User talk:Scope creep/Archive 13

Question
I want to try to address the remaining tags at Black market in wartime France and as I recall one of them is a what tag of yours. It was near a discussion of the rocketing inflation, and I gathered that you wanted clarification of what this had to do with devaluing the franc. This is kind of a deep question and I am looking for a quote so that the article isn't relying on my memory of undergraduate macroeconomics classes. Meanwhile, I would like to be sure that I am trying to answer the actual question, so let me know when you can. I can't currently find it and may have accidentally deleted that discussion when I merged the "Post-war" and "After the Liberation" sections. Since the reference is complaining about not having an anchor I suspect so. I will be addressing that as the issue of the post-war economy is important to the topic.

The article is really long and I will also be mumbling to myself about structure and spinoffs again.

Meanwhile let me attempt to enunciate: If 100 old francs become 1 new franc then the bread that used to cost 500 francs now costs 5. It's a shock to the system and to the wallets of the population but it also greatly improves the balance of payments since it becomess less expensive for other countries to import French goods, so they buy more and more money flows into the French economy. I think. See, that's still too long and jargonish so I need a quote.

Anyway I hope you are well and Vive la France ;) Elinruby (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Morning Thanks for those comments yesterday. I didn't know what to say and it was much appreciated. Regarding the comments above: Is there is a clarification on it. I'll look for it over the next few days. I saw reference 150 go in, and thought the Bank of France on the statistics "The statistics are rigged, the declarations distorted" clarification was done, but I see it is still there. I was looking for that this week. I did have document for it but I cleared out my downloads and its gone. I plan to work on both of them.  Actually counting them. They're is four of them. Two I've not even looked at. I'll look at them over the weekend. If I had that Grenard 2008 books it would solved immediately. The one about "tracts geared to farmers". That is probably communist pamphlets/newspapers or leaflets written in support of farmers. Tract is not particularly useful, and statistics may be quite difficult to source. Length wise of article, I'm unconcerned about splitting it. You started it, so you can lead. I tend to write larger articles. The largest was 320k. With technology marching on and everybody with smartphones and even the poorest countries now with at least 4mbit connections in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Malaysia in the lastest report I read, its less of a big deal. The Joseph Lister is going to be about 600-800k so that will be split into about five articles and is being written for that. It is a level 4 vital article. I'll try to fix that "tracts" clarification today, see how I go.     scope_creep Talk  08:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "statistics are rigged": I suspect it came from Grenard 2008. It was definitely in the French article and they seem to have put their references at the end of paragraphs. But I don't actually know that yet. I haven't looked at my email in a few days but you said you were going to send it to me. I can look later.
 * The main problem I see with the article right now is that it is rather fragmented and repetitive, possibly as a result of a merge that produced the French article (?} There are at least some sub-sections under the chronological headers that apply to the entire period (housewives' protests) or that were more important in another period (Grey market) Maybe there needs to be a discussion of overall trends. I may look at that tonight but I think my main focus for this session will be on trying to explain the Paris glitterati aspects of Lafont and rue Lauriston in that early "German buying everything" phase.
 * tracts to farmers: there is a quote about that somewhere. Probably in the 1940-1942 section, and also as I recall an image that is an example of this. Maybe the source for those would be useful
 * comments on that other editor's user page: I said nothing but the truth. I tried to be gentle because they were grieving and that was effectively a wiki suicide, but I don't think they completely thought their remarks through. If Good article ratings are important then so are references, right? I hope that my remarks came across as I intended, but if not, well, I tried. As someone else said on your page, nobody said that they couldn't edit, just that they needed to fix some references. Not that I am mocking them. I nearly diva quit myself when MB made fun of me at his RfA, and that wasn't real rational either. Sometimes we all lose perspective. See you in the article. Elinruby (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It was book on the Black Market, a 2023 one. I'll send it when I get back.   scope_creep Talk  08:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've sent that book. Its seems a modern version of the Grenard 2008 book.   scope_creep Talk  18:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the problem I was having was that I can't verify any of the many citations to Grenard 2008. I suppose we could just replace them all, but that seems like more work Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I missed that there is search inside on the 2008 version so this might not actually be a problem. I'll get back to you on this.Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the search. On google books?   scope_creep Talk  08:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Elinruby (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Not so much, because it does stuff like here's results 1-4 of  25; I have however been able to verify and put a specific page number on one of these anyway, so it might narrow the ranges needed down enough for a resource request. I am suddenly quite tired but I when I come back I will run through out these one of them I didn't find at all, which is a problem unless there is another Grenard 2008, which is what I have been wondering. Actually that is something I can sheck right now, let me go do that at the article I translated from. Only seeing one so that's not it. It's miscapitalized, though, I'll check that when I come back. I posted on the talk page about this btw. Elinruby (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a preview copy which means the majority of the pages will be missings. I use Google Books all the time and sometimes its very hard to make it work properly and show you the content. Being logged in to google when you have gbooks open helps sometimes if your slowing scrolling and up and down the page, it will more often and not show you the page you are looking for.   scope_creep Talk  09:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you already checked these? Just saying, if you have then this is tedious stuff that doesn't need to be done twice. If not then I will, just not right now. Elinruby (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No unfortunately I spent most of last night trying to find a copy. I did fix two clarifications last night, which I thought was good. I left some talk page comments.   scope_creep Talk  09:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * not ssaying you should have or pushing you to do more; just don't want to reinvent the wheel snd it's only fair that I verify my own work as closely as I have done others' or that might seem pointy. If 2008 is simply not available then I will verify what I can and we can talk about it. The man is prolific enough to have said the same thing elsewhere. It's not a big deal.  I just feel a need to do something else for tonight and as it happens I am about a month overdue on a commitment to someone else, so...If you are looking for something to do, I have suggestions, if not hey. Google says it's lunchtime there ;)Elinruby (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know what your mean. I think we have reached a rubicon. Its stalled I think, which is ok, considering the amount of vast amount of work that has been done in the last month. I'm fresh out of ideas. I saw your comment about the service control technique guys and the comment you left. I tried to find it and again nothing turned up. I suspect Grenard 2008 is taking it directly from those archives, places that have not been looked at by as many other authors. There is comment in the Moure book on the service control guys but it 1944, so again that is one of these hard to verify quotes and needs replaced. However, in the meantime, I plan to work on NPP over the next few days to this week as there is a backlog drive on and then lister and rado afterwards which need a lot of time. Lister particularly since I've not looked at it for week, and I have 40-60k to put in. I will come back in a week or two refreshed. It has been a pretty heavy session in the last 3-4 weeks getting that article into shape. I think it needs time to settle in, let the Google Graph catch up, so it can provide more sources.   scope_creep Talk  10:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll keep polishing and I have about 5 almost-finished related drafts. But nod, I agree. It's time to come out of the weeds and apply some perspective. I still haven't quite figured out how to handle trends that were true for the entire period, etc. But yeah, I think knocking out some other work is a good idea. I don't think this is exactly stalled so much as in need of both some more excruciating detail work and a more zoomed out perspective also. I am, tonight at least not able to do either one. Luckily I have some very mechanistic work that needs to be done. I should go to sleep but while I'm very tired I am not sleepy. I've been meaning to look at your lister project, maybe I will read some of that later. See you soon. I will holler if I have questions. 10:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Evaluation of draft article on Leonkoro Quartet
Thanks for reviewing this. I am somewhat puzzled that it was not accepted, and would like to check with you about the perceived issues. I've briefly edited the draft to add a couple of separate sources. However it's not clear to me what else might need to be done and I wanted to explore the reasons for your decision before proceeding further, hope that is OK.

