User talk:Scope creep

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

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

The Signpost: 10 January 2024[edit]

UPE at Ernest & Celestine: A Trip to Gibberitia?[edit]

Hey, is there evidence beyond the page history that there's been UPE at Ernest & Celestine: A Trip to Gibberitia? As much as I'm surprised to see the IP editor add a reception section claiming 100% approval on Rotten Tomatoes this late in the game, the citation appears legit and with 23 critics' reviews, it meets WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: It perhaps legitimate now after the editor was forced to update the article. Before that it was a complete mess. The editor has all the signs of being UPE, readying the film for the American Blue-ray release market, which is the main driver of film profitability, after the cinema. If you think it is notable, please remove the G11 tag. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I've restored the pre-speedy-tag version and added pov/UPE tags per your underlying concerns, which seem valid. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Hochstein - Illegitimate reasons for move to draftspace[edit]

This page was recently moved to draftspace by you, with the reason being "it has no sources and Refs are clickbait, interview and social media.." Can you please identify which sources are categorized as "clickbait" or originate from social media? And to say that this article "has no sources" is an assertion that lacks any basis. The Miami Herald and New York Times are unquestionably regarded as credible sources. While I can recognize that some of the sources used in this article may not be of the highest journalistic standards, this is commonplace within the domain of television personalities like the one under discussion. To illustrate, you can refer to other individuals in similar roles, such as Jacqueline Laurita, Dina Cantin, Carlton Gebbia, Gizelle Bryant, Ashley Darby, etc. You'll notice that these pages cite numerous sources that are considerably less reputable compared to the ones utilized in this article. With that said, moving the page to draftspace is not an appropriate measure, as it is on par, if not more qualified, compared to that of its peers. The move appears to be an unjustified exercise of authority, as the reasons cited for the move are completely unfounded. I have submitted the draft however, the most suitable course of action at this point would be for you to re-publish the page. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CityLimitsJunction: Comparing one article against other as though if one is present the others should be present is both disengenous and unhelpful. The articles references are really poor and until they are fixed, it will remain in draft. The Miami Herald newspaper article is about the house, not her, as is the New York Times, both of them don't prove the person is notable. This is a WP:BLP. Add valid WP:SECONDARY sources and it will go back in mainspace. scope_creepTalk 07:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: My intention in drawing comparisons was to illustrate that subjects in this particular industry are often reported on in similar publications, which appear to be acceptable for some but not others. Nevertheless, I have cited additional newspaper articles from the New York Daily News, the South Florida Sun Sentinel, and the Palm Beach Post. An additional reference from the Miami Herald has also been added. Given the introduction of aforementioned credible sources, the article should be ready to reenter mainspace. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Have you had a chance to re-review the Lisa Hochstein article? As previously mentioned, several additional credible sources, reinforcing the subject's notability, have been referenced. With that said, is there anything else preventing the article from moving to mainspace? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CityLimitsJunction: It needs reviewed by an uninvolved independent editor so I can be sure it is notable and written properly. It shouldn't take that long for somebody to review. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 19:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Sha Shtil[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sha Shtil, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dübendorfer picture ?[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

I have come across that picture of Rachel Dübendorfer you uploaded : File:Rachel_Dübendorfer.jpg.

I have checked the source you provided ( and I have not found that picture in the file.

By the way, there are several copies of a photograph of Dübendorfer in the files and, but she doesn't look much like this one.

Are you sure you there is no mistake ?

