User talk:Scope creep
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14
January music
[edit] | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had it). My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Happy New Year @Gerda:. I hope you have a great and successful New Year!! Tom Johnson, "Nine Bells". I've not heard that. I really like that abstract/minimalist stuff, Its very peaceful but don't like the footsteps. I wonder if they are meant to be part of it, the movement itself is part of the piece. I was listening to Hymm, Mixmaster Morris, Pete Namlook this morning. I keep listening to this, "The real dream of sails" by Harold Budd and Steve Reich and Clair Chase (together) now and again e.g. "Vermont Counterpoint". The seem to collaborate with Phillip Glass now and again, who i've been listening too since my 20's. It seems chaotic but it is intensely ordered, or possibly chaos into order. scope_creepTalk 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just love that last sentence! - Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Happy New Year @Gerda:. I hope you have a great and successful New Year!! Tom Johnson, "Nine Bells". I've not heard that. I really like that abstract/minimalist stuff, Its very peaceful but don't like the footsteps. I wonder if they are meant to be part of it, the movement itself is part of the piece. I was listening to Hymm, Mixmaster Morris, Pete Namlook this morning. I keep listening to this, "The real dream of sails" by Harold Budd and Steve Reich and Clair Chase (together) now and again e.g. "Vermont Counterpoint". The seem to collaborate with Phillip Glass now and again, who i've been listening too since my 20's. It seems chaotic but it is intensely ordered, or possibly chaos into order. scope_creepTalk 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
|
The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award | |
| This award is given in recognition to Scope creep for conducting 856 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
- Hi @Hey man im josh: Are you sure its as high as that. I don't feel as though I did that much. scope_creepTalk 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what the quarry query we use tells us. A little bit here and there goes a long way! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Must be, certainly doesn't feel like it. scope_creepTalk 18:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what the quarry query we use tells us. A little bit here and there goes a long way! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Hey man im josh: Are you sure its as high as that. I don't feel as though I did that much. scope_creepTalk 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Hans Globke contains "Gale, Cengage Learning". I think that is a mistake, but I am not sure how to fix it. It is possibly Gale (publisher). Polygnotus (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: That seems to be ok. Its Gale, which is part of Cengage Learning. I fixed an error in the references early. It looks odd. I'll make it make it Gale since its recognised. A bit of branding crept in from worldcat. scope_creepTalk 12:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Woah that is the worst brand name ever. Polygnotus (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yea, I don't even know pronounce it properly. scope_creepTalk 12:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Woah that is the worst brand name ever. Polygnotus (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: That seems to be ok. Its Gale, which is part of Cengage Learning. I fixed an error in the references early. It looks odd. I'll make it make it Gale since its recognised. A bit of branding crept in from worldcat. scope_creepTalk 12:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Reissues and remixes
[edit]Hello mate, there's an ongoing discussion about album reissues and remixes at WikiProject Music. Please do stop by and leave your suggestion 
Thank you. dxneo (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Dxneo: How goes it? I've never created a band or an album article to be honest,so I'm probably not the best editor for this discussion. Generally I'd say it would be based on coverage. I do know during AFC reviews and during the NPP review check there is often a push to merge unless they are really special with their own standalone coverage that is seperate from the original product, but it seems to be very rare. They need to really special. I hope that helps. Its as much as I can offer and thanks for considering me. scope_creepTalk 18:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Gaelic
[edit]Hiya, just checking you saw the section I started for your questions? User_talk:Akerbeltz#Gaelic_place_names Akerbeltz (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 January 2025
[edit]- From the editors: Looking back, looking forward
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024
- In the media: Will you be targeted?
- Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last
- Opinion: Reflections one score hence
- Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next
- Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics
- Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia
Battle of Lucano
[edit]You wrote "That is laudable." I don't understand what you meant given what you wrote after that. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't think he was going to post any sources originally. I thought the editor was just going to ignore the request, like other editors who have created many articles as I've seen in the past at Afd. Sometimes they don't take it on. When I looked at the sources, there was lots of passing mentions on the Battle of Lucano, single sentences, probably taken from a single Arabic source and duplicated across multiple books. I think there is a genuine reasoning there, not just some incompetence or elevating nothing into something to give it an artificial notabilty that doesn't exist. The article should be deleted and I still think he should banned from writing articles because the editor is still not capable of writing a real article or evaluating sources correctly. I'll clarify the comment. scope_creepTalk 09:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Scope_creep, with respect, I would like to push back on the justification you offered. There's nothing in the criteria that says "ultra-local" sources are unacceptable, that seems to be a restriction you invented. The sources I cited are from local government, the city's paper of record, and the most formidable political news outlet in Florida. Judge Moran is an elected official in the largest city in Florida, she was the first woman in that city to run for mayor, and also one of the most significant contributors to the passage of a human rights ordinance that offered protection for the first time to the city's LGBTQ+ community. All of those experiences collectively speak to her notability.
Flauren06 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Flauren06: There are two different folk who looked at the article and came to the same decision. I know the criteria and I know what is needed. I have long experience of it. As a WP:BLP, it needs high-quality sources, stated in the first line of the policy and they are not there. Typically individuals who have done a job and shown some compassion arent particular notable and with ultra-local sources like that don't show much else, what can you do. It as much of a muchness in terms of the references and fairly generic and routine. I don't she is particularly notable. scope_creepTalk 19:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm looking at the notability guidelines right now...
- "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." She satisfies this requirement.
- Under politicians/judges, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.". She satisfies this as well.