Firstly, there seems to be a challenge on notability grounds, yet this quartet has achieved the remarkable feat of winning two of the world's most notable string quartet competitions (Wigmore Hall and Bordeaux) in a single year. This would be like someone getting an Oscar and Golden Globe award in the same year. Virtually all previous winners of the Wigmore Hall competition have their own Wikipedia page. The quartet now perform regularly at various international concert venues.

Secondly, the level of detail and references provided is comparable to other string quartets such as the Esmé_Quartet (2018 Wigmore winners), Marmen Quartet, etc.

So I would appreciate your suggestions on what you feel is currently lacking in the article. Hyperman 42 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi How goes it?  The Esmé_Quartet quartet article is hanging by a thread.  Winning a competion, and even prestigious competition or even a series of competitions,  is a "good thing" for notability, but it doesn't automatically prove the subject is automatically notable. This article has a single reference. The Esmé Quartet has a couple of refs but again only competitions. Is that what all these quartets actually just do, just compete. It makes them prestigious and makes then stand out I suppose, but where is the WP:SECONDARY sourcing out with that. Where is their work to pass WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BAND or any of these other notability criteria around musicians. It was decided before 2010 that notabilty can't just be established by winning competitions. There needs to be more. I think it was in 2009 I vaguelly remember it being discussed. I hope that helps.     scope_creep Talk  10:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for getting back to me. But no, all these quartets perform regularly in classical music concerts at prestigious commercial venues, so it is like a major rock band that does tours. It feels like there's a bit of a misunderstanding of how the classical music world actually works and that the notability criteria are being set too high. Recordings are less of a major output in classical music because it's not playing original work and there are many recordings of the great classics already. Rock bands aren't required to give listings of all their gigs to prove that they are "notable". I could try to engage fellow workers on the WikiProject on classical music, but I thought it would be better to see if the two of us could reach an understanding instead. The sources I've added for the Leonkoro are from solid independent sources. Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also in WP:BAND, which you cross-reference, the Leonkoro (and the Esme) comfortably meet notability criterion 9, "Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition." They could qualify under a couple of the other criteria as well. In both cases the sources include not only the quarter's website (which is just for cross-reference) but accounts of the competition wins from Wigmore Hall and other independent sources. Note that both Wigmore hall and the competition itself are rated as sufficiently important that they have their own Wikipedia articles. Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see one thing that could have caused confusion - I haven't mentioned the publishers specifically in the various references (magazines, concert halls, the BBC etc). I'll add those now, hopefully that will make it clearer that these are multiple independent sources. Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't immediately clear from the article that that they are not just competitors. Your best bet to resubmit it and wait for another WP:AFC reviewer to take a look at it. It will be some weeks, but you will be guaranteed a review at some point.   scope_creep Talk  18:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks very much for the hints on improvement which I think have made the article better now and hopefully will get a more positive result this time round. Is there any mechanism by which you can change your original decision if you now feel the article has been improved sufficiently? It took 2-3 months before it was initially reviewed. I get the impression that Wikipedia is struggling a bit to keep reviewers and authors - some articles don't seem to get updated as regularly as they did in the past, on a range of subjects. Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