Regards, Rob1bureau (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob1bureau: No. I could have been looking at several documents, searching and selected the wrong one as the source, so it could be somebody else. Human error maybe. It certainly not the ideal picture. I'll do an image search and see if I can find the url for that. If not then any one from those two documents above would be ideal. scope_creepTalk 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob1bureau: I just looked at the National Archives at She doesn't look like her at all. There seems to be several images named Dübendorfer but they are nothing like the image in the archive document. It will need to come out. scope_creepTalk 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you moved the Janusirsasana page I created to Drafts, citing "more sources needed" as the reason. I'm a bit confused. According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline and based on WP:3REFS, the Janusirsasana page would have notability & enough sources since I've used more than 3 reliable, in-depth references that are independent of each other. Additionally, there are many pages currently in existence that use 5 or less reliable sources. For example, Matsyasana is a C-class article with 5 sources. Pasasana is a start-class page with 4 sources. Split gymnastics is a start-class page with 3 sources. I plan to move the page out of drafts if there is nothing else wrong with the page. Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Whitestar12: How goes it? I hadn't seen that. It normal to put the square brackets around wp links so we can follow on it without actually doing a search. Its not number of sources that count, its the quality. You have two reference, to commericial organisations, one which is selling product, making them effectively spam links. Yoga is a very old practice. There should be plenty of sources on gbooks and other academic archives. Never use this types of spam references, ever, particularly since the average web page is only up for six weeks. Hope that helps. Once its fixed, please submit it for review. scope_creepTalk 16:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Whitestar12: I sincerely hope your not adding these spam links in to other article. I see you have already been warned by Hipal for adding promotional material. Are you being paid to add this stuff? scope_creepTalk 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for the quick reply back.
Sounds good, I'm adding the square brackets for WP links here. Thanks for letting me know.
Firstly, I had no intention of using promotional material and I am not being paid. As for the insistence with Hipal, that was one time & I was unaware it was promotional in nature. That was not my intent and I corrected it immediately.
Secondly, your comment for reverting to draft specifically said "more sources needed," which can be interpreted as more quantity. Thanks for clarifying.
Which sources are you referring to in specific as spam? 3 out of the 5 references are books. 1 reference is the yoga journal which is used in every single yoga asana page on wikipedia (including "good article" status asana pages such as virabhadrasana, siddhasana, and more) and is reliable. The 4th reference (website), I can see how this one may be questionable, and I am happy to remove it and replace with another reliable source. I can remove this one until I find something else.
Overall, I see only 1 reference that may be questionable. What is the second reference " to commercial organization?"
Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Whitestar12: I suggest you don't use any of these commercial sources again. I notice that on the Siddhasana, the GA reviewer is blocked, which doesn't imbibe confidence in me, that the article are genuine GA articles. On the virabhadrasana, there is a reference to which is selling product. That is straight spam link. This is selling product [1] I will need to talk to an admin for advice. scope_creepTalk 19:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I agree with both your points, and with that in mind I removed the website.
Every single asana page on wikipedia uses the yoga journal (quite literally) as a source. You are welcome to search and check. I believe yoga journal is a reliable source and is not promotional according to WP:RS; it is a national publication. If you search any yoga asana from the list of asanas you will see yoga journal being used, including the yoga page itself. I'm happy to loop in other editors who have been editing yoga pages for their input.
Aside from the website, which I already removed, which other references are you referring to as "spam?"
Whitestar12 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap - Hi! I know you're always editing yoga pages & have given input on my edits previously. What are your thoughts on yoga journal as a reliable source (if it's used in compliance with WP:MEDRS)? Would love your input. I wonder because majority of the asana pages I've seen reference it - I went down the list of the first 20 asanas in list of asanas & I found that 18/20 used yoga journal, see below.
Adho Mukha Shvanasana
Akarna Dhanurasana
Ardha chandrasana
Baddha Konasana
Chaturanga Dandasana
Most pages I've seen including the yoga page itself references it. If it is not reliable, then perhaps we should open a discussion in WP:Yoga.
Thanks in advance!
Whitestar12 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YJ is the journal of record on modern postural yoga. It takes great care to be accurate, and its articles on the asanas are explained and illustrated with precision. From its foundation, it had serious and scholarly yoga teachers like Judith Hanson Lasater editing. It has a glossy side but it's also extremely responsible. You may find it helpful to read Yoga as exercise to grasp the relationship between all this and classical yoga.

As for Janusirsasana, it has long been a redirect to Paschimottanasana where it is discussed. We have the major asanas as articles, with similar asanas treated as variants: here, the sitting in stick pose is the root asana, and sitting like that with one leg folded is a variant. We don't need another article on the same thing. If someone has deletedthe redirect, we need it back!

All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! I figured YJ was reliable, but thank you for providing the background & confirming.
As for the janusirsasana page - I will reinstate the redirect.
Whitestar12 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Whitestar12: I don't this is settled. The relevant entry at Reliable Source Noticeboard is potentially this: [2] and seemed to be driven by Chiswick Chap. The consensus seemed seems to be clear it was a commerical site and as such is breaks Terms of Use. I intend to open a coin entry on this and let other have a look at it. scope_creepTalk 16:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep I believe you are mistaken. The conversation in the RS noticeboard is discussing Yoga International which is different from Yoga Journal. If you are taking this to others for discussion, please ensure you are referencing the correct site - we are talking about Yoga Journal here in this thread NOT Yoga International. Also, a good option would be to post on WP:Yoga [3].
Whitestar12 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Whitestar12: Yes, I think coi noticeboard is the wrong location. I will take a look at the Wikiproject. I'll post a message and see if I can get a view on it. scope_creepTalk 16:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Hi again! I reinstated the redirect but the "submit for draft" is still there. Do you by chance know how to submit this for speedy delete? Or if there's a way to remove it? Help would be appreciated.
Also, I'm planning to post this topic on the reliable sources noticeboard to solicit input from others.
Whitestar12 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Just thanking you for the review of my page Travelling North. There was originally an article by the same title but it referred to the later film of the same name, derived from the play; I thought the play deserved its own official article! It turned out to be an interesting one to write (David W. is a good author with a lot to say, behind its apparently simple premise...) Anyway hi from Australia, where "north" means warm, south cold; the (e.g. UK or US.) equivalent would be relocating to the Mediterranean maybe, or Florida! Cheers - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bare urls[edit]

Please don't add bare url template to the pages where there's no bare reference such as Kamaksha temple. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: They don't have publishing details in there, which means they are quite close to being bareurls. Having just the name of the web page and the organisation isn't enough to identify it later. It essentially makes it unfindable, unless its in an archive. Also can you add a trans-title property to the references so folk know what the say in English. scope_creepTalk 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? There's no bare url so the template is unfit. You request, "Also can you add a trans-title property to the references so folk know what the say in English", is totally irrelevant as an answer to my statement.--Egeymi (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Egeymi: They are close to bare urls. I guess your not interested in fixing either of these problems. scope_creepTalk 09:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(drive-by comment) @Egeymi: neither of those requests is at all unreasonable. Elinruby (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request writing article about Henk Pelser (Q110847318)[edit]

