms on the wiki, Other than Mckinsey's page, Bain/BCG have their required facts laid out in their pages so I was finding on how to edit Wikipedia pages, Started with McKinsey first, I inserted appropriate links from official McKinsey pages for my edits and corrected the existing old facts with new. If you read my edits whatever I have done, there is nothing controversial and all are accurate points. Dexter2304 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dexter2304: That is cool. Can you ensure you don't add previous employees into the article lede again? The previous employees of a company have nothing to do with the company as it stands, it is just WP:PUFF, and is likely to get you blocked. Also, that stuff about interviews and glassdoor, has no place in the lede. It's advertising, plain and simple, and fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creepTalk 14:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dexter2304: It looks like your here to push the same information that was added to the lede several weeks, by another editor, which is entirely promotional and failed WP:NPOV and was removed. To me it looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. scope_creepTalk 14:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Scope creep:. If you see Bain & Company they have glassdoor listed there, so that should be WP:PUFF too then. I will do a edit again and let me know for any issue in that.
@Dexter2304: Yip, probably. There is work to be done everywhere, but the doesn't mean you add junk in because of junk in other articles. If you plan to put it in, near the bottom. Don't put in the former employees, they are non-notable to the company and are probably already linked in their source article. If it is promotional, it will be pulled. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: There is nothing junk in those, If you know about MBB firms, their main assets are alumni networks, they are not just previous employees.
@Dexter2304: That is the old boy's network, been on the go, I don't know, probably 300 years in the UK. You can't add former employees into the lede. There are certain policies that need to be followed. Did you happen to work for McKinsey? Also, can you sign comments with the ~~~~ Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: No I never worked for Mckinsey in the past or working right now. Dexter2304 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dexter2304: Thanks for coming back and having a conversation. scope_creepTalk 14:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: My Pleasure!!. My friends call me wiki nerd as I always will be reading wikipedia, but never edited any content so didn't knew the actual rules to go through. Thank You for letting me know.Dexter2304 (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain Charlebois[edit]

Yaskyask: I appreciate your edits on Sylvain Charlebois' page. If you read the SM 2.0 document, which is cited, the paragraph you added doesn't make any sense. Charlebois is supportive of supply management, not against it. Wally Smith's citations were provided out of context, not helpful to Wiki community. Or else, will need to add more cited info about how dairy lobby in Canada has continuously discredit academics across the country, including Charlebois.--Yaskyask (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yaskyask: How are you? What is actually wrong with it. It looked perfectly cited. scope_creepTalk 12:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yaskyask:, it looks perfectly reasonable. The article is by an industry insider, who knows what he is talking about. It is perfectly reasonable to keep it. scope_creepTalk 12:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaskyask: Ok. Smith is a lobbyist. Charlebois is a scientist who publishes in peer-reviewed journals. I don't think it's reasonable. Should we add a citation from Charlebois informing the wiki community that Smith's comments aren't even applicable to Charlebois' views? I don't think Smith has any idea of Charlebois' work.--Yaskyask (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaskyask: You could put in an opposing view, to try and balance the paragraph, if think that is what is needed, but the statement is rationale and its a reliable source. You seem to represent or have a close relationship with Charlebois. Is that the case? scope_creepTalk 15:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope_creep: I know Smith and the DFC, not Charlebois. They tend to distort, and attack any opponents to supply management with proper referencing. And frankly, I do question why you see any value in Smith's remarks. Are you a dairy farmer as well? DFC is known to mislead the public. To leave this section unchanged would mislead the wiki community. These people are relentless.--Yaskyask (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, I used to work on a mixed dairy farm, when I much younger, in my teens. But that is not the point and it didn't come into it. It is not policy to remove perfectly valid contradictory statements from an article, because somebody wishes it unless there is some kind of WP:NPOV problem, which I don't see. This system runs on verifiable information per WP:V], not hearsay, or conjecture, so you need to supply referenced material. If you have that, then please add it. scope_creepTalk 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope_creep: Now I understand. You do understand Smith's comment towards Charlebois is completely inaccurate and uncalled for. I'll repeat, based on his publications, he supports supply management while Smith suggest otherwise. I fail to see why it needs to be there.--24.89.229.255 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statut des juifs[edit]