- There's literally nothing that disqualifies local news sources. Flauren06 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Flauren06: There are two different folk who looked at the article and came to the same decision. I know the criteria and I know what is needed. I have long experience of it. As a WP:BLP, it needs high-quality sources, stated in the first line of the policy and they are not there. Typically individuals who have done a job and shown some compassion arent particular notable and with ultra-local sources like that don't show much else, what can you do. It as much of a muchness in terms of the references and fairly generic and routine. I don't she is particularly notable. scope_creepTalk 19:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2025
[edit]
Announcements from other communities:
Tip of the month:
Suggestion:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your submission at Articles for creation: Dudley Area railway line has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
scope_creepTalk 17:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)The Signpost: 7 February 2025
[edit]- Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians
- News and notes: Let's talk!
- Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon
- Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed
- Traffic report: A wild drive
Request for Clarification on Draft: Mikhail Kudryashev
[edit]Dear Scope_creep,
I noticed that my Wikipedia draft on **Prof. Mikhail Kudryashev** was recently declined.
I would appreciate your feedback on specific improvements that would help the article meet Wikipedia’s standards. Prof. Kudryashev has received two prestigious academic awards:
- Sofja Kovalevskaja Award (2015) – Listed on Wikipedia’s own page for this award. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Kovalevskaya_Award
- Heisenberg Award (2020) – A major distinction from the German Research Foundation (DFG).
The article also includes multiple independent and reliable sources that discuss his research contributions. Could you please advise on what adjustments are needed for resubmission? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated!
Best regards SuhovaNS (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @SuhovaNS: It been reviewed four times and each independent editor has found it lacking. I don't think there is any doubt that the man will eventually have an article, but I think if it was mainspaced now, it would be sent to Afd. I think it is too early. scope_creepTalk 18:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Clean-up tags reverted for Saint-Gilles Prison
[edit]Hi, Why did yo revert my addition of clean-up tags to the article about Saint-Gilles Prison? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Because there not needed. You don't add cleanup tag to article created by an editor who is autopatrolled. You leave a talk page message which you've done and I've seen and read. It is the wrong tag. That isn't cleanup. scope_creepTalk 05:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the article needs to be updated with the information about the prison's closure, otherwise the lead and the closure section in the article are inconsistent. I think it is the right tag because of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- I will take a look. I don't think was a lot on it when I wrote it, but seems to have been extended futher. I was a single government press-release in the Brussels Times or something like that, not enough for a section paragraph. It a single event. scope_creepTalk 06:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the article needs to be updated with the information about the prison's closure, otherwise the lead and the closure section in the article are inconsistent. I think it is the right tag because of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Because there not needed. You don't add cleanup tag to article created by an editor who is autopatrolled. You leave a talk page message which you've done and I've seen and read. It is the wrong tag. That isn't cleanup. scope_creepTalk 05:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
GA
[edit]Hello @Scope creep, both articles are now GA. Thanks for your massive help and Elinruby too. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Nourerrahmane: That is excellent. It closes a summers work. Its been a long slog and a solid achievement. Are you planning to submit them for FA review? scope_creepTalk 05:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Scope creep I very much intend to do so after some time. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Nourerrahmane: How come your delaying? scope_creepTalk 09:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I want to work a bit on the Kingdom of Numidia. I already made some additions. For the Regency I will need to check RS again and ask for another copyedit before nominating it for FA as was requested by the GA reviewer. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Nourerrahmane: There was some History article. Can you check the History article talk page. Another editor tried to put in a block of text that introduced a spelling mistake, changed an image props, split a para and added a block of text that didn't seem suitable. Can you check it. scope_creepTalk 15:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Already checked. I left an answer. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Nourerrahmane: There was some History article. Can you check the History article talk page. Another editor tried to put in a block of text that introduced a spelling mistake, changed an image props, split a para and added a block of text that didn't seem suitable. Can you check it. scope_creepTalk 15:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I want to work a bit on the Kingdom of Numidia. I already made some additions. For the Regency I will need to check RS again and ask for another copyedit before nominating it for FA as was requested by the GA reviewer. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Nourerrahmane: How come your delaying? scope_creepTalk 09:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Scope creep I very much intend to do so after some time. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Nourerrahmane: That is excellent. It closes a summers work. Its been a long slog and a solid achievement. Are you planning to submit them for FA review? scope_creepTalk 05:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Talk page messages
[edit]Do not communicate with me anymore or leave messages on my talk page moving forward. I want to have less interaction with you as much as possible. This will be my only message on your talk page. You can delete it once you've read it. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 20:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Versace1608: That is fine, but its worth knowing I've went through this process many times before. I know it is difficult but you will need to do it. If you don't do it, I will do it. There is established process for this. I'll will be back in a few days. scope_creepTalk 20:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2025
[edit]
Announcements from other communities: Tip of the month:
Moving the needle:[1]
Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period! Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
References
References
What would you think about a redirect or merge to Betfair? Bearian (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Bearian: Yes, I think that would be ideal, if you fancy doing it. A redirect would be likely outcome of an Afd. scope_creepTalk 16:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- I do fancy that. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Bearian: Yes, I think that would be ideal, if you fancy doing it. A redirect would be likely outcome of an Afd. scope_creepTalk 16:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2025
[edit]- Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World
- Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year
- In the media: The end of the world
- Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read
- Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing
- Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?
- Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors
- Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Thanks for your work on Virginia Christian! Polygnotus (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC) |
NPP
[edit]HI. You make an extremely clear and relevant statement there which many of us need to remind ourselves of. That said, I think it would interest you very much to take a look at this (both pages) and if you think it will work, leave a comment there. It won't take up much of your time but do first read the two pages to get the overall picture. It is unconnected with the way NPP works, how the reviewers work, or the PAGs that are the basis of that work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Will do. scope_creepTalk 09:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Is the project stalled? I always thought the lack of a landing page to tender early explicit instruction and set expectations was a bit mad. I think it is one of the great failings on this project. scope_creepTalk 05:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- The project is not stalled. Indeed it is a project some of us started 2 years and was put on a back burner, but in view of the poor results of the last backlog drive it's more important than ever to move it forward. Please take a look at it and then read through the chat that is developing. My descriptions of it make it sound bigger and more complex than it is. It will all come together as soon as we have another virtual meeting on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: That is excellent. That is good news. scope_creepTalk 08:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- The project is not stalled. Indeed it is a project some of us started 2 years and was put on a back burner, but in view of the poor results of the last backlog drive it's more important than ever to move it forward. Please take a look at it and then read through the chat that is developing. My descriptions of it make it sound bigger and more complex than it is. It will all come together as soon as we have another virtual meeting on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
could you activate it temporarily, scope creep? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: How do I activate it? scope_creepTalk 02:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Did you used to be 'Serial Number 54129'. scope_creepTalk 02:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Fortuna imperatrix mundi:. I'm having problems with my email. I can give you a temp email to get started and I'll forward you an email. Ping me when your in and i'll drop it here. scope_creepTalk 08:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Help desk signature
[edit]Hi,
I'm not particularly familiar with dealing with unsigned comments and the like, or I'd just fix this myself. Convenient Discussions thinks your Help Desk reply just now is part of this one of mine immediately below it. (Because of the missing timestamp, I think.) Musiconeologist (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Musiconeologist: How are you. I think i've fixed it. scope_creepTalk 19:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- You have. Many thanks! (And in reply to the question, I'm in my usual stupefied state from insufficient sleep . . . ) Musiconeologist (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Musiconeologist: What is Convenient Discussions? scope_creepTalk 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's this (follow the redirect)—a thing you install in your user javascript that does things like highlighting new replies, providing links to individual comments, etc. I've been using it for a while, and quite like it. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have not seen that. It looks interesting. I think I will give it a wee try tommorrow when its quieter. scope_creepTalk 20:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Scope creep Here's one thing I didn't find immediately obvious: it adds two tiny links at the very bottom of the page, below the standard Wikipedia ones. One to reload the page with Convenient Discussions turned off (e.g. to do something manually that it does automatically), and one for making settings. I tend to forget those are there. (There's a gear icon visible while editing anyway.) I hope you find it useful, or at least fun to investigate! Musiconeologist (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have not seen that. It looks interesting. I think I will give it a wee try tommorrow when its quieter. scope_creepTalk 20:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's this (follow the redirect)—a thing you install in your user javascript that does things like highlighting new replies, providing links to individual comments, etc. I've been using it for a while, and quite like it. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Musiconeologist: How are you. I think i've fixed it. scope_creepTalk 19:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
The article Roster, Caithness has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Cannot find sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Roasted (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Roastedbeanz1: These places are very remote and quite small but they also tend to very old, so they tend to have a lot of sources. Although you can see that some don't have sources at the moment, it is a genuine place with a post office. I created these very early and it took ages to do it. scope_creepTalk 18:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Roastedbeanz1:, I found out today there is a town in Scotland Bathgate near Edinburgh that has been populated for 5500years. So I think there is plenty of history to support these articles. scope_creepTalk 23:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Roastedbeanz1: These places are very remote and quite small but they also tend to very old, so they tend to have a lot of sources. Although you can see that some don't have sources at the moment, it is a genuine place with a post office. I created these very early and it took ages to do it. scope_creepTalk 18:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Vague claims
[edit]You've made a lot of vague claims about consensus formed in previous discussions, but I was not a part of those discussions and you haven't provided any links to these discussions, so from my point of view its just a lot of hot air on your part. If you want to make arguments against inclusion of content based on some alleged prior consensus, you have to link to that alleged prior consensus. And you do it on the article talk page where all the editors of the article get to collaborate on coming to a consensus. Bald assertions are just that, bald assertions, which can reasonably be ignored by any editor as self-serving blather unless you back up your claim with links. Fair warning: if you post them anywhere other than Talk:Roberta Hoskie, I will move your reply to that page. Skyerise (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Edits completed for article Ștefan Dascălu
[edit]@Scope creep Thank you for your feedback. I can confirm the issues have now been addressed. Additional independent sources have been incorporated, and references have been added to previously unsourced sections. The bolding has also been removed to improve readability.
Please let me know if any further refinements are needed. I appreciate your support in moving it to the mainspace.
Thanks! ~~~~ AndreiRares (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Third Opinion
[edit]Hi,
I've requested a third opinion regarding the Operations section of Lifestance Health. See listing here: Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements
Regards, Delectopierre (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thats fine. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 March 2025
[edit]- From the editor: Hanami
- News and notes: Deeper look at takedowns targeting Wikipedia
- In the media: The good, the bad, and the unusual
- Recent research: Explaining the disappointing history of Flagged Revisions; and what's the impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia so far?
- Traffic report: All the world's a stage, we are merely players...
- Gallery: WikiPortraits rule!