Hello Scope_creep, Would you like to write the article about Henk Pelser (Q110847318) for the English wikipedia? It'll be appreciated if it is done. Boss-well63 (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boss-well63: I will add it to my todo list for the moment. Righteous Amongst The Nations honour for his work in the resistance makes him an ideal candidate for an article. It looks as though he is notable but it will be some time before I can get around to doing it. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. scope_creepTalk 09:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section (technical)[edit]

Hello, Would you mind amending the section heading you inserted here? It breaks the listing of the listed Afds. Maybe ";" is enough (instead of ==)? Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: It will be gone by Sunday. Its just there so its easier to navigate the Afd. I will come out, I can assure you. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


ToBeFree extended-confirmed protected Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom modification request I was talking about in the thread. A bit hard to find, so here:I think this link nk will work. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me like it passed for Holocaust in Lithuania, and they are cautiously interested in extending it to Eastern Europe, but it might be the wrong kind of hammer, in other words how do you get peer reviewed sources on the War in Ukraine? Please let me know if you think I am reading that wrong. Ta. Elinruby (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Perennial sources: The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.
Gonzalo Lira seems specialized to me. I am going to take a serious look at new sourcing now. Elinruby (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Selchow[edit]

Hi Scope creep,

Just wrote an article about Selchow in the German Wikipedia. While studying Weierud's & Zabell's brilliant Cryptologia article "German Mathematicians and Cryptology in WWII" spotted the footnote #38 on page 125. From that Selchow's first name was Curt (not: Kurt).

Best wishes --OS (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OS: How goes it? Sorry I missed this, of all things which are important. Well done for spotting it. A bit of a lucky strike. I move the article now to its new name. scope_creepTalk 16:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ginzburg moved to draftspace[edit]


Can you help with advice on what information has an advertising flavor and should be removed from the article? What else needs to be changed to return the article to the main space? The remarks in the title, unfortunately, seem too general.

Best regards. Yevrowl (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yevrowl: I think you will probably need to rewrite it. It needs a chunk of work. scope_creepTalk 20:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep:, the article was rewritten, sources from interviews in one publication were removed. Yevrowl (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep:, I removed paragraphs that you consider unnecessary. With all due respect to your arguments, I don’t see any advertising here. There is a list of facts: held a competition, gave lectures, invested, declared, etc. And is it necessary to be a professor or academician to give lectures? There are links to the universities themselves, where he gave lectures on robotics. Yevrowl (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yevrowl: I made an assumption he perhaps was an academic when you give lectures, otherwise its just generally a talk, although he is the president. The article was written in a promotional manner, thats why the tag has been put on it. Its still WP:PUFFing him up when there is no need for it, although there is less of it now. Yevrowl, I don't have time available to take you through rewriting this article, in a step by step manner. Its going to take weeks and I don't have time to rewrite it myself. The whole thing still needs rewritten and removing certain text isn't going to fix it. It currently not fit for review. For example the references are all still WP:BAREURLS. Take a look at WP:REFB which is a small tutorial on how to do full citations. I would suggest doing two things. Take a look at a good biographical article that has passed WP:GA to see how the language flows, how it is descriptive. Second thing is to join the Wikipedia:Teahouse. They are more orientated to new editors and can provide step by step on how to correct the article. For example, the following "He was born in the Jewish family of Zinoviy Meirovich and Nina Borisovna Ginzburg. Engaged in sambo". You would usually say something like "Ginzburg was born into a Jewish family. His father Zinoviy Meirovich was a <employee subject> and his mother nee <put her previous name> was a <subject> As a child he became interested in the martial art known as sambo that eventually led him to winning the .... in <date>. The point i'm trying to make is text is very dry and not very readable. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red February 2024[edit]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298

Online events:


  • Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event.

Tip of the month:

  • AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Devin Millar in Other languages[edit]