Hi. You had it right the first time: 'status of Jews', not 'Jewish statute'. People get mixed up with this all the time, because the French word statut can mean either one. That it means "status" of Jews here, you can see in various ways, one of which is the formal name: fr:Lois sur le statut des Juifs du régime de Vichy, which is to say, "Laws on the status of Jews in the Vichy Regime", not the nonsensical, "Laws on the statute of Jews in the Vichy Regime". (Right next to the title, the newspaper image uses statut in the other way, meaning, "statute".) The other way you can tell, is connected with the content: it's about who is a Jew, that is, their civil and national status, and claim to full French citizenship. There were plenty of other statutes on Jews, whether they could own a business, take public transport, exercise certain professions, wear a gold star, and so on; the "second" one of those was way early on. But there weren't tons of laws on *who* was a Jew; i.e., the "status" of Jews, because that didn't change much under the laws. This was the second one of those. Btw, you will find reliable sources that will translate it as "Second statute on Jews"; these are typically by people who think they know a little French, or looked it up in a dictionary, but got it wrong. Trust the majority of sources, and the obvious nonsense of calling it the "Second law on the statute of Jews..." and so on. Good to see you working on this one! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for the French title of this one: fr:Loi du 2 juin 1941 remplaçant la loi du 3 octobre 1940 portant statut des Juifs, i.e., Law of 2 June 1941 replacing the law of 3 October 1940 regarding the status of the Jews" (not the nonsense, "Law of 2 June 1941 replacing the law of 3 October 1940 regarding the statute of the Jews"). Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will change it. I found a document on an Apple server at [5]. I thought it was rightthe first time. scope_creepTalk 23:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not surprised that the author at the Apple link is French and writing in English, and is likely also confused about the fact that the one French word translates into two English words. Here's another search that may help: loi sur le statut des juifs. Don't forget the Collaboration timeline, when you fix the other one. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: I came across the Vichy anti-Jewish legislation when I was looking at doing the article. I notice the French version at [6]. It seems to have a clearer structure. scope_creepTalk 11:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page & Wondering If I can get the info back?[edit]

Hello, you had deleted my Van Eaton Galleries page and I was just wondering if I could get all that I typed up on it back since it was removed for advertising and such guideline rules. I realize it's been a year or two but I'd still love to get all that information back since it took me time to type it all in. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwitchGenius (talk • contribs) 04:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TwitchGenius: What was the name of the article. Are you just planning to take the text away with you? scope_creepTalk 11:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: It was the Van Eaton Galleries article. I wanted to get all the charts I had made on the article that had prices and title's of each auction. Feel free to just copy and paste the article onto my user page. Thanks

Hi @TwitchGenius: I see it was deleted on 26 November 2019 by G11, due to it being an advertisement. The administrator who deleted it was @Jimfbleak:. You will need to ask him. Please remember to sign your messages with ~~~~ so your signature is created. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 12:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ping. @TwitchGenius:, just to make it absolutely clear, virtually none of that text is acceptable on Wikipedia, it's blatant advertising with multiple spam links and sourced to the gallery, and any attempt to recreate will get you blocked. On that understanding, I'll post the text on your talk page temporarily, please remove it when you have taken a copy. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim. scope_creepTalk 13:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Got it thanks again! I now have a better understanding of wikipedia pages and yes I don't plan on trying to repost it.