AfD
You may be interested in participating in this AfD. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  19:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi How goes it. I had a look at that article last night, but unfortunately I don't know much about American football or sports in general. I did look from those references which I thought were quite promo and mostly useles and it looked like a good case for delete, but its hard to determine the context without knowing much about the sport. No real depth of knowledge on that at all.    scope_creep Talk  10:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Was just curious about your thoughts because I know you're experienced with WP:ORG. Thanks anyways though! –– Formal Dude  (talk)  10:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Jersey shore offshoot series season articles
Jersey Shore was a very popular American reality show. There were six seasons. We have the List of Jersey Shore episodes, and we do not have Jersey Shore (series 1)--through 6 articles.There exist national offshoots, British, Spanish + Spanish-speaking regional reboot, Mexican, Polish, Brazilian, and German+Swiss. And the recent American reboot All Star Shore.The offshoots are regionally famous and obviously notable but not as globally famous or influential as the original American series. Of the aforementioned offshoots, there are those who have corresponding lists of episodes: Now... The British and the Polish versions have not only the list of episodes, they have standalone pages for each season (UK version category; Polish version category); the Mexican version has such pages for some but not all of the seasons (category). As said, the original series does not have standalone pages for each season.I am not crazy about consistency, and consistency is not the answer to every question, but if there is a question here, do you think that something to the practical effect of consistency could be the answer to that question? These thoughts appeared in my head after seeing Warsaw Shore (series 19) in the new pages feed. Best —Alalch E. 16:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * List of Geordie Shore episodes (British version)
 * List of Warsaw Shore episodes (Polish version)
 * List of Acapulco Shore episodes (Mexican version)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Linda Gerdner
Hello, Scope creep. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Linda Gerdner, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Randomreader162
Thanks for allowing me to ping you in case i have questions. I see that there are some scientists and academics that are quite notable but do not have wikipedia pages. Can I contribute to that ? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomreader162 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Yes of course. Wikipedia is always looking for extra articles on scientists. There is also many many scientists from the past and deep past who made really important contributions to humanity and either have very poor articles, or articles that need expanded or don't have articles at all. If you need any kind of help, please ping me. See WP:THREAD. New message go at the bottom of the talk page.   scope_creep Talk  16:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am always making extra contributions to scientists and researchers with notable visibility.
 * If you have a list that you believe I can contribute to, please share.
 * On the other hand, I have a few names that I am planning to create extra articles about, any idea how I can get started ?
 * Thanks alot. Randomreader162 18:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a list of scientists off hand. Certainly the best way of getting started is to perhaps create a sandbox in your user page and create the article in there. Either that or create a WP:DRAFT article. This template here: Template:Biography shows you how to create the layout for a biograpgy.  Generally when you create an article you follow the WP:MOS. What I can do is create a sandbox in your user page, if you want, so you can can get started. That way you can create the article and then copy it to draft for review. If its in good condition, I take a look at it as a WP:AFC, if it is good nick I can copy it directly to mainspace. Start by creating a stub. It should describe the name of the family,  places born and died, profession, why the person is notable and some details on the persons working careers. References should be WP:SECONDARY in nature. I can add and few other things, when it comes to it. Will I create a sandbox for you?    scope_creep Talk  18:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you have various links in your user page already.  scope_creep Talk  20:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do create a sandbox for me. Thank you so much for your help. Randomreader162 23:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Do you have a particular scientist you plan to do first? I will create a wee sandbox for you.    scope_creep Talk  09:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Right I've create a link for a sandbox in you userpage. I'll help you create a structure for it.  scope_creep Talk  09:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done some thorough search through notable scientists/researchers. I think "Ahmad Bazzi" is a researcher and youtuber that very much deserves to have a wikipedia page. I have went through many relevant links regarding his patents, publications, news coverage, awards, and his youtube channel. Thanks. Randomreader162 14:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it Ahmad Bazzi, the UAE electrical engineer? He doesn't look notable and if any article created on him, it would likely get deleted. Reason for that is lack of coverage and youtube streaming numbers are well below the established threshold.   scope_creep Talk  14:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But the guy has got well-known patents, with 287000 subscribers on youtube, as well as 17 million + views. There are pages here with less stats and yet have a wikipedia page, e.g. this guy. Ahmad Bazzi also has been awarded several awards and has been covered on some news pages, and has a PhD in Electrical Engineering. Randomreader162 16:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject is not anywhere close to notable. I'm sure there is lots of non-notable scientists and influencers on Wikipedia. That is not an execuse to create another non-notable scientist. Its not your perchance? Patents are non-rs on Wikipedia. They are never shown anywhere here.    scope_creep Talk  20:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand. Just trying to figure out a rule as guidelines are not so clear to me. Anyways, thanks! Randomreader162 00:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They're must be lots of the scientists and academics from the middle east which you can work on?   scope_creep Talk  06:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you propose some ? Randomreader162 15:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a search over the weekend. I found this women Tohfa Handoussa. She is a notable Egyptologist from Egypt. I got her from this list WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/ESIO which is part of WP:WIR. WIR is women in red, a project to increase the number of women on wikipedia, whicch is rising but is at historicallly low levels. This list WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index contains all the redlinks they want to turn into articles. Its worth joining.    scope_creep Talk  14:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I spent a goodly amount of looking but it not really my area. I would ask at the wikiprojecy WikiProject Western Asia.   scope_creep Talk  14:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This dude has an absurd h-index Bassim H. Hameed. He needs an article. This dude as well Sami Sayadi. More than notable.  scope_creep Talk  14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This man is ideal for an article. Rachik Soualah The guy is living on Pluto. He is a kind of super scientist that needs an article immediately. I would go for this dude. Hope that helps. You could have a whole series of these scientists, by this time next year. They are ideal to work on as they are all notable.    scope_creep Talk  14:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Leave me alone
I've said many times, but I'll say again for the record:

'''Please leave me alone. I do not want to interact with you in any capacity.'''

--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I could have left a series of warning messages as they're is a series of warning template specifically for this but thought it would be impersonal to do that, considering the interactions we have had, or lack thereof. Either way, it is unacceptable for an established editor who had been here for donkey's not to use edit summaries. Now either you decide not to use edit summaries, and that is fine by me, its your decision, or you decide to use them, which is fine by me as well and I would happy to see that. If you don't use them, there is one process for this and I will follow it, in two weeks time. Take that as read.     scope_creep Talk  17:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Alexander Radó
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alexander Radó, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Scope_creep&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1176283075 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Rad%C3%B3&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1176283075%7CAlexander%20Radó%5D%5D Ask for help])

Thank you for reviewing Semiabelian group (Galois theory)
Thank you for reviewing the draft. Thanks to the advice you gave me when you reviewed that draft, I split the references in the references of another draft I'm currently working on into Citations and Bibliography. By the way, I'm wondering if I should delete the Draft:Semiabelian group and the Draft:Semiabelian groups, which are redirects to the main space, and it's my fault those drafts are redirected to the main space. This is because I thought that there might be a notion called Semiabelian group, which is different from semiabelian variety (scheme) and Semiabelian group (Galois theory), and I thought that someone might want to create a draft about it. Also, I received some advice on what to be careful about when redirecting drafts to the main space. (See WT:AfC) SilverMatsu (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks. I think it is good idea to delete them. You generally don't have redirects from draft space to mainspace.  They are not speedy delete targets unfortunately, so I'll need to list them at Redirects for Discussion.  I'll list them now as simply "Created in error". How would that sound. They might end being speedied by a admin but I don't know.    scope_creep Talk  08:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Created by mistake" sounds better. That is them posted.   scope_creep Talk  08:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much ! --SilverMatsu (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter
Hello ,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Jan Dieters.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jan Dieters.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add permission pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука13 23:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Jan Dieters.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jan Dieters.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука13 10:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