Hey,what about Devin Millar in other languages? There is 2 languages Español and Francis,can you help or find whoever remove them?Thank you 2001:EE0:5005:81A0:ACD3:2F49:4492:2C82 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:EE0:5005:81A0:ACD3:2F49:4492:2C82: Let me check. scope_creepTalk 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2001:EE0:5005:81A0:ACD3:2F49:4492:2C82: It seems to have been deleted after a Afd discussion found it to be non-notable, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Millar. The English Wikipedia has a higher standard of sourcng requirements, particularly for WP:BLP's than other language Wikipedia. Folk often bring across articles which they think are notable in the source language and then when it gets here, they find its not notable and attempt was made to delete it. I sent it to Afd because I didn't think she was notable and I would do it again. You can ask for it be undeleted. In that case article will be sent to WP:DRAFT where you can work on happily for several months. Here is the noticeboard Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. You might not get it back. If you do and you move out of draft when its not been reviewed, I will send it back to WP:AFD and it won't be coming back the third time. scope_creepTalk 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Devin Millar is just a fraud person,he whatever he can make himself show up in this wiki or other language just to promote himself freely (Such as official Wikipedia),even also break these rules freely,beware that person,i heard that person botted himself just to get more fans or clearly for hoax and lair all over years(Due to lack of his fans),he also make nsfw for kid or some stuff did similar to other person named EDP445 did,so careful this person,he also make alt accounts just to record himself up without being noticed.If you want know more,maybe you can ask some peoples in NFS or other community for better information,proof.I can't talk more about that person here and i'm stick of it.Thank you for reading and hope you know a bit about that person,bye. 2001:EE0:5005:81A0:ACD3:2F49:4492:2C82 (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello @Scope creep, I saw that you moved DOK.fest to draftspace. This article has been on Wikipedia for many years, on Internationales Dokumentarfilmfestival München. DrUtrecht (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrUtrecht: I reviewed the article. It was redirected and then it was recreated so it is valid move, I think. The article is complete mess. I will need to send it to Afd due to the state of it, if it appears back in mainspace. scope_creepTalk 10:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current article is a complete mess. DrUtrecht (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrUtrecht: Once you fix it, ping me and I will review it for you. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you so much for your consideration and for taking time to review my articles and provide constructive, positive feedback. Much appreciated! 💚🤍💚🤍 TheEagle107 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheEagle107: Thanks for that. That was really nice. scope_creepTalk 09:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024[edit]

Drhuv Sharma in Simple English[edit]

Hello, thank you for correcting the writing errors in the article in English Dhruv Sharma (singer), could you give it a linguistic review in simplified English where it currently maintains a deletion query. Regards and thanks again 57ntaledane9 (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guilty have no pride[edit]

Why discogs is non-rs if many articles list it as a source and there are no problems with it(example: )? Ezoteric bimbo (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezoteric bimbo: It is not a reliable source and the fact that other mistakenlys use it, doesn't mean you use it. Take a look at entry for discogs on this list WP:DISCOGS.scope_creepTalk 07:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the band's site( considered a reliable source? Ezoteric bimbo (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, generally not. Take a look at WP:MUSICRS. These are the magazine sites and other journals and so on, which are considered reliable sources bassed on a consensus decision at the reliable sources noticeboard. The bands own site would be considered an WP:SPS source, i.e. self-published and WP:PRIMARY. Any sources from out of MUSICRS would be ok. These sites have editorial teams that strive for intellectual honesty and published genuine researched fact-checked articles. They are journalists essentially. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 07:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for help! Ezoteric bimbo (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, could you explain to me in more detail why this user User:Drmies is deleting links to the singer placed in the right place Dhruv Sharma (singer), he also deleted references and is committing arbitrary acts if many users had already reviewed it and there was no problem, I'm afraid. is committing an editorial war. Help 57ntaledane9 (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, links to social networks and YouTube, Spotify and Soundcloud channels are allowed, which violates that space there. deleted links 57ntaledane9 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is not allowed is a slew of promotional/commercial links, which is basically what those are. I cited WP:EL in my edit summary; maybe you should read it, 57ntaledane9. I'm going to revert your most recent edits, again, and drop yet another warning for improper sourcing, which by now adds up to a violation of the WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, there's a decent article hiding in the sources, particularly the articles from Harper's Bazaar and NME, but it needs decent writing for it to come out. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. @57ntaledane9: I suggest you attend the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Its for new editors who have joined Wikipedia recently and it provides guidance and mentorship. It is worth knowing that Wikipedia is not a social media site in any shape or form. Its not a webhost, nor a forum, nor a blogging site, where anything goes. There is clear rules on what can be included in a WP:BLP and what can't be included. Promoting the singer with social media links is deeply uncool and illegal. You cannot promote or advertise on here. There is a legal basis to this, defined in the Wikipedia Terms of Use. Advertising and promotion is strict illegal. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 18:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Creation of articles without sources, not acknowledging user talk page discussions[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. Creation of articles without sources, not acknowledging user talk page discussions Shazback (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Gimmler[edit]

Hi Scope creep,

Just wrote an article about Wilhelm Gimmler in the German Wikipedia and spotted yours in the English one. As far as I see it, he was born in Kontschwitz in 1890, a village in Lower Silesian, which was a part of the German empire when he was born. In 1936 the name was changed to Hohenlinde, and then to Kończyce after 1945.

In your article however the village is linked to Hohenlinden in Bavaria, which is a completely other community and has nothing to do with the Hohenlinde in Silesia. Best wishes --OS (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OS: I didn't think Gimmler was ever going to be expanded, but here is a full article. Nice one. I'll check that Gimmler article. scope_creepTalk 20:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing an Updated Draft[edit]

I shared a reference evaluation on the talk page of Draft:Ravi Ahuja based off your comment related to the submission decline. The sources are from credible platforms, most of them are widely used on Wikipedia. Additionally, upon reevaluation I didn't find them to be or similar to press releases or paid promotions.