@TwitchGenius: Sign your posts with the ~~~~. Your going to get thrown out if you don't sign your posts with the four tildes. Also if you create a new article on that old article contents as it was, you'll likely get blocked for being a spammer/advertiser and you won't be allowed back in. scope_creepTalk 12:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Turpin Myers[edit]

Unfortunately, it is more or less identical to the deleted version, and doesn't state anything that would constitute a stronger notability claim than she had in 2016. Notability deriving from literary awards does not just automatically attach to just any literary award that exists — she'd have to be able to claim something on the order of a Governor General's Award, a Giller Prize or one of the Writers' Trust of Canada awards, not just a local award presented by her own hometown arts council, to pass NAUTHOR because award per se. So, unfortunately, I'm going to have to move the page back to draftspace. Don't take that as a rap on your nose; as you said, you had no way to see the deleted version to see if it was substantively identical enough to be speediable or not, but indeed it is. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, normally I would go for it, but when I saw the deletion log afterwards and then the nature of the local news for refs, I began to have my doubts. I was planning to do it myself last night, so that is cool. scope_creepTalk 14:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:22:06, 14 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ChannK[edit]


Hi, this is my first time editing on wikipedia, so I apologise for the lack of sources. That being said, do I need to inculcate the reviews as part of the bibliography? As in, should the books have plot summaries + reviews? Or do I only need to include some reviews in the references? ChannK (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC) ChannK (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChannK: You don't need plot summaries for the books unless you plan to create new articles on them. Book reviews can help to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Poets get it quite hard on Wikipedia, even though they represent the peak of human creativity, and the best is similar to the most brilliant scientists. You must have decent references. Currently, references 1 and 6 are pretty junk and should be removed. References 13,14,15 are junk as well, they are just pointing to the publisher, probably the book pages themselves. Swap them out with 3 references that are book reviews, from a good quality academic site, if possible, and I'm sure she will pass into mainspace. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 14:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made the changes as suggested by you. I hope this makes the page better! ChannK (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChannK: I think I will find you some book review for you. Those ones, although they are technically book reviews, they are user-generated and come under WP:SPS so are not usable. I will do it today. scope_creepTalk 13:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate that a lot! If you could tell me what kind of reviews would work, I can try looking for those specifically myself too. ChannK (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:56:17, 15 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Chintana R.[edit]


Hello. Thank you for reviewing on my draft page. I tried to edit under your comment and just submitted. Look forward to receiving your feedback soonest. Chintana R. (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chintana R. (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chintana R.: It is currently a cv/resume style article. It will not be accepted out of Afc when it is still in that format. It just creates lots of work for other editors. Look to other scientists articles and see how they are formatted. scope_creepTalk 12:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian O'Connor[edit]

Hello! Thank you so much for reviewing the article on Brian O'Connor. I've removed dub reference as requested. Should this be replaced with a better reference or is it okay as is? Thanks again --8kilojoules (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Truth[edit]

I know I'm not going to change your mind but a lot of these other hip hop acts got approved for wikipedia with barely 1 ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamous_Mobb <-- for instance. I'm just wondering how that is possible. A number of the refs I supplied are legitimate and meet the standard, one of the articles (the Gloucester times article) goes into a lengthy description. I'm wondering how "no fans no plays" works out. Blaq Poet and Serious Truth's album has over 100k streams. Do you want me to find them and ask them for a royalty statement? I'm not going to throw a fit like a lot of these other people who got rejected but it would be nice if the standard wasn't so low for some pages with next to no references and then the tables are turned for others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ХорлоогийнЧойбалсан1 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ХорлоогийнЧойбалсан1: Nobody was listening to the Serious Truth band. There is no coverage. The other band, Infamous Mobb has been going since 1993 and yet there is barely coverage on it. It is completely borderline and likely fails WP:MUSICBIO. Thanks for not throwing a fit. There are lots of band articles that go into Afc and many of them get deleted, which is unfortunate, as they are fringe really. scope_creepTalk 12:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Is there anyway to get a screenshot of a royalty statement from Blaq Poet and Serious Truth's new album? I got in touch with Poet and got one. Their album got 30k streams on spotify and 4k streams on apple since I originally posted this article. And yeah I know Big Twins from Infamous Mobb he's collaborated with Serious Truth, Sean Price has too. I do publicist etc. work for all of those guys. I also have a social media page for serious truth with 800+ fans. Serious Truth isn't a band its a producer who makes albums for all of these hip hop legends. I'm sure you know who blaq poet is, you can look up his new album "Cultural Revolution" with Serious Truth it is on all platforms. Blaq Poet is a hip hop pioneer who has been going since before even Infamous Mobb. I'm sure these people who literally created the hip hop culture wouldn't be going to this guy if he was some random fringe scrub.