- Essay: Unusual biographical images
- Obituary: Rest in peace
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Nogales edit
[edit]Thanks so much for your assistance on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Francisco_Nogales&action=edit
Followed your guidance, and hope it was implemented successfully. Thanks! MedEds2023 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2025
[edit]
Announcements (Events facilitated by others):
Tip of the month:
Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool)
Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period! Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 9 April 2025
[edit]- Opinion: Crawlers, hogs and gorillas
- Debriefing: Giraffer's RfA debriefing
- Obituary: RHaworth, TomCat4680 and PawełMM
- Traffic report: Heigh-Ho, Heigh-Ho, off to report we go...
- News from Diff: Strengthening Wikipedia’s neutral point of view
- Comix: Thirteen
Striking
[edit]Misplaced accusations entirely irrelevant here due to a case of mistaken identity; they apologized and struck.
|
|---|
|
Hello.
Uninvolved editor here: yes, the OP's misplaced accusation could have misled readers of this page, so the ensuing apologies and added strikeout text was the right thing to do. There is nevertheless still a level of misdirection just by its occupying a certain amount of vertical space on this page and an eye-catching amount of strikeout, not to mention two third-party editors sniping at each other on a topic entirely irrelevant to this page. As this entire discussion has absolutely zero to do with scope_creep, I believe the best disposition for it for future readers is in a collapsed state. Scope_creep, this being your page, you get the last word, so feel free to undo. Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC) |
Michael Harris Love Draft
[edit]Hello, I have fixed references 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 24, 25, 26, 28, and 29. These are now cite web citations with full citations. I have removed all nowiki tags. Draft:Michael_Harris-Love
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Harris-Love
Thank you! Mikepascoe (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Declined submission
[edit]Hi @Scope creep, Thank you for reviewing my article on Abraham Osinubi earlier.
The lead summary has now been added to the article. Kindly review my submission again. Here is the link to the article https://w.wiki/DtTU.
Thank you! Redstarwiki (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Redstarwiki: What was that draft name? scope_creepTalk 22:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)rep
- Abraham Osinubi Redstarwiki (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Redstarwiki: I'm not going to review it. I will let somebody else do it who is uninvolved. I would tone down the promotional language. Language like "consummate scholar" is unsuitable and make the draft promotional. Stuff like "passionately explored the intricate balance between" makes no sense. Weasal words like that have no place her. What does that mean. Your not writing for corporate land. Describe it exactly. I would ask you to determine if he is actually notable, before you invest more work in it. I think with the books he may be, but his citation count is particularly low but it may be borderline. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 09:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Redstarwiki: Lastly, dont use url shorteners on Wikipedia. They are not used here. Also, the language you use, your approach and way its written makes they me think you have WP:COI. If your being WP:PAID you need to disclose. If you WP:COI, you also need to disclose and need to put a connected contributor tag on the article. The article is written for an corporate environement which doesn't exist here. scope_creepTalk 09:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Scope creep,
- Sorry I'm just seeing this now. I have removed the promotional language.
- Could you please clarify what you mean by "my language"? This is my very first article on Wikipedia, and I made an effort to follow the tone used in other articles here. I also had an editor review it and they said the tone was appropriate. Could you kindly specify what exactly is wrong?
- Thank you! Redstarwiki (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Redstarwiki: You got the article in. Nice one!! scope_creepTalk 08:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Redstarwiki: Lastly, dont use url shorteners on Wikipedia. They are not used here. Also, the language you use, your approach and way its written makes they me think you have WP:COI. If your being WP:PAID you need to disclose. If you WP:COI, you also need to disclose and need to put a connected contributor tag on the article. The article is written for an corporate environement which doesn't exist here. scope_creepTalk 09:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Redstarwiki: I'm not going to review it. I will let somebody else do it who is uninvolved. I would tone down the promotional language. Language like "consummate scholar" is unsuitable and make the draft promotional. Stuff like "passionately explored the intricate balance between" makes no sense. Weasal words like that have no place her. What does that mean. Your not writing for corporate land. Describe it exactly. I would ask you to determine if he is actually notable, before you invest more work in it. I think with the books he may be, but his citation count is particularly low but it may be borderline. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 09:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Abraham Osinubi Redstarwiki (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Redstarwiki: What was that draft name? scope_creepTalk 22:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)rep
New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive
[edit]| May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2025
[edit]
Announcements (events facilitated by others):
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 09:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Ornithodira
[edit]You deleted the Ornithodira article and replaced it with a redirect to Avemetatarsalia because there were no sources. The reason there were no sources was because I had just restored an old version from 2011 (I think). The reason I did this is because I think there should be a vote on whether Ornithodira should be merged into Avemetatarsalia or not. I did not want to add sources now because it would be a waste if the article was approved for deletion (turned into a redirect). Mongoliensis123 (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Mongoliensis123: Generally you put sources in to stop it being deleted. Do a merge discussion and I'll check back in a couple of weeks see how its getting on. You may be able to find sources, but certainly it can't stay in mainspace without them. scope_creepTalk 16:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
DRV notice
[edit]Deletion review for West Side (San Francisco)
[edit]An editor has asked for a deletion review of West Side (San Francisco). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Goldrock95 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 May 2025
[edit]- In the media: Feds aiming for WMF's nonprofit status
- Recent research: How readers use Wikipedia health content; Scholars generally happy with how their papers are cited on Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Sysop Tinucherian removed and admonished by the ArbCom