Keithmurban (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Keithmurban: You seem to have went in the opposite direction since the review by loading up in refences and its now firmly within WP:CITEKILL. I would find the best reference for each sentence and take out the rest as they are not needed. I would do it before the review as its likely to get declined again for citekill. One good reference per sentence is enough really. If there is several WP:SECONDARY sources that prove then he will go into mainspace. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award[edit]

Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar

This award is given in recognition to Scope creep for collecting more than 200 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award[edit]

Worm Gear Award

This award is given in recognition to Scope creep for collecting at least 7 points during each week of the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contact center as a service[edit]

Hey! Not sure if you saw, but it looks like Contact center as a service got recreated after your initial Contact Center as a service BLAR. I don't have the full background, but it looks like a new version cropped up after disappearing, without attribution, which seems to be a problem. Unsure about the status between the two. (The second person also created Artificial intelligence in customer experience.) Utopes (talk / cont) 09:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: It looks like at least a couple of spam links on it to call centre companies created by a WP:SPA. There is a big Call Centre article which is well developed so I don't think there is any need for it. scope_creepTalk 12:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024[edit]

WPMED assessments[edit]

About this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Importance scale says that the Low-priority rating "includes most of the following: very rare diseases, lesser-known medical signs, equipment, hospitals, individuals, historical information..."

Joseph Lister is an individual, and (having been dead for over a century) arguably "historical". Therefore I think it is proper to rate him as low-priority. (Also as being a person, which is what that |society=yes parameter is about.) Do you think the scale justifies a different priority for the group? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I don't know. They say there is two periods in medicine, before Lister and after Lister. Before Lister, if you were cut i.e. wound and it became septic you were done for, after Lister you had a chance of surviving and is still celebrated to this day. I think it is quite absurd to set the rating so low, although I've no confidence in talk page banners and don't know if it means anything. The values seems to be arbitary. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're thinking about real-world importance. The |importance= or |priority= ratings for WikiProjects are about how interested the group is in improving the articles, which often have nothing to do with real-world importance. We used to tag Leonardo da Vinci as low importance (i.e., to us), and eventually someone apparently decided the subject was so unimportant to us that we don't tag the article at all any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I never knew that. I've never looked it in detail probably. I shouldn't have reverted. scope_creepTalk 23:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no harm done. If I'd done that by mistake, then I'd have appreciated being reverted. We all have to look out for each other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus Reviews on Counterparts (novel)[edit]

I came across your edit here and wondered how you concluded that this review was written by the author himself. I also first thought so seeing the "by Gonzalo Lira" tagline, but couldn't this be a book review page mentioning the author of the reviewed book, rather than the author of the review? I am also sceptical of the reliability of Kirkus reviews but would like to see whether I missed something. AncientWalrus (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem I have with it, is the fact there is no byline, so you don't know who has done it. According to RSN its a reliable source, a traditional pre-print review site that has been on the go since 1933. But with no bylines, how to do you verify the validity of the author. In the internet age there is simply no reason for it. The whole thing is opaque. In almost every other professional or literary journal the author is always provided, so they can be checked. When there is no checks and balances, the system is open to abuse. I suspect they have a really cosy relationship with the publisher, who are they're lifeblood and that is problematic. On the particular review, it was the language in the review that didn't look right, it is very similar to the books. I bought one of them to see what the furore was about. I can't be 100% sure but felt better removing it. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 12:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Concerning this edit, please note that is only unreliable after 12 March 2014. Before that date, it is not considered unreliable. Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Why does the script show them as blacklisted? It the only reference I've ever seen that has been blacklisted. Are all the references in the article before 12 March 2014, are they all before that date? scope_creepTalk 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know, I did not write the script, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is pretty clear on the reasons as why the resource is blacklisted. I did not check all the references in the article, but it has been blacklisted quite some time ago, I would expect the "bad" references to have been already removed. Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are before that date and all the refs source seem to archived. It will be a quality article when finished. There is still ton of bad references in the article, including dodgy newspapers, excessive social media links, livejournal and other non-rs refs. I was driving-by and thought I would help this other editor to clean it up a bit. It still under quite heavy development I see, so I'm not worried if its left. I don't mind leaving it as it will get done eventually. Those references probably need whitelisted somehow, although I'm not sure to do it, so somebody else doesn't remove them. scope_creepTalk 18:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question on image[edit]

I'm wondering why you removed File:Rachel Dübendorfer.jpg from Rachel Dübendorfer in this edit? The image looks to be okay as a fair use image of her. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joseph2302: Apparently it wasn't her. I made a mistake. There is another conversation further up the talk page, for reference. User:Rob1bureau was checking the images I think on the Red Orchestra folk and noticed it wasn't her. When I looked it, and examined the docs, it wasn't her right enough. No kind of similar appearence or bad light or bad composition, just wrong image. scope_creepTalk 12:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I presumed there was a sensible reason (as you're a sensible editor, so it clearly wasn't vandalism), but was curious. And I also didn't notice that it was already mentioned on this talkpage, apologies for the duplication. :) Joseph2302 (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: I find it hard to find previous conversations on the talk page, even with search. There is another image needing replaced on Leon Grossvogel, which needs done. There both on my todo list and will get done this week or next. I'm really happy there is folk looking at it and not just myself. scope_creepTalk

UPE on EnergyX[edit]