@Scope creep: I don't get how all of these, not only notable, but legendary hip hop artists go to this producer for work and rack up tens of thousands of streams and views, at times 100k+ across all platforms yet nobody is listening to them. I would have posted social media links like you mentioned before but honestly, for a wikipedia submission I thought that to be a bit amateurish I can still provide those links though. If there's anyway I can make the article better or up to your standard before you completely axe it just let me know I can provide you with more info, I just thought what I had provided was enough.

Hi @ХорлоогийнЧойбалсан1:, Can you please make sure you sign your posts with the four tidle's i.e. ~~~~ when you are finished, so the software will convert into your signature. If you groups publicist, then it is likely you have a WP:COI. If you are being paid, you must disclose per WP:PAID and WP:DISCLOSE. Any entity on Wikipedia needs to have a certain amount of coverage to prove the entity is notable. I don't see it with this group. scope_creepTalk 19:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ХорлоогийнЧойбалсан1: There is a process to get the tag removed. You could ask an admin. I think it is WP:MFD, you can ask an administrator or at WP:HELP, they will give you the exact details how to move forward with it, but before you do that, please make a declaration per WP:DISCLOSE that your being paid to get the article onto Wikipedia. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 12:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy St. Patrick's Day[edit]

Happy St. Patrick's Day!
I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations.
Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk 
@Timothy: Thanks for that. When I get a chance I will have a pint of Guinness and drink your health. scope_creepTalk 12:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing submission on CMMC[edit]

Thanks for reviewing submission on CMMC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cybersecurity_Maturity_Model_Certification). I moved the official website to a new External Links section and added specific language to make it clear that it is a US-government program. I also removed a note about it going international, since it was from a webinar and I could not find a recording. I chatted on the Help channel (thanks for that suggestion) and they also suggested adding metadata to the references. I will do so once it is published. Have your concerns been addressed? Shall I resubmit? Thank you! PedanticWithoutACause (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PedanticWithoutACause: Yip. Please resubmit. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 11:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Great thank you! PedanticWithoutACause (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lampert[edit]

Hi, i allowed myself to AfD this article after once it was (totally unexplained) DEPRODed. Just fyi. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CommanderWaterford: Yip. I've only once seen anybody leave a reason. I've looked at that article, probably eight times now, and each time I thought it was borderline to non-notable, so was surprised when it was deproded. Thanks for getting back to me. scope_creepTalk 12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Front Row Insurance Brokers article[edit]

How is the article not neutral? I do refer to many published, independent sources in the article, actually. How, specifically, is it too much like an ad? The draft article contains factual information and points to neutral sources, like the Globe and Mail and IMDb.

April editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Dams & reservoirs: Loch Freuchie[edit]

Hello, I undid one of your recent revisions to Loch Freuchie because it isn't really either a dam or a reservoir. Hope you don't mind. There are quite a few lochs which would fit these categories, by virtue of being dammed or having otherwise been altered to act as a reservoir. If you've good reasons for proposing that Loch Freuchie should still be categorised as such, I'm more than happy to discuss. Stroness (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stroness: I added that block into several lochs yesterday and most of them are not dams or reservoirs. I'll need to look at them again. 09:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, no bother. I'd be happy to help if you want some assistance, just let me know.Stroness (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fabien Perez[edit]