- Discussion report: Latest news from Centralized discussions
- Traffic report: Of Wolf and Man
- Disinformation report: At WikiCredCon, Wikipedia editors and Internet Archive discuss threats to trust in media
- News from the WMF: Product & Tech Progress on the Annual Plan
- Comix: By territory
- Community view: A deep dive into Wikimedia
- Debriefing: Barkeep49's RfB debriefing
Re: Draftification of West Side (San Francisco)
[edit]The move of West Side (San Francisco) from mainspace to draft is invalid under WP:DRAFTOBJECT, since I’ve objected as the primary contributor. Once an objection is made, the move is no longer considered uncontroversial, and consensus is required to keep it in draftspace. No such consensus was sought or established, so I’ve moved the article back to mainspace accordingly. Further discussion can take place on the article’s talk page if needed. Goldrock95 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Goldrock95: That is fine but you should have fixed it in draft. It would have been easier. I've removed everything from the article that is unsourced. If you add more unsourced again, I'm going to issue warnings against and I'm going to have you up at WP:ANI. No more unsourced blocks of text. scope_creepTalk 18:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Not contesting this draftify necessarily, but I happened to notice it at AfC and it got me curious because I've been trying to understand the standards for bibliographies and other lists of works lately. I think this article actually might not need references, and the fact that the authors have an article denotes notability, based on what I've read. I think it just needs the title changed to Bibliography of the history of number systems. See Lists of books, and the accompanying MOS:WORKS. Curious what your thoughts are. MediaKyle (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- @MediaKyle: Yes. I thought that originally, the book definitions were themselves references because they were notable (I viewed it about 8 times), but those book have been selected which introduces WP:OR potentially. Then I thought, if it was going to Afd, it would need reviews. On the point, yes, I thought about the author having an entry, then why not list the books in another article as there is a commanality, as they are notable (back to point A). But your left the common mechanics of an article with seeminly notable entries but no references to prove it, which may grate amongst folk, seen as non-standard. I'll take a look at your links in the morning when I'm awake. Might be worth asking around. I'll do it as well. Its kind odd. scope_creepTalk 23:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Follow up: I declined it and left a comment with feedback, if you're curious. If implemented I think I'll probably pass it and see what happens. MediaKyle (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- @MediaKyle: Yes. I thought that originally, the book definitions were themselves references because they were notable (I viewed it about 8 times), but those book have been selected which introduces WP:OR potentially. Then I thought, if it was going to Afd, it would need reviews. On the point, yes, I thought about the author having an entry, then why not list the books in another article as there is a commanality, as they are notable (back to point A). But your left the common mechanics of an article with seeminly notable entries but no references to prove it, which may grate amongst folk, seen as non-standard. I'll take a look at your links in the morning when I'm awake. Might be worth asking around. I'll do it as well. Its kind odd. scope_creepTalk 23:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Goldrock95 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Request for input on Ryan Holiday article
[edit]Hello! There's an ongoing discussion about neutrality, tone, and sourcing on the Ryan Holiday article involving editors me and Vegantics. Given your experience with biographies and Wikipedia guidelines, your perspective would be valuable. If you have a moment, please share your thoughts here. Thanks in advance for your help!--IndyNotes (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from P. C. Solanki, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!— Komodo (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Komodo: Thanks for telling me. I will be sending it to Afd shortly unless its been drastically improved. scope_creepTalk 08:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- I rewrote the article before deprodding. I suggest you open a discussion on how to improve it further before any deletion actions if possible. Cheers! Komodo (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Komodo: Thanks for telling me. I will be sending it to Afd shortly unless its been drastically improved. scope_creepTalk 08:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Can’t i just make a page about a dissolved team?
[edit]I know it was reverted, but i would have liked to make a page for Olympique Croix de Savoie 74 but you reverted it. Thanks. 188.29.136.21 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Putting some mustard on it
[edit]
|
Scope creep has given you a plate of sausages! Sausages promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a plate of sausages, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Your refreshing language at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yampukur Vrata gave me a chuckle (and made me hungry).
|
Worldbruce (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- That made me laugh as well. ;8) scope_creepTalk 07:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 May 2025
[edit]- In the media: Wikimedia Foundation sues over UK government decision that might require identity verification of editors worldwide
- Disinformation report: What does Jay-Z know about Wikipedia?
- Technology report: WMF introduces unique but privacy-preserving browser cookie
- Debriefing: Goldsztajn's RfA debriefing
- Obituary: Max Lum (User:ICOHBuzz)
- Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 2)
- Comix: Collection
- From the archives: Humor from the Archives
your did it
[edit]
|
awesome award |
| i'm going through and giving stars to everyone who has helped me become a proper wiki page editor!
sooooo, thank you! Haaayzey (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC) |
Johann Podsiadlo
[edit]Johann Podsiadlo on People of the Red Orchestra is also listed as Johann Podsialdo right? I think one of them needs to be removed. in preparation for high treason in tate unity with enemy favoritism
should that be state?
In General der Nachrichtenaufklärung it says Radio Telepgraf Kompanie
. Telepgraf? Polygnotus (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Polygnotus: It should be yes. And the spelling mistake, yip. I saw your message. I'm not staying. I'm going to finish the Joseph Lister article, which should take about 6 months and then I'm off. I was asked by a Glasgow University academic to do it, so I plan to finish it, although not to FA standard as I originally planned. To be honest, I'm sick to death of this place. scope_creepTalk 03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2025
[edit]
Announcements:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Frida Wesolek
[edit]Hi! I was informing myself about the Red Orchestra and stumbled upon your user page. I created the en page for Frida Wesolek, so now that one can be checked.