Check out the building image. This is something I see UPEs regularly slip up on, the uploaded images. I can see from the metadata this is professional photography and not likely to be uploaded for free by the photographer. BusterD (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: Well done for spotting that. I never even saw it. It is beautifully constructed photograph, perfectly in focus, take at the right just as dusk is settling and all the lights are on and perfectly framed with no cars on the road. Probably taken a few minutes after dawn, instead of dusk (road closed) and got the classic red, blue, yellow and green and the metadata of course. Its brightended my day. Thanks for posting that. scope_creepTalk 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of the the classic blunders. If your uploader is the the page creator, chances are excellent they have provided us more information than they suspected. This user is 100% coi, so apparently paid. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rachel Dübendorfer.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Rachel Dübendorfer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red March 2024[edit]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301

Online events:


Tip of the month:

  • When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
    and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Élisa Mercœur contains the word "orphange" twice, would you be so kind to check if they are typos and if so, replace them with "orphanage". Polygnotus (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check if this edit is correct. Polygnotus (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Will do. scope_creepTalk 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: Good work. You have got eyes like a hawk. The 2nd one is good. The first still working on. scope_creepTalk 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We make a good team. You write, I nitpick. Polygnotus (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: I checked the document finally. Spelt wrong. scope_creepTalk 15:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: This one must be double strength wrong. Katherine Singer Kovács Prize Gold star for spotting that. That is quick!! Speed of a hawk as well. I wouldn't seen it, I'm going to start doing a check in the future. I'll check it when I get back. scope_creepTalk 16:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked them to fix the typo on their site as well. Polygnotus (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up[edit]

I reported the Hazooyi, Anoghena Okoyomoh, and Cece GFI accounts for socking. There's just too much coincidence with timing, and AfD's, and non-notable UPE articles to not believe they're all connected. And some bad acting, today. You can read my evidence here if you like. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024[edit]

This is the second time I've come across you WP:BITING and threatening newcomers. Maybe this isn't a representative sample, but you need to calm down. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating refs[edit]

So I managed to consolidate the refs on that Murray article, but one thing I didn't plan for was the individual ref names that aren't in the consolidated list. Is there a format to add those back in, or should I just go to the second instance where each source is invoked and double the reference there? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Zepelin: A script will come around in a couple hours and add the missing references back into where they are invoked in the article. I know you can run the script manually but don't know the name of it. You could ask around, or at the help desk. If it not done by say, tommorrow morning it may need to be done manually by fetching the reference from the previous revision and adding in yourself. It slow but will only take 20 mins. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 22:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Zepelin: It is the AnomieBOT. I see it just ran. Quicker than it used to be. scope_creepTalk 22:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wow, that's handy. Thanks for responding. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dimarjio Antonion Jenkins.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Dimarjio Antonion Jenkins.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024[edit]

Women in Red April 2024[edit]

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304

Online events:


  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you up for giving a tactful tutorial[edit]

Sfns are not my best thing and he likes you better than me. Plus I just growled at him yesterday over changing images after the alts were written. He *is* awful new, necessary to the project, and on his third language, I keep reminding myself. But yes at least some of the new reference errors are from the slavery section. The main things I see him not getting that format matters, E.Lastname is alphabetized under Lastname, and the year really has to match. Or should I just fix the ones I understand? Actually, some of them I understand but am not sure how to fix. De Grammont has a range of years because there are multiple volumes at that link and the items are for the particular volume. De Haëdo and a couple of the others have modern-day reissues, etc. I seem to recall that orange means it *was* broken, but it's brown we have to worry about? De Grammont used to be working (?) Elinruby (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accct ually both de Grammont citations work on the laptop so shut my mouth. Maybe I need to just test them at some point, Or have you look at this since I apparently stilll do not understand the John the Trappist scriot....Elinruby (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Elinruby: I'm just back in. I've been planting trees today again. To address the above, de Grammont seems to be working fine, whatever you done. Yes, the name and the year must match. If there multiple publication by the author in one year e.g. 1980, then the dates become 1980a, 1980b on the citationa and the same on the sfn tag. If there is multiple volumes per authors, generally they have different years, and occasionally different isbn's so it pans out. On those instance where it doesn't pan out, you can use an artificial match. So you use on the citation the ref field e.g. "|ref=CITEREFsheling1940" and then the sfn becomes "{{...|sheling|1940}}". I use the same script and i'm not seeing any errors. I'm not sure about Trappists errors. You would have to ask him. I have about 16 scripts installed so I might be getting combines results. I'm not seeing errors. What ever you have done seems to have fixed it. If an error comes up, ping and I will show you how to fix it. I scope_creepTalk 16:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ignore the entire comment while I investigate. He has created some errors per the tags. I have not fixed them, have you? If not, I have not been giving him enough credit ;)
I see no errors on the laptop and about four brown and six orange on my phone and huh I dunno. I am on the laptop right now. At some point I will click the links to be sure. I finally got the new ref in about the arrival in Constantinople is what I do know for sure. Talking to helpdesk about your wiktionary suggestion for divan because I couldn't remember the syntax. Don't stress if you have been digging holes, nothing is on fire. Elinruby (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: I keep forgetting it as well. Template:Wikt-lang will do it, but there is shorter version for en wikt entries, i.e wikt: scope_creepTalk 17:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only one definition you can use word but divan has five definitions in English alone and about seven languages so... anyway, I have notifications, will check them. Got distracted by the reanimationof some zombie stupid I made the mistake of commenting on at NPOV once. Not going to get directly involved this time but I just asked for help find ing material for balance. believe me you don't want to know. It reaLLy is very very...did I say stupid? I am a bad wikipedia editor. A stick has not yet been dropped. Meanwhile, I think I accidentally overwrote your comment about the six months, but I did see it and yes, I am going to try to work down the list. But not in one sitting ;) have a hot bath and don't worry about Algiers for a bit. It's been a few days since I dreamed about this article so I will put some hours in lol Elinruby (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh hai[edit]

half the talk page was missing when I wrote that. Sorry.

