User talk:Scope creep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021[edit]

Mary Wollstonecraft by John Opie (c. 1797).jpg 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[reply]

Question about article[edit]

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

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

Kleiner König Kalle Wirsch[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

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

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

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


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

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

in friendship[edit]

January songs
Forest in snow, Engenhahn.jpg
in friendship

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

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

Draft:Assam Lokayukta[edit]

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

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

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

Anna Maximovitch[edit]

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

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

Draft:Danna Azrieli[edit]

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

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

Re:Chen Qi (collector)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Donnalyn Bartolome[edit]

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

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

Public Netbase, Konrad Becker[edit]

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

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

Some article[edit]

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

Noey Jacobson edit and reversion to draft[edit]

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

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

Wisconsin–La Crosse[edit]

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

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

Scope creep[edit]

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

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


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

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

The Signpost: 30 January 2022[edit]

February with Women in Red[edit]

WIR Black History Month 2022.png
Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222

Online events:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

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

Anna Krauss[edit]

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

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

Guess who is back![edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined: Amazon shipping to Israel[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made another dumb error[edit]

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

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

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

Malignant acrospiroma vs. Porocarcinoma vs Spiradenocarcinoma[edit]

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

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

Porocarcinoma Wikipedia page[edit]

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

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

WP:AFC Helper News[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

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

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

Thank you for your kind support[edit]

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

I'm not paid?[edit]

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

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

March editathons[edit]

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

Online events:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

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

The Signpost: 27 February 2022[edit]

Draft: Yonov Frederick Agah[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

March 2022[edit]

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

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

Changing a linkage to Maligant acrospiroma[edit]

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

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

April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]

WiR Translation Contest 2022 logo.png
Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228

Online events:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

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

Your GA nomination of Gisela von Pöllnitz[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gisela von Pöllnitz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Your GA nomination of Gisela von Pöllnitz[edit]

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

The Signpost: 27 March 2022[edit]


Bästa nyskrivna.svgThis user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

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

Page haven't been reviewed[edit]

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

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

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

History of the Jews in Leeds[edit]

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

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

WP:GAN page edit[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Húsönd 23:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grove House School.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022[edit]


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

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

May 2022 at Women in Red[edit]

WiR Women in the Ancient World.png
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230

Online events:

See also:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

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

Chess articles[edit]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Scope creep,

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

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

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 726 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 1028 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion contested: Sarah-Nicole Robles[edit]

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

National Security College[edit]

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

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 29 May 2022[edit]

Article for Creation[edit]

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

June events from Women in Red[edit]

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

Online events:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

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

Secretory carcinoma Wikipedia page[edit]

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

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

Know about Article Review[edit]

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

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

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

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

Mammary Secretory carcinoma Wikipedia page[edit]

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

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

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


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


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

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

Articles for creation submissions[edit]

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

Central Bontok language[edit]

Hey, Scope creep,

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

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


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

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

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

Winterink Group.png

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

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

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

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

Hello, Scope creep

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

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

Hi, Really needs an image of the lassie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Katharine Jowett.

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

Hi, needs an image.

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

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

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

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Malika Moustadraf.

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

Hi, Need an image for this article.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Edit of Anne Casabonne[edit]

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

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

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating The Human Predicament.

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

Great work so far.

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

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

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

Rote Kapelle tables[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Scope creep,

Backlog status

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

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

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

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

Backlog drive

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

TIP – New school articles

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


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

Low unreviewed pages backlog: 3775 pages according to DatBot as of 16:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Ian Donald[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ian Donald you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2022[edit]

Scope creep re: Afro-Atlantic Histories[edit]

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

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

Women in Red in July 2022[edit]

WiR climate logo 2022.png
Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235

Online events:

See also:

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

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Syed Faisal Ahmed (June 29)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gusfriend was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Gusfriend (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Scope creep! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Gusfriend (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Red WheelBarrow[edit]

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


June songs
Sweetbriar rose, Rauenthal.jpg

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

Your GA nomination of Ian Donald[edit]

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

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on![edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TechnoTalk (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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


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

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

15 day rule[edit]

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

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

Need Suggestion[edit]

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

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

Looking for your opinion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Notability of Aashir Wajahat[edit]

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

Something wrong with Draft:G Bidai[edit]

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

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

Syed Faisal Ahmed, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Katherine Singer Kovács Prize[edit]

Hi Scope creep,

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

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

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

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


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

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

Notability about some pages[edit]

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

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

RE:Lelio Bonaccorso moved to draftspace[edit]

Hi! Following up on your move of the page on Lelio Bonaccorso to the draft space due to lack of sources, I added 32 new ones to the page body and to almost all the prizes mentioned. What do you think of it now? Do you believe it is ready for the mainspace? If not, can you suggest where it could be improved?