Jump to content

User talk:Scope creep

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Si14360 (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 31 July 2021 (→‎https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sergei_Ipatov: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Jofish Kaye

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

Dunoon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warm wishes,

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

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

Gaetano Ciancio Article

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

Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021

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

iMerit

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

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

Suggested page move

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

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

Request To Review Draft:Aaron Duncan

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

Jack Stauber

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

Withdrawn or not?

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

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

Alan E. Cober Help

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

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

On the subject of Draft: Chris Buzelli

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

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

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

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

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

Lists of cricketers

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

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

Penderel Moon

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

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

Terrible Articles

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

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

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

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

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

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

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

I have asked them to close AFD

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

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

May 2021 at Women in Red

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


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

Thank you for the request for references on the Mike Omer article

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

Deletion discussion

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

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

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

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

Joseph Lister

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

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

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

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

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

Notability of business people

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

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

Avalanche (Consensus Protocol)

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

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

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

(Source: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

(Source: Cornell University)

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

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

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

Comment on edits, not editors

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

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

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


All done revising Ryan Abbott(lawyer) as requested!

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

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

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

Symeon Shimin

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

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

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


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

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

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

Artist

Katie Gately

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Draft:Jean-Philippe Bonardi

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Your recent comment on the PS draft submission

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

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

Draft:Peter Mostovoy

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

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

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

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

Draft:Peter Mostovoy

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

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

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


Draft:Wolfang Heindel

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

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

Draft:Peter Mostovoy

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

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

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

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

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

June 2021 at Women in Red

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


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: Draft:Network Entropy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Jeremy Schwartz

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

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

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

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

Kurt De Luis

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

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

Request To Review Draft:Winning Jah

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

CSX Altenheim Subdivision

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

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

Draft:William B. Jensen

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

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

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

July 2021 at Women in Red

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


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

Please stop moving to draft space

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

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

Helmut Himpel

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

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

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

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

Draft:John Paul Eberhard

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

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

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

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

Draft Update: Richard Owens (poet)

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

Page Review

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

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

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

Ranu Mukherjee

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

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

ANI

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

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


Made changes to the Thousand Below draft according to your comment

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

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Scope creep:

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

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1700 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

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

Recovering article

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

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

AfC Mentee

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

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

Draft:Symeon Shimin

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

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

Marc Gruber

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

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

August Editathons with Women in Red

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


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scope_creep&oldid=1036439002"