John Urho Kemp
Thank you for reviewing the article. I have now added some links as requested. Mleppanen (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Can you resubmit the draft. Thanks.    scope_creep Talk  19:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Scope creep, it should be now resubmitted. Thank you. Mleppanen (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Alan Jackson (businessman)
Hi, I noticed that you removed ‘non-notable awards’ of Jackson. However, those awards are the most notable in the business world, and I would encourage you to reverse those changes due to that prominence. If you research those awards, they are the most important in the UK and Australia. What are your thought on this? Thanks. Carey3146 (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Corporate awards are generally not notable, that is why you do don't see them in most modern WP:BLP articles. The reason for this is that corporate awards are handed out like water. Often they are not given out for any specific or general achievements but more to generate social cohesiveness within a particular type of group for example the finance industry or startups for example or a fellowship or an association. On top of that, the people themselves who get these awards, don't attribute any value to them, which make particularly troublesome to prove they are notable. They go straight in the bin.  So generally when you see these achievement or corporate awards, remove them. That is the consensus. So when you see these junk awards, then please remove them from Wikipedia. They are junk and are don't provide any kind of encyclipeadic or historical viewpoint that can be attributed to the subject.    scope_creep Talk  09:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Alan Jackson (businessman) article has been marked for compression. I intend to stubify it to remove the majority of WP:PRIMARY sources that have been heavily used for some reason, which is against policy.   scope_creep Talk  09:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you mean half a dozen references used out of 37, seem like they aren't heavily used to me but up to you if you interpret that small amount as 'heavily used'. Carey3146 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll look at all of the refs, so no need to worry. I was wondering if your being paid to write this article? If so you will need to disclose.   scope_creep Talk  07:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no I’m not being paid to make this article, just interested. Carey3146 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw the coin noticeboard entry and thought I would ask. Thanks.   scope_creep Talk  10:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * you still do not seem to be getting it. Saying "No I'm not being paid" is fine. Saying "just intersted" is a problem, because you have a conflict of interest, which means you are more than "just interested". The conflict of interest guidelines clearly say If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. I am still hopeful that you can remain as a productive editor, but in order to do so, you will need to start being more transparent in discussions like this one. Melcous (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me about the precise guidlines regarding this. Carey3146 (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect your going to end up being blocked, as your not being honest. The two articles are quite obscure individuals and level of detail that has been added seems to me to be done by somebody who is close to them, from my own experience. You don't get new editors creatings these types of articles unless they are paid to do it.   scope_creep Talk  20:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

question
Scope_creep, I have a RfC Talk:COVID-19 pandemic that needs an uninvolved editor to close, as its been up for some time, I realize you may be busy, should you have the time to take a look I would be in your debt, thank you Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi How goes it? I can take a look at it on Thursday at the earliest.     scope_creep Talk  21:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I really appreciate it, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, I archived some older posts on that page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm finishing work shortly and I will complete it this afternoon. I read over it several times yesterday and on wednesday. I think I've read it about 12 times now, so know what to say. I get on it later today.    scope_creep Talk  14:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

COIN - Carey3146
I have just made a formal proposal at the current foot of this topic. I am leaving this message on all this discussion's participants' talk pages to draw attention to the proposal. Your opinion, whatever it may be, is welcome at that proposal 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

TWL: UK National Archives request
Hi Scope creep. We were just reviewing our Wikipedia Library suggestions page, and I noticed you suggested that we should partner with the UK National Archives. I just wondered if you could elaborate on that request - from browsing their website it doesn't look like they host digitised content which is paywalled, but I might be missing something - if they do it would be really helpful if you could share a link to it. Thanks! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Samwalton9 (WMF), How goes it? When I originally posted that request, which was sometime ago, I was looking for documents, where some were digitised and some werent. You could request an undigitised documents, they would would digitise it for a cost, but that cost would sometime be prohibitive and I'm not talking 10 or 20 quid. The digitised version were accessible but you had to access their reading room. When I did a calculation on the documents I needed, it added up to a very significant cost. It was hundreds of pounds. That was perhaps 3 or 4 maybe 5 years ago. Things have changed since then. I sent them email around the same  time, asking if could get them for gratis as I never heard anything back from the Library request. They must have taken notice, as they changed the access, so that if create an account, you can get the digitised document for free, which is been a real boon. Otherwise it is £3.50 to download But the question of the undigitised stuff still remains. I think you still have to visit their reading room in London, which effectively means it locked up. It would be great if that was addressed somehow. Regarding the link, I'm working on a different area now and don't really have anything to point to. If I see something as an example of type of document I can't acces, i'll ping you.    scope_creep Talk  19:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the context! Much appreciated. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

On Johann Wenzel's arrest date
Regarding the exact date Johann Wenzel was arrested by Gestapo, when I read it on Rote Kapelle's entry, I thought a bit odd that if Gestapo raided his hideout during the night of 29-30 Jun 1942, then why would he be eventually arrested on 30 Jul 1942 instead?

Plus, there're two other Wikipedia entries mentioning Johann Wenzel but discrepancies existing on when he was arrested---

(1) In Sonderkommando Rote Kapelle#Formation, it said "On the 30 July 1942, the Funkabwehr identified a further house at 12 Rue de Namur, Brussels and raided it. As well as arresting Soviet agent and radio specialist Johann Wenzel, two messages that were waiting to be encyphered were discovered in the house that contained details of such startling content, the plans for Case Blue, that Henry Piepe immediately drove to Berlin from Brussels to report to German High Command."

So it put the date squarely on 30 Jul 1942, but the problem is---

(2) In Leopold Trepper#Rue des Atrébates, when talking about Johann Wenzel and another agent, "On 29–30 June 1942, the house that Wenzel was transmitting from, 12 Rue de Namur in Brussels, was raided by the local police under the command of Abwehr officer Harry Piepe.[56] Wenzel was interrogated and tortured by the Gestapo for six to eight weeks and confessed to everything, including the cypher keys he used and his code name,[57] which allowed the Funkabwehr to decipher a large amount of back traffic belonging to the group.[2] After Wenzel's arrest, Jeffremov tried to hide, but was arrested on 22 July 1942 while trying to obtain false identity papers."