I moved some headers. My fault. I will fix it. Meanwhile huh. I got pinged into a MoS capitalization argument and Mathglot asked me for help and I found out that a courtly old Brazilian editor who helped me a lot died a few months ago. I wonder if you have a spare moment if you could take a look a a look at the mayhem I caused on my userpage last night when I was crying about that? It turns out that I can't run the errand I thought I was going to run for a couple of hours yet so I guess I will tackle the strike tag. War with Spain is done except for the many names of Mohammed ben Othman and making sure I checked the references.

I have excused myself from any further discussion of whether "chair" is a name. What the hell. The things you get pinged into, eh?

If you really want to work on the article, I suggest scrutiny of the Manufacturing section with extreme prejudice. There also probably should be additional mention of ship-building and slaves in that section. Or not. If you need a break from this, take one. Now is an ideal time. I hope to restore sanity and have an updated to-do by tomorrow. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elinruby: I spent yesterday about, five hours, trying to join two different sources for the Rado article and came back to the Algiers article only intermittently. I will take a look at the manufacturing section and forward. I'll take a look at your userpage as well, but both will be later this afternoon. On the wikt thing which I was thinking about yesterday. I would link it to the version on the name of the article on WP, which is probably the common name, although it may not have been decided yet, what the common name is. So if the diwan, or whatever the article is called, need renamed, I can do it for you. I can check the war with spain and sections around it, this week. I've not looked at any blocks around there. I know for a fact that are going to be good, but a quick read is a good thing for grammer even. On the strike tag storm on talk page. I saw that yesterday but didn't have the wherewithall to fix. Still jaked yesterday after that tree planting. On RFC's, I did that years ago when you were pinged for RFC's. I had to give it up. So many were spurious and simple cases that should have been settled quickly, although I was asked to do a massive one recently, which was really cool. On the colouring of the reference. I had to look at the code yesterday. Darker does seem more problematic. I think what we could do is for you list the reference number in talk and we can take a look. I can't see it. We can check the authors, but in going through those section, in the first 1.0 main block, the authors were very decent. I did check the authors, all pro historians. So Nourerrahmane and yourself have done a pretty decent job on it. Later. scope_creepTalk 09:42, 14 April 2024 UTC)
Glad to hear from you as I was feeling guilty the talk page is still a mass. A different and improved mess, but still. I slept all day as it turned out, definitely needed it, and will try to be done tonight.
Yes, when you want to start again, start at the Manufacturing section, where N seems to have missed a question about Kaddache, and it looks like I never got back to rewrites because I was answering his answers. That is a priority because I cannot swear I got all the copyvio. There *was* at least one word for word sentence. Go forward from there and double-check me. I do see daylight, but it's been a messy process and I would like to document the due diligence in an understandable way. All of this is optional and a favor to me, of course.
It is a RM that turns on whether the pieds-noirs of Algeria are a distinct ethnic group. They are not, unless "all non-Arab inhabitants of Algeria at the time of independence" is an ethnic group, but it seems we have a GA that says otherwise. I was pinged to the talk page because I had once commented there about a year ago. Somebody started an RM while I was looking at the MoS, and I didn't realize where I was talking or I would have run run run away very fast ;) 10:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
PS: BTW don't know if you saw that N is on vacation with family. This is why I say the timing is good for a break. Don't worry about wikt: divan, pretty sure I have that documented. Will ping you on it. Elinruby (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out for a couple of hours, maybe all day. Sanity has in my opinion returned to the talk page. I have some thoughts bot later for that Elinruby (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, 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.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @Scope creep, hope you're doing good, first thank you for this massive work on Regency of Algiers, i beleive the article progressed really well, but i don't know what caused Elin to be so upset. If i understand well this has to do with some of my edits that have issues with spelling, but i think there are no issues with that anymore since, well Elin worked on that and i made sure not to undo or change any of its edits; unless i was adding additions while taking account of her suggestions. Suddenly she became upset for un unkown reason for me...Hopefully she comes back, i really want this article to become GA or even FA as this would really give so much credit to both of you. She's part of this and i want her to keep being part of it.

Other than that i have reworked agriculture, education and Crisis of the 19th century sections and first paragraph of political status.) if there is anything more to work i'm available.