Hi, there seem to be multiple issues with [of] citations in this article - and the links that exist lead to dead ends/unreliable sources. I don’t know how to address/highlight this in the article, so thought you might be better placed to look into it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Perez Florapostewrites (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That should say “[lack of] sources” - somehow lost the “lack” Florapostewrites (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Florapostewrites: They are pretty dreadful state. Ideally, you would look for other sources to replace them. The article is notable, a quick search shows that he is world-renowned. I think it only references 2 and 3 that are poor. I'll see if I can find anything on him. scope_creepTalk 11:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scope Creep - Thanks! I'll take a look and see if I can find better sources too Florapostewrites (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Allain[edit]

Hi Scope Creep, I just used two of the references mentioned in External links, however the other two were removed. And I also created the Bibliography section. I hope that I have duly complied with the rules provided to publish the page. Kind regards. Literaturemostly (talk) 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Literaturemostly:, that is a good start. I've done a wee bit of work to clean it up a bit, but it is a process, so lets crack on. I think the guy is notable. To get the article through, you will need to find some book reviews on the subjects of poetry and writings, per WP:AUTHOR. Starting from Allain is the author of La cientificidad del consciente: Conjeturas you need to find published reviews for each of these. Book reviews need to be independent. Please take a look at this article: Jane Kister. You will see there is a list of books in the references section. You will notice there are several per book. If you can find one or two per book mention, in the list, then it will easily pass WP:AUTHOR, as book reviews are the primary means of proving the person is actually notable. From that it will be easy to promote it to mainspace. He is author, so if he is genuine, there will be book reviews. Try and find at least per book and give me a shout. If you need help to format them, then I can give me a shout sooner. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 10:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:, i added the book reviews from the general codes. Some works have two reviews, they are even part of books by recognized authors. I hope you can help me with the format if they are not well placed. In exceptional cases we do not find a review: recent books or ecclesiastical, addressed to Pope Francis. And just a detail in relation to two references: I placed one from Blogger (valid in recent profiles) and another link from the official newspaper El Peruano that can be retrieved as usual. Hope your understanding. Kind regards. Literaturemostly (talk) 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Literaturemostly: Blogger isn't a valid source as it is self-published. I'd removeit. I'll take a look at them in the morning. scope_creepTalk 22:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Literaturemostly: It is starting to look a bit better now Don't remove the blogger ref just yet. I looks like somebody is running a full site on it. I'll check the refs in the morning scope_creepTalk 22:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:, did you check the references? Suddenly, you also have to check the codes. I hope that soon the page can be valid for publishing. A cordial and attentive greeting. Literaturemostly (talk) 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Literaturemostly: I was for a few days for work. I'll try and get this done for the weekend. scope_creepTalk 17:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:, I was reviewing the answer in this user talk and I just noticed the message in my tray, just a detail. Well, I just worked on the page and submitted it again. These days were unfailingly fruitful for referrals. A cordial and attentive greeting. Literaturemostly (talk) 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Scope creep:, how is the process going to promote it? An attentive greeting. Literaturemostly (talk) 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Literaturemostly: I'd forgotten about, to be honest, but I'm certainly focused on it now. I had a lot of work on and it slipped my mind. I see it is submitted and you've been working on it. I'll have a look through the references to today, and if I can find three decent references, then I'll promote it. I've have had another look at it again. There is plenty of sources that make it notable; it just needs a wee copyedit. scope_creepTalk 13:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Literaturemostly: The last piece of work is to change the last and first properties of the first seven references. For some reason you have put PERU on the 2nd name, i.e. on last= instead of the articles author names, which should be Allain. It ok that first few references are primary, article by the author, as the article must show the person can actually write. Update the first 7 refs with the correct first and last names and give me a shout. I cleaned the article up a bit, expanded the lede a bit, found his DOB, fixed a couple of other things. Give me a shout when your finished. scope_creepTalk 13:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep:, I have just updated the first seven references using the codes with the names and surnames of the authors of the articles, except for the sixth reference (official statement) where I have used the press release code because it is the official agency of Andina news. Best regards! Literaturemostly (talk) 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scope_creep/Archive_9&oldid=1146018453"