So as you can see here, Wenzel apparently was arrested on 30 Jun 1942, that's why when mentioning Konstantin Jeffremov, it mentioned Jeffremov was arrested on 22 Jul 1942, and that occurred after Wenzel's arrest, so apparently Wenzel can't be arrested on 30 Jul 1942, otherwise how can you reconcile all the facts regarding Wenzel and Jeffremov? Bf0325 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi How goes it? I missed that when I was writing the article. I never took it on, that it was set to a month later when he was running across the rooftops and caught during that night. Pretty funny I thought when you fixed it. He was running across the rooftops for a whole month. It made me laugh.  I'm glad you fixed it. They had a whole block surrounded by Luftwaffe men as well. The reason that it was set that because the reference I used was Kesaris, which states it was a 30 July. Its a obvious mistake now its visible. However Perrault and Dallin and Tennant all state it was the night of the 30th.  The Sonderkommando article must be wrong as well. I will fix it today if its not fixed already. I will check the latest book by Guillaume Bourgeois as well, just in case there is something else going on that we've missed. I will check the Jeffremov date as well. I'll check it now.    scope_creep Talk  09:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll fix the Sonderkommando today and change the ref to Bourgeois.   scope_creep Talk  09:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Stray note-to-self comment
You added a note to yourself on the François Rabelais talk page. I'm copying it for you here so you can remember what you wanted to do on another page. Todo:Hutchon 1994 ref to add in Moreau --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't do that again. There is a reason that it on there. And its not a note to self. It is start of a todo list. Your the first editor since I came here in 2005 who has ever done that.   scope_creep Talk  17:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please explain its relation to François Rabelais. Also please explain your edit-warring a note back into the main body of the text despite the BRD process encouraging you to get consensus for your addition on the t/p (in the section where I explained the reason for the revert). That edit is not an improvement. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Its not a standalone paragraph, that is probably the reason you did that note thing.  The article is being expanded by a group using the fr Wikipedia article as a basis. It is really well written and references. Its just the first paragraph of my first edit to the article. I will expanded from 40k to 170k, so it will be a major expansion. This is the last article we worked on. Black market in wartime France.  I'll left you a note on the talk page of the article, just this second right enough. You probably haven't read it yet. Sorry, I've accusing of the exact same thing. Don't remove it until that section is completed, please, then it can be discussed.    scope_creep Talk  17:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a least 4 of us going to work on it. Hopefully you will join us.   scope_creep Talk  17:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where was this group of 4 formed? -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't really formed as such. I helped out on a couple of articles then it expanded from there. We did a couple of archeology articles, then we worked a big military history article, a couple of other folk joined, then some other stuff, now were are on this. Its been about a year I think. The last wartime article seemed to go really well. We got a lot of specialist help, it was done in weeks instead of months.    scope_creep Talk  18:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is another talk page comment that follows the same pattern:  Talk pages are not fora, you've been here a long time, you should be aware that article talk pages are not where people go to read what Lou Lambda has put in their Amazon cart. I don't mean to be unpleasant. I'm very happy that you're interested in learning more about Rabelais. I hope that you will be respectful of the learning curve, which is steep. (He's erudite in ways we can scarcely imagine today.) Which books did you order? Have you ever read any of Rabelais' books? -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 17:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Moving this here was disrespectful. So was hatting *my* comment. We all realize the learning curve, Sashi, that is why we're discussing things on the talk page. Nobody appointed you talk page monitor. Possibly if you do not understand why I said something there, it would be because it was not directed to you. Possibly, just possibly the remark about getting the book is a progress report. That you are acting as though both were completely unrelated is discouraging. I haven't looked at the history yet today and I dislike working with people with whom I have to do that. I have RL stuff to do. We're having to modify the way we've done things because of your hypervigilance. This is ok; more eyes are a good thing. But it would be nice if this accomodation were reciprocated with a little courtesy. I don't want to argue and I don't want to fight. But as I see it at the moment, the problem here is that you think you know.

Scope creep, I added a little content and a couple of references. The Oxford bibliography seems to be a good summary. I suggest a look at that. Elinruby (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Morning I will take a look. You mentioned that you did a basic translation of the Geoffroy d'Estissac fr article. I was looking for to see if it could be sourced. Is it a draft.  No. not a draft. Must be a sandbox. I found some refs for him in gbooks, enough to support an article.  Regarding the above, its extremly bad behaviour. I don't expect to see that kind of behaviour nor to deal with it, its bugs me, as its a continually disruptive. It breaks my flow of concentration and I find it quite to start it again. I will continue for a couple of weeks to see how it pans out. At the moment I thinking of sending these books back to abebooks and amazon. There is one coming from a french bookstore. It will take maybe 2 weeks to arrive (due to Brexit). If its not improved by that time, I will probably bail. There is other big articles needing work,  so many of them,and more archeology articles to create.    scope_creep Talk  13:38, 23 October ry2023 (UTC)
 * fr.wikipedia sandbox sorry. Feel free; it's about 90% done and I think I already figured out the Catholic nomenclature, but let me know if you have questions. Jean and Joachim Du Bellay have articles but I bet they could be expanded, btw. RL calls Elinruby (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

it is not going to be possible to improve that article
Sorry. Elinruby (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats cool. I know how you feel. I saw the comment. A couple of days ago I was ready to leave the project and know how how you feel. There is other stuff to work on.   scope_creep Talk  17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * dealt with comments before. What did it is suggested sources getting hatted. Elinruby (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Scope creep:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent reversion on Harald Poelchau
Hello,

Regarding the reversion you made here, I believe my edit complies with existing Wikipedia policy. My reasons are these:

Template:Cite news says "The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited." "Not normally used for periodicals." 1. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. is not a company, organization or legal entity. 2. A periodical is anything that comes out periodically. Magazines, newspapers, and journals are all periodicals. The New York Times Magazine is a periodical. 3. WP:CS1 says "For example, the "publisher" parameter should be omitted in these examples:


 * newspaper=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Company
 * newspaper=USA Today|publisher=Gannett Company" Kaltenmeyer (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I was hoping you would explain how your edit complies with Wikipedia policies, like I did. A request for a third opinion was made here Third opinion. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to your edit.   scope_creep Talk  14:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I intend to also start a discussion about your personal attacks against me. ~ Stravensky (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

New article
I just noticed you recently created the St Rollox Chemical Works article. Good to see - it is a topic on which I had been feeling an article is needed. AllyD (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For some reason I came across it. I'm not exactly sure when or why but its been on a todo list for more than ten years. There seems to a lot of these big factories around Glasgow and in Scotland from the past, that are not Wikipedia, so I plan to do a whole series on them if I can find enough on them.     scope_creep Talk  12:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been wondering about Dixon's Blazes as a potential topic. It is sometimes the case that biographical articles exist for individuals associated with a historical development that shaped the urban environment rather than for that development itself. At the same time, I am cautious about creating articles here simply because their corresponding Wikidata items could be convenient in my attempts at data-driven views of historical developments! AllyD (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would tend to feel the same and its something I need to look at.  On St Rollox, the one thing I did find which I found suprising, was the large number of sources, both on the people, the plant itself and its processes, particularly from the chemical journals of the period. I thought it would be very hard going, but managed to add an article on James MacTear.  The longegivity of the plant operating more than 100 years certainly added to that. It's really rich in that respect. The article will probably expand to three times its current size.  Regards Dixon's Blazes. I hadn't heard of this either. Who knew there was a steel works in Govan.  It seemed to be in in operation for more than 180 years, so there should be a rich sources there. I don't mind writing an article on this. Another thing I was planning to do at some point was an article on Glasgow's slave trade. I got a book "Glasgow Sugar Aristocracy" for free when it was published. It provides a very detailed look at the episode.     scope_creep Talk  14:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:The Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society
I hope this is the right way to address a response to your having declined my submission on the IT'IS Foundation. Your reason: "Article is full of external links in the body, which are illegal." At the time of that submission, I had already removed, I thought, all external links. When I recently started editing the article again, I found one more external link in the main text, which I thought I had deleted. It was an oversight. I would hardly describe it, however, as "full of external links".

The article was first declined by Theroadislong: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

The article was next declined by DoubleGrazing: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.", with an additional comment suggesting that the (at that time) 31 references are too many references.

Regarding the feedback from Theroadislong, I would argue that the article has been largely scrubbed of language that might be regarded as "self-promotional". Please compare the language to that of other articles about research institutes, e.g., Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) -- the language in the IT'IS Foundation draft is at least as "encyclopedic" in style as that of the FWO article. The references in the IT'IS article are mainly to scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals. By comparison, the references in the FWO article are far less independent than those in the IT'IS article.

To DoubleGrazing, I replied (see the draft's talk tab), that it is difficult to resolve that there is too much unreferenced content but too many references, and that all of the references meet the GNG standard.

I am again updating the text of the draft and plan to resubmit soon. I am ever hopeful that whoever reviews the draft will find it worthy of publication. PLBounds (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't removed all the external links.   scope_creep Talk  20:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess the list of services in the info box are what you mean -- these are now removed. The external link to the landing page of the IT'IS website remains in the info box, but that is ok, right? PLBounds (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

wikilinks in external links
Hi Scope creep. I redid my lint fix edit to User talk:Scope creep/Archive 5 with great pains to preserve the original appearance except for the inevitable minimal change at the links in links error. I have fixed lint errors on thousands of user talk pages, and so have numerous other editors, and there is usually no problem, but when there is, I aim to fix it as quickly as possible. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Article review response
Thanks for reviewing the article on Bona Montagu earlier this week. It seems you had some concerns regarding notability and lack of sources and I am quite puzzled by that.

1. Among the citations, there is a video interview on BBC and an extended feature in the Evening Standard. There is also an article from AnOther magazine with an extended interview with this person which I can add: https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/9602/the-new-exhibition-examining-appropriation-in-art All of the sources above arguably fulfil the criteria of notability, i.e. significant, reliable, independent, secondary. Can you please elaborate on why these are insufficient or how I can improve the article?

2. There are only a handful of experts in the art world, including this person, and for many people familiar with this area, this would be a very relevant wikipedia entry. Moreover, there are a number of directly comparable wikipedia pages which are live and do not have notability concerns - please see below examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patti_Wong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollie_Dent-Brocklehurst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Tsingou

3. I know that the topic of the art world may not be familiar to some editors/reviewers but it doesn't mean that lack of awareness of the topic should penalise the contents. I noticed that there isn't even a specific page on notability criteria for arts or arts organisations (unlike e.g. popular music). Arts and the art world is an area I'm passionate about and I would like to see more material on this online and in Wikipedia specifically.

Considering the proposed changes and points above, would you consider reinstating the article or getting a second opinion on it from another editor? Thank you Fourquartetts (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi How goes it? I'm particularly sympathetic to art articles, playwrights, poets, writers, artists and so on, even if the coverage is not wholly there, if I can do something about, I would, but there must be at least some indication that the person is notable. The WP:BLP is particularly careful to describe what constitutes a good source in this respect and unfortunately the article doesn't have. Interviews can't be used to establish notability. It really needs WP:SECONDARY coverage if it is a BLP. I didn't really see it, although I wanted to see it. I've sent the Mollie Dent-Brocklehurst article to Afd. It is a worse condition than the Bona Montagu article. I would keep it in draft until you find better quality sources that prove the person is notable. Not those breathless "Meet Bona..." articles,  which are PR and paid for.  I hope that helps.    scope_creep Talk  14:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a full paragraph that is unsourced.    scope_creep Talk  14:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Morning Mollie Dent-Brocklehurst seems to be notable and is now being expanded which is ideal. I'll will help you get the article back to mainspace in the next couple of days but it will need an independent review at Afc.     scope_creep Talk  06:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Scope_creep, many thanks for your reply.
 * Sounds good - look forward to seeing the article back in the main space. It's good that Mollie Dent-Brocklehurst's notability was confirmed. Bona Montagu's basic notability, role in the art world, and past roles, etc WP:BASIC is similarly supported by multiple secondary media articles and mentions.
 * In the meantime, I will continue working on the article. I will add a link to a source from Another magazine, etc. Fourquartetts (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Scope_creep, how are you? The article still seems to be offline - could you please help me reinstate it in the main space? thanks! Fourquartetts (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is still a section, a whole paragraph in fact starting with "In 1993 Montagu also started working for Christie’s Contemporary Department in London" that is unsourced. As a WP:BLP there can be no unsourced content at all. No single sentence.    scope_creep Talk  13:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep, I have added new citations and updated accordingly. Are you happy to move it back to mainspace? Many thanks. Fourquartetts (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a lot better. Can you please submit it for review so and independent editor cant determine if its notable. It shouldn't take too long as the Afc queue has been severly reduced as a late. Thanks.    scope_creep Talk  11:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is only 280 articles in the WP:AFC queue so it should only take a couple of days to be review. Assuming its notable, if needs work I'll do it. There is still one thing to fix but it is sent to mainspace.   scope_creep Talk  11:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Scope creep, I have now submitted it for review. Fourquartetts (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