Thanks! Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nourerrahmane: How goes it? I think Elinruby left because her work was being overwritten multiple times by yourself and it put her in a downer. Generally if it happens more than a few times, then the person withdraws, as there is no point going on, which has happened here and in the past. I've seen it quite a few times with folk who can only put up with so much. I don't think she will be back. I checked a bundle of stuff last night on the 2nd tranches of checks I did about 3 weeks ago. The updates done by yourself and Elinruby were pretty decent and I signed off on them in the talk page. I would make sure the 3rd tranche addressing Section 2 "Political status" is done. There was a couple of things needing fixed in here. A lot of the images still don't have alt tags, after 6-7 weeks and some images are still overlap which fail the WP;MOS . I would look at quotes to make sure your accurate. Quotes can't be a composite construction. They need be exactly as the source says. I would fix these first and then submit it to WP:PRG to see if there is anything outstanding on it. Its close to being finished at least for WP:GA anyway. At the beginning of next week I will doing WP:NPP for a month, so won't be doing too much more on this article. See what the peer review says. They are generally pretty good. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nourerrahmane: Once you make any fixes needed from the WP:PRG review, submit it for WP:GA. scope_creepTalk 18:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have made some changes six or seven times, and hey If Nour doesn't want to be believe me, then maybe he will believe it coming from someone else. I have said multiple times that spelling is not the issue. Well it is, but that's not something he can fix by listening. Whereas discovering that "what is a quote" was still a problem, and the mystery of the disappearing interlanguage links, were both really discouraging. Speaking of, I saw you laughing about the footballer. I will fix that link but I tried asking a question first about how to prevent that problem at the helpdesk and got a blank stare. At some point I will click all the links looking for more bad links.
I ran earwig's again a few days ago -- in english it is ok-ish. The score is 31% but all the hits are for generic things like "Algiers declared war." Assuming I read the report right. I can send it to you if you like. I haven't done Mathglot's hack yet. Elinruby (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: I thought Nourerrahmane would have seen the cewbot link and fixed it. I've had to revert it numerous times. Yes, I figured it was something like that. Elin, I didn't think you would be back to the article. I did see the talk page warnings and they weren't being addressed by him. Thankfully the work is almost done. If you could sent the Earwig report, I can take a look but I'm not too worried about it. I just wondering when it will go into review. Still seems a good bit of tinkering going on. 13:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tinkering is fine. Much of what he does is actually an improvement, but then requires copyedits. I am not ruling out a final copy edit, but I don't feel like he believes me about some constructions and I dunno, I am just not feeling it. I would encourage him to have some other people look at the article. To give credit: he has grasped the important point about an image alt, that it is descriptive for people who cannot see (but "house hall"?). Also he says he is now checking the quotes. I think I should do Mathglot's earwig's hack, because there seems to have been some copyvio that predates him. And yes, I can send you the report I have for English, but it is on the phone, so a bit later for that. Will try to do it later today. Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: I'm assuming they will be picked up at WP:GA or WP:PRG, assuming it going to be put in as it seem to be dragging on, that was the reason I suggested PRG in the first place to get an external review. Its law of diminishing returns that is in effect. He want to send it to FA, so it will definently be picked up there, probably GA as well. You could pass it the guild of copyeditors but it could be some weeks before its done. I don't see the final value of doing it. We are pretty decent copyeditor's already, although there is a several editors out there who a truly excellent and if we got one of them it would be great, but the chances are slim. It might end up be a just a typo pass. There is no doubt there is stuff we have missed and I think you would expect to put it through the guild as a natural step. What is the Mathglot hack for Earwig and I will give it a go? Either that or save it as a pdf (if possible) and mail it to me. I wonder if we can convince Nourerrahmane to submit to PRG this week for a review, see what comes out of it and then submit it for copyedit while we are doing the fixes. It could take a couple of weeks before somebody turns up. I would like to get some kind of review started as soon as. scope_creepTalk 08:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2024[edit]

Article/AFD we've been discussing[edit]

I'm no pushover regarding new articles....of the approx 1,400 articles that I've done NPP on in the last 90 days I'd guess I've taken about 50-100 to AFD with about half of those kept, and left notes on another 20-40 saying it shouldn't be a seperate article. With respect to meeting the GNG sourcing requirement, this article has them a lot stronger than the norm on kept articles. There been discussion at AFC about reviewers using different criteria than the AFC criteria which is: having reasonable chance at surviving at AFD. In short the previous reviews on this really didn't review according to this standard, centric on whether it has GNG sourcing. And all of the ones that had specifics (vs. just referring to previous reviews) basically said that it had some (or many) low grade sources in it. IMO an easily made error or look at the general nature of a sample of the 57 sources rather than seeing if it did/didn't have 2 (or 1 or 3) sources to meet the norm regarding GNG. IMHO at the AFD you are promugating an interpretation that is in some cases not applicable (NCorp standards on a person article) but more to my point here is so unusually strict that such would result in rejection of about 90% of new articles.

In several cases, after I took an article to AFD and people came up with sourcing or arguments which changed the situation; I just happily changed my opinion to "keep". I consider it a better reflection on my self to be able to leave what I said previously rather than being mentally invested in arguing for what I said previously. Also better for my fun and sanity in Wikipedia work. I don't know if this is useful or applicable or not but thought I'd say it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: I know and I know. I will take it out, then. I'm seems to be of a particular concern. I'll complete the chat in the morning. I'm goosed at the moment. scope_creepTalk 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a nice evening!  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red May 2024[edit]

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307

Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
    is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024[edit]