Have a nice day!
best - Itscookiemaster (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Itscookiemaster: How goes it? That is an excellent wee article. Thanks for creating it. It fills in a gap. I've fixed a couple of thing and added categories and the main template. Apparently she was is considered part of the main Harro Schulze-Boysen group as well, which I didn't know, or supposedly anyway. I'm just checking if there if there is any more informtion on here. Could do with an image as well. scope_creepTalk 09:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is not much else on her. I think she was on the periphery. The available image which could be uploaded is not the best either. It seems to slightly out of focus, so give that a swerve. scope_creepTalk 09:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 June 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Happy 7 millionth!
- In the media: Playing professor pong with prosecutorial discretion
- Disinformation report: Pardon me, Mr. President, have you seen my socks?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's political bias; "Ethical" LLMs accede to copyright owners' demands but ignore those of Wikipedians
- Traffic report: All Sinners, a future, all Saints, a past
- Debriefing: EggRoll97's RfA2 debriefing
- Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 3)
- Comix: Hamburgers
RE: Scottish postcode district changes
[edit]Hi there. I don't know what file you were using but if you check the Royal Mail's Postcode Finder it will give you the correct post town for the districts. Acharacle is the post town for the PH36 district, not Fort William (PH33). Samuel J Walker (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Samuel J Walker: I wrote these article you are changing. The PAF is the official UK post office address file, that you pay for. That consumer based product your using is for your address lookup is not accurate. It doesn't give you the correct post town. scope_creepTalk 22:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- "That consumer based product" is also run by the Royal Mail? Postcode Finder - Find an address │ Royal Mail Group Ltd Samuel J Walker (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, its not accurate. It is not a paid product. They differentiate based on whether you pay the full prie for the PAF address file, which in 1996 was £17k and is extremely accurate and well maintained or the cheap consumer lookup product which is not accurate. You changing values without the doing the checks to see if the data is even valid. You don't even what your doing. scope_creepTalk 22:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- If I "don't know what I'm doing" then I suggest you check over the PH postcode area page which has this supposedly incorrect information as well, and the map on that page derived from the Ordinance Survey. Instead of edit warring maybe start the discussion on that talk page. I just find it hard to believe that the Royal Mail would not keep their own Postcode Finder database up to date, "consumer lookup" or not. Samuel J Walker (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Samuel J Walker: That is the way post office works and its the same way all British government department works. Its how the ordindance survey works as well. It has professional product which you pay for. You pay for the most accurate data, which in this instance for the post office, is the PAF file. The PH postcode area doesn't even begin to be accurate. It has the most basic outline of postcode districts. I don't need to start a discussion. I wrote the articles and I know what I'm talking about. If you keep reducing the quality of the data, then its going to end up at WP:ANI. scope_creepTalk 05:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Fine, whatever. I personally find it hard to believe that an entire database operated by the company responsible for delivering post and which includes information about the PAF would be wholly inaccurate but I don't have the energy to continue this debate. However, I do take exception to your claim that I "don't know what I'm doing", "reducing the quality" and threatening me with an ANI when I originally made what were good faith edits using information in the public domain that the wider public could reasonably assume would be accurate. Samuel J Walker (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Samuel J Walker: Ignore what I said about Ani. My bark is much worse my bite. You woudn't automatically know how these data sources actually work unless you have some experience of it and in particularly geographic system and the British way of doing it. You may be able to get a hold of the PAF database, on bittorrent for example. I've seen it floating about. If you do, you could easily update and the information would be accurate. I will have a look for it. scope_creepTalk 18:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Fine, whatever. I personally find it hard to believe that an entire database operated by the company responsible for delivering post and which includes information about the PAF would be wholly inaccurate but I don't have the energy to continue this debate. However, I do take exception to your claim that I "don't know what I'm doing", "reducing the quality" and threatening me with an ANI when I originally made what were good faith edits using information in the public domain that the wider public could reasonably assume would be accurate. Samuel J Walker (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Samuel J Walker: That is the way post office works and its the same way all British government department works. Its how the ordindance survey works as well. It has professional product which you pay for. You pay for the most accurate data, which in this instance for the post office, is the PAF file. The PH postcode area doesn't even begin to be accurate. It has the most basic outline of postcode districts. I don't need to start a discussion. I wrote the articles and I know what I'm talking about. If you keep reducing the quality of the data, then its going to end up at WP:ANI. scope_creepTalk 05:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- If I "don't know what I'm doing" then I suggest you check over the PH postcode area page which has this supposedly incorrect information as well, and the map on that page derived from the Ordinance Survey. Instead of edit warring maybe start the discussion on that talk page. I just find it hard to believe that the Royal Mail would not keep their own Postcode Finder database up to date, "consumer lookup" or not. Samuel J Walker (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, its not accurate. It is not a paid product. They differentiate based on whether you pay the full prie for the PAF address file, which in 1996 was £17k and is extremely accurate and well maintained or the cheap consumer lookup product which is not accurate. You changing values without the doing the checks to see if the data is even valid. You don't even what your doing. scope_creepTalk 22:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- "That consumer based product" is also run by the Royal Mail? Postcode Finder - Find an address │ Royal Mail Group Ltd Samuel J Walker (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Samuel J Walker: I wrote these article you are changing. The PAF is the official UK post office address file, that you pay for. That consumer based product your using is for your address lookup is not accurate. It doesn't give you the correct post town. scope_creepTalk 22:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2025
[edit]
Announcements:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 09:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 18 July 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Is no WikiNews good WikiNews? — Election season returns!