About your draftification of Until This Shakes Apart‎
Hey Scope creep, I'm the AfC reviewer who accepted that article into the mainspace. I'm curious as to why you don't think the article establishes the subject's notability, as there are three reviews cited in the article that have non-trivial discussion of the album — more than enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM, in my opinion. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The references were particularly poor on but I see its already been updated somewhat and looks a lot better now.   scope_creep Talk  10:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I just want to note that, by itself, the presense of unreliable sources is not a valid reason to draftify the article. You need to articulate something about the article that could resonably result in a deletion if taken to AfD; I hope you'll keep that in mind for the future. That being said, do you have anything else you would like the AfC submitter to address before I move the page back to mainspace? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Asking here again, as I don't want to unintentionally edit-war with you over the namespace. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi Scope creep :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Große Berliner Kunstausstellung‎
I had moved an article over a redirect, but the redirect wasn't pointing to the article I moved, so in the GBK article, I changed the link to point to the target of the original redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That said... you may still be right. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a look for the guy. I thought maybe he was a skier and then later became an artist when his sking career finished. But I realised its the wrong period.   scope_creep Talk  15:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People of the Saefkow-Jacob-Bästlein Organisation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georg Schumann.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Free fatty acid receptor
Scope Creep, the Free fatty acid receptor page is a review of 5 receptors but has gene I.D. boxes for only 4, Free fatty acids 1, 2, and 3 plus G protein coupled receptor 4. The article needs to add a gene box of free fatty acid receptor 4. How do I add this gene box. Thank you.Joflaher (talk) 1:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Hi Would you be able to add that in?  scope_creep Talk  15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not know how to retrieve a gene I.D. box but would be happy to learn how. joflaher (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Joflaher, I'll take a look and see what the I.D. box. I don't have much experience with it either.   scope_creep Talk  17:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've asked editor who created the original article,  if he can assist. It's well beyond my capabilities. If BogHog can't help, I'll open a request at the help desk or the reference desk tommorrow.    scope_creep Talk  17:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My new sign in
Scope Creep, I will soon by changing my computer system sign in from my work to my home computer. When I stry to sign in from home, it does not recognize me an requires that I sign in with a new identity. Is there any way that I can sign in from my home system using my current I.D.? Thanks. (talk) 8:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should be able to do so without a problem. Assuming you know your login account name which is Joflaher and your password, you should be able to login anywhere you have a browser. Are you using your correct password?   scope_creep Talk  17:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ami Dror
Greetings again. Regarding Draft:Ami Dror, could you please reconsider and move it to the mainspace? It has been expanded since your last review. --Omer Toledano (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you moved that Yifat Balassiano article back to mainspace without a review, when the references on BLP are an absolute mess. Its going to Afs. If you move that Draft:Ami Dror back to mainspace, I intend to take you to WP:ANI for distruptive editing and subverting process.   scope_creep Talk  07:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

 * Merry Christmas. I like your e-card.  scope_creep Talk  09:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

COIN?
Hi Scope creep, I hope this New Year finds you well. I don't feel particularly wise in the ways of COIN, but I have some questions related to what has been happening at James Sexton (attorney), and previously at Articles for deletion/Lisa Helfend Meyer and Articles for deletion/Ulike.

Also, as background, some of my edits to the Sexton article have been followed by edits to articles I created: See e.g. 25 Dec 2023 talk page discussion; 4 January 2024:, , , ; after I left a warning for the 4 Jan edits, , I got the same warning on my user talkpage for the Sexton article. I tried to clean up what appears to be substantial WP:BOMBARDMENT, including to help make a notability determination, but I am done for now. The article creator also removed refimprove, advert, and COI tags added by another editor, , ,.

