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


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

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

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

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

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

I hope I have put my case clearly and logically. The British Parliament's website explains the distinction between the two institutions better than I can here:

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

Warm wishes,

Fionn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionn12 (talkcontribs) 21:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Gaetano Ciancio Article[edit]

Thank you for your suggestions. I've recently re-submitted this article, and I know you had suggestions last time. I have made the suggested revisions. If you could check it out, that would be great :)

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)


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

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

Suggested page move[edit]

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

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

Request To Review Draft:Aaron Duncan[edit]

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

Jack Stauber[edit]

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

Withdrawn or not?[edit]

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

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

Alan E. Cober Help[edit]

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

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

On the subject of Draft: Chris Buzelli[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Lists of cricketers[edit]

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

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

Penderel Moon[edit]

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

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

Terrible Articles[edit]

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

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

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

The Signpost: 25 April 2021[edit]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021[edit]

I have asked them to close AFD[edit]

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

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

May 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

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

Online events:

See also:

Other ways to participate:

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

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

Thank you for the request for references on the Mike Omer article[edit]

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

Deletion discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

Joseph Lister[edit]

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rafael Delorme (May 2)[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 reasons left by CommanderWaterford were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


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

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

Notability of business people[edit]

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

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

Avalanche (Consensus Protocol)[edit]

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

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

Here are the new sources I added from Google Scholar Publications:

(Source: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

(Source: Cornell University)

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

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

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

Comment on edits, not editors[edit]

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

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

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

All done revising Ryan Abbott(lawyer) as requested!

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

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

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

Symeon Shimin[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Katie Gately[edit]


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

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

Sorry I'm new to Wikipedia the page is Cheynoel (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Draft:Jean-Philippe Bonardi[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent comment on the PS draft submission[edit]

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

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

Draft:Peter Mostovoy[edit]

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

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

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

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

Draft:Peter Mostovoy[edit]

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

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

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

Draft:Wolfang Heindel[edit]

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

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

Draft:Peter Mostovoy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

June 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

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

Online events:

Other ways to participate:

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 30[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Actually I was using andílian_Jornet_Burgada as templates. This is standard infobox for sportspersons (please see more links )

Other athletes' pages look much the same 1. 2. please check Skyrunning World Championships winners 3. or Russian athlete exampleРизаев,_Ирек_Евгеньевич

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

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

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

Re: Draft:Network Entropy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Jeremy Schwartz[edit]

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

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

Kurt De Luis[edit]

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

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

Request To Review Draft:Winning Jah[edit]

Dear Scope creep, thank you for reviewing the article. I have re-submitted the draft you declined on the 1st of June. NOTICE501 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)