- In the media: How bad (or good) is Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Medicine reaches milestone of zero unreferenced articles
- Recent research: Knowledge manipulation on Russia's Wikipedia fork; Marxist critique of Wikidata license; call to analyze power relations of Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Form 990 released for the Wikimedia Foundation’s fiscal year 2023-2024
- Discussion report: Six thousand noticeboard discussions in 2025 electrically winnowed down to a hundred
- Comix: Divorce
- Traffic report: God only knows
Women in Red August 2025
[edit]
Announcements:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 9 August 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Court order snips out part of Wikipedia article, editors debate whether to frame shreds or pulp them
- Discussion report: News from ANI, AN, RSN, BLPN, ELN, FTN, and NPOVN
- Disinformation report: The article in the most languages
- Community view: News from the Villages Pump
- Crossword: Accidental typography
- Traffic report: I'm not the antichrist or the Superman
Orphaned non-free image File:Suzanne Spaak.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Suzanne Spaak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
un cookie pour toi!
[edit]
|
:3 Haaayzey (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC) |
- Hi @Haaayzey: How goes it? Thanks for that wee cookie. That is very nice of you. scope_creepTalk 17:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- i am doing quite well! struggling to keep a page from deletion though. wiki mods are ruthless! Haaayzey (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Article you mean and admininstration not mods. What article is it? scope_creepTalk 18:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- my apology! I get the words confused much. the article is TX2, a punk band! Haaayzey (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ref 11,12, 14,15,17 and 18 are non-rs. They are not reliable sources and should be removed. Interviews with band members are WP:PRIMARY and don't count for much. Band publisher refs and social media refs don't count for much either. Theyre is a very specific subset of source types that are acceptable. Look for sources that are found in WP:MUSICRS. At the moment it looks as though its going to be deleted, even though its quite a well known band, almost a 1million monthly listeners on Spotify. I don't have much experience with band articles. I would look for major newspaper reviews of gigs. Also the article is also far too long and need shortened by about 30-40%. All the stuff about X movement is promo marketing crap and the life story which come from an interviews and press-releases is all junk and should be removed. No details of individuals, essentially WP:BLP, should be added to article from a single interview. It is WP:PRIMARY and unreliable conjecture that fails WP:NPOV. When your adding BLP details it needs multiple WP:SECONDARY sources to verify WP:V. Anything from a press-release is suspect and junk. That also needs to be removed. Ref 8. That whole section needs to go. It has no place on a band article. Those two need to go. You need WP:THREE references to pass a Afd oer consensus Three good secondary sources. Band reviews/writeups in any site from WP:MUSICRS or mainstream newspapers is a start. The Miami New Times is a decent secondary source to kick it off. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 19:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- thank you! I am needing all the help I can take, and this is very helping! Haaayzey (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ref 11,12, 14,15,17 and 18 are non-rs. They are not reliable sources and should be removed. Interviews with band members are WP:PRIMARY and don't count for much. Band publisher refs and social media refs don't count for much either. Theyre is a very specific subset of source types that are acceptable. Look for sources that are found in WP:MUSICRS. At the moment it looks as though its going to be deleted, even though its quite a well known band, almost a 1million monthly listeners on Spotify. I don't have much experience with band articles. I would look for major newspaper reviews of gigs. Also the article is also far too long and need shortened by about 30-40%. All the stuff about X movement is promo marketing crap and the life story which come from an interviews and press-releases is all junk and should be removed. No details of individuals, essentially WP:BLP, should be added to article from a single interview. It is WP:PRIMARY and unreliable conjecture that fails WP:NPOV. When your adding BLP details it needs multiple WP:SECONDARY sources to verify WP:V. Anything from a press-release is suspect and junk. That also needs to be removed. Ref 8. That whole section needs to go. It has no place on a band article. Those two need to go. You need WP:THREE references to pass a Afd oer consensus Three good secondary sources. Band reviews/writeups in any site from WP:MUSICRS or mainstream newspapers is a start. The Miami New Times is a decent secondary source to kick it off. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 19:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- my apology! I get the words confused much. the article is TX2, a punk band! Haaayzey (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Article you mean and admininstration not mods. What article is it? scope_creepTalk 18:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- i am doing quite well! struggling to keep a page from deletion though. wiki mods are ruthless! Haaayzey (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Haaayzey: How goes it? Thanks for that wee cookie. That is very nice of you. scope_creepTalk 17:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Paid Disclosure
[edit]Hi. How are you doing? I am a paid editor and as per this I had added the link to the website of the company I work with. A few days ago you removed the link. The company name is still there. I just want to confirm if adding the link to the website on my user page is necessary or not. HRShami (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive
[edit]| September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Thraco-Cimmerian page
[edit]I saw that you removed almost all the details of the entire page, and as a reason; "unsourced". You could only remove the text that needed a source, but you even removed the introduction. I don't think that's appropriate and i want to ask if you want to return atleast the most factual details like where the name came from, who invented it, etc.