Any thoughts you may have are appreciated. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Beccaynr I ONLY removed the word "expert" from your article in 4 separate edits because I thought that was a fluffy word that need not be there. In comparison, you are making much more substantial changes on my newly created article. Since you really think the word "expert" is so necessary 4 times in an article, I reconsidered and left it alone. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr The situation with Lisa Helfend Meyer's and Ulike's articles were much different. Sexton's article is indeed notable, and the AfD reasons for Meyer and Ulike are unrelated. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, Happy New Year as well. Hope this message finds you well.
 * @Beccaynr, If you have any problems with my editing, please reach out directly to my Talk Page. I am happy to hear your views. Any time I attempted to make constructive edits to your Wikipedia articles, you got very defensive (reverted my edits) and attacked my articles in bulk. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr - Laura Wasser's article reads more like an Advert than Sexton's. I had already cleaned up what you thought to be WP: Bombardment. That COI tag was put up by a new editor who just created an article for divorce lawyer Jacqueline Newman (lawyer) (with 0 references) and all of his articles were being flagged for advert and COI. Immediately after this, he made the judgement to do that which I thought did not qualify as he was in a compromised position and did not write on the talk page which is customary. I was continuing to review Sexton's media appearances to gather his personal views to add to the page at which point you removed the reliable sources. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr To clarify, refimprove was put up by me not another editor BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr, Wikipedia is supposed to be about assuming good faith. I have done nothing to warrant any such suspicions. I am an honest Wikipedia editor who does not get paid and only seeks to improve the world's access to knowledge. You (and only you) have been targeting me and this really is not justified and your accusations are baseless. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * was the nominator at the Lisa Helfend Meyer and Ulike AfDs, and has also worked on Hush (business), another article you created, e.g., , , so maybe they can offer some guidance here. Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With Ulike, I heard about the laser hair removal product (noticed many hair removal companies have Wikipedia pages), which led me to creating the page. With Hush (business), I heard about their mattress (noticed many mattress companies have Wikipedia pages), which led me to creating the page. With Lisa Helfend Meyer, I have a fascination in divorce lawyers (noticed many lawyers have Wikipedia pages), which led me to create the page. Each of those cases is unique in terms of content and sourcing. If you don't agree with the particular tone in those articles, well sorry we were not on the same page and I tried diligently to correct that and follow all the proper reliable sourcing rules. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot here, and I am not sure I really follow what BeFriendlyGoodSir is saying here. The James Sexton article is full of fluff and resume padding, and edits like this one are just unacceptable: a whole bunch of "cited as an expert" links, in this edit to YouTubed versions of a podcast, that's resume padding. Fluff about his ex-wife and his hobbies is cited to his own podcast, which is unacceptable, and the removal of the tags is also not OK. What's happening in this edit is actually the opposite of the claimed removal of puffery: first of all, the source is a publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and second, the cited critique actually criticized the subject of the article, a book. (For BeFriendly's knowledge of reliable sources, see this edit, in response to a note by, and this one and others on the Ulike AfD.) If BeFriendly is proving anything with that edit, it might be that they are hounding the other editor: I linked that for your reading pleasure, BeFriendly. Also, this could have come with an apology of sorts. And then there's the "discuss it on my talk page" thing: you blank everything that's posted on your talk page--that's not transparent or collaborative. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW I restored the tags on James Sexton (attorney) (placed there by User:NamanNomad). I believe they are valid. I don't think BeFriendly ever addressed the COI--maybe it's in the deleted bits of their talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, hm. I will review your comments and reevaluate… I apologize that I am not doing this right. I’ll try to be more cooperative and a better wikipedian. I can try restoring and keep up the talk page for everyone’s review. I want to reiterate I do not have Conflicts of Interest in terms of any close relationship with the subject of the article. But since you don’t trust me, I am not resisting. Best, BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Scope creep, Beccaynr, I think the only one who doesn't see a COI here is BeFriendly--that is, BeFriendly, according to at me and at least one, maybe two other editors, your edits are indistinguishable from those of a COI editor. Scope creep, if you like, we can take this to COIN and see what happens there--we could consensus for a partial block, if BeFriendly continues editing in this fashion. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll stop editing the page...now that I know you want to enforce those rules, I will refrain. No need for a partial block. I will obey the orders. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, here's what is going on with Sexton article. I first learned about him through the Lex Fridman podcast, I was intrigued and bought his book, read it, and tuned into all his podcasts online and media commentary. I have obsessive behavior, have inclusionist tendencies and go overboard with wanting to know every little detail about someone and wanting to share it at a fault. I spent probably 20 hours listening to his podcasts, so when I saw the info getting deleted my initial response was not ideal. I can see now that the references are not necessarily available (I thought Youtube was allowed as a reference) to support sentences on the page, and that sharing all these details, while interesting to me, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is all done with good intentions. This is a giant misunderstanding, I have been slow to pick up all the rules. That is not to say it is all improperly sourced (i guess you will decide on that). Regarding the Talk Page, no one seemed to care that my content was not on there. I thought it was generally nothing of importance. It looked like a mess to me, filled with old interactions, I wanted to clean it up. If you think transparency in that respect is important, I have no problems adding it all back. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just back. I'll take a look at this tommorrow morning. Dead to the world. Article looks dodgy. There is something going on.    scope_creep Talk  22:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not editing on the page anymore. I have made my final edit. I will not interfere. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Update: BeFriendly is now blocked, after CU. Thanks Beccaynr, Drmies (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that up Beccaynr. I'm sorry I didn't have time to action it. I was helping a friend move quickly after her house was flooded with a frozen pipe that had broke and then unfroze, over a couple of days. The whole thing left me knackered and still moving yet. Thanks  for a prompt response. I would have taken the editor to coin. The articles are dreadful. One had 33 out of 50 social media links as refs. Seemed to be like a UPE, with the diverse content, more than somebody with a standard coi, writing for a friend or a colleague, for example. I'm glad they are gone. Good work and well done. It needs more active editors in coin as in most boards, particularly copyright.   scope_creep Talk  09:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All the best to your friend, Scope creep, and thanks for helping them out. I remember frozen pipes and flooding--yes, even Alabama has cold spells sometimes. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Weber revert
Hi can you explain your reversion? Thanks!Rich (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi I don't think it was accurate and your edit summary was offensive. I wouldn't have put in, if it wasn't in the source text somewhere. Certainly wouldn't have invented an anecdote. I have no connection to the man.   scope_creep Talk  08:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'll try and find that anecdote in the couple of days. I'll put it on my todo list. Find the source for it. I think it I know where it is. I've found it.  scope_creep Talk  09:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Scope, sorry, I was damn offensive without thinking! I thought it might have been from a drivethu wikipedian taking potshots at dishonorable notables(like nazis), (which is understandable but not encyclopedic), like i have encountered in the past. I could have checked more carefully! I apologize!Rich (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It states:
 * "Landau was a stickler for absolute accuracy in such matters, and on occasion, when the printed work did not meet his specifications, he would send in a list of typographical corrections to be printed, including such matters as misplaced commas. Despite the evaluation of his thesis, Weber's abilities as a mathematician were apparently modest, and his editorial work for Landau led to the widespread joke that his greatest ability was "being able to tell the dot on an italic i from the dot on a standard i."

That seems to be accurate. P.128 Segal 2003 is the book I have.  scope_creep Talk  09:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)