Kind Regards, Damianooss (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Damianooss: What article is it? scope_creepTalk 18:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian?wprov=sfla1 Damianooss (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Damianooss: Yea, you can put in the content back in but you must find sources WP:RS that WP:V i.e. verify the content. WP:SECONDARY sources are the usual type that is needed. Unsourced content can't remain in mainspace. scope_creepTalk 19:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Scope creep Currently i don't have time to look into this, but as soon as i have time i will try to find the sources. I will also share this message on the public consultation page. Damianooss (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Damianooss: What article is it? scope_creepTalk 18:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Re-submission of revised William Tudor 1769-1845
[edit]Hello Scope creep, I don't know if my message about my attempt to accommodate your comments in my revision, just submitted again, reached you but, in case it did not, I am copying it in now. I hope this is the correct way to send it to you:
Dear Scope Creep, I have done my best to address your comments, taking out Ref 5 and removing what you judged unacceptable conjecture. I have also added a couple of accession numbers in the Sources section. I am unable to identify the "large sections still unsourced" and feel I have found all available sources of information on William Tudor both by online searches and personal visits to all the places he grew up and later worked in plus the local archives of those places (Abergavenny, Monmouth and Bath) and relevant libraries (same cities, Royal College of Surgeons, British Library and military museums). Well into my 80s, I'm not really equipped to do more. If you can delete those "large unsourced sections" such that the submission satisfies you, you have my complete permission to do that and I would be grateful if you would do so. I do feel William Tudor merits a Wikipedia entry. The house he built, Kelston Knoll, is on Wikipedia, without, at present, a link to him! So I request you please make the adjustments you judge fit and give the necessary go-ahead for the entry to be officially included in Wikipedia. With thanks. Peter Turnbull. PeterCBTurnbull (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @PeterCBTurnbull: I'm not searching for your article. If you can't find provide a link what is the point of me searching for it. scope_creepTalk 18:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ow! That was a little brutal! I I'm not very techno-savvy. I'll try to find out what that means and how to do it. PeterT 2A00:23C7:AE8F:5501:984D:EA5E:6633:EB20 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. Take a look at WP:REFB. A wee tutorial on how to create refs.. 7 large paragraphs need referenced properly. I can see why I bunged it in there. I will give a hand doing some of these references. I figured it would have been done by now, but obviously no. Need to get it fixed and out. scope_creepTalk 20:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @PeterCBTurnbull: I've added a ref but couldn't find the page number details in the two welcome collection books. Good books. History is solid. Add "page=" to that first ref. Or you could post them here. scope_creepTalk 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I'll work on the page numbers and links needed for names in red. Refs 1 and 2 are actually the same Wellcome item; I'll try to get that right. I'm away quite a lot for the next two weeks, so will be rather slow. Thank you for your help. I see on your site you do have an enormous list of submitted articles to deal with. PeterT PeterCBTurnbull (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @PeterCBTurnbull: Quite a cool old document, that old but after I couldn't identify the page number at all. Even on the 2nd one. If you put some like for example p.20 for page 20 in each reference, I can fix them up later into full citations and then we can have ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_surfactant_(medication)#Research look at finding references for the rest of the blank bits. If you could do that in the meantime, I can do it all in a oner later. scope_creepTalk 22:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Dear Scope_Creep, I see my article on William Tudor is on Wikitia. Thank you for your hard work on it. I appreciate it. Kind regards, Peter Turnbull PeterCBTurnbull (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have had a look at this article too, and this is intended for both @Scope creep as well as @PeterCBTurnbull . I've read the Burney source in the British Library. In reality the quote from the book does not appear to be there exactly as stated, so really it should come out. However it is fair version of the book's meaning, even if it is not a direct quote, so I'll find a way to amend it. However elsewhere that source, alone, had no fewer than 27 mentions of Tudor in Volume X, most in passing but some a bit meatier. In addition to Tudor's work with the Queen and Princess Elizabeth, there is quite a lot of information about Tudor's treatment of her husband, Alexandre d'Arblay. From the editors' notes it would appear that her husband's diaries also talked about Tudor, which I think is available in Emmanuel College Cambridge.
- These editors did, in a footnote on page 781 put a 150 word potted biography of William Tudor, covering the main known features of his career, so that is in addition to Burney's own words.
- I would therefore be in a position to redraft the article but my preference would be have something somewhat shorter, as a starter, and rewording the potted footnote. Then adding material from the existing draft where sourcing is strong. This will look like a major deletion (it will probably trigger the anti-vandal team!) but nothing is lost in wikipedia, the full text of all drafting will still be available in the system.
- Clearly I can't do this without consensus, and in addition I notice this is on the to-do list of @Scope creep - so I don't want to tread on their toes.
- ChrysGalley (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrysGalley: That is grand you've came in and had a look. Absolutely grand!! I was losing faith a bit there myself because I had a feeling that @PeterCBTurnbull: wasn't coming back and I couldn't finish the referencing properly. As you can see there is several sections that are unsourced as well as several sections that are sourced to bare raw urls and one reference to a book site on the history of parliament that doesnt have the volume or page numbers, indeed nothing apart from the book name and author; its just a web reference. The internet archive has been a bit ropey recently so have been unable to finish the referencing that is in the article.
- I think it would be ideal if you redraft it and then we can merge from this article where its sourced correctly, assuming it fits the new article. Then we can have a discussion on those sections that are unsourced and see what do with them, if anything. The only point I would like to raise is that PeterCBTurnbull has spent considerable time on it and I would like to inform him beforehand ideally to smooth the way if I can. But at the same time, I don't want to wait forever, especially since we can crack on now. To mitigate, would it be possible to create a new draft under a new name, e.g. with a middle initial, leave this one intact and then when new draft is in mainspace, I can rename it back to the correct name. That seems to be quite a common practice in AFC. That way it gives PeterCBTurnbull time to come in with an intact draft, it might a couple of months (seems to every 10-12 weeks he's in) and then G6 this draft when we're done. In the meantime, I can help on the new draft where I can. scope_creepTalk 14:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that is one solution, and I would be happy to assist since I've got photos of that material. It would lead to quite a short article but gives the bare bones of Tudor's history and as you indicate it would then be possible to ship the material in. So technically that is easy. By process, though, it's unnecessary since no material is lost, it's all in the history, but I guess that less present Wiki editors could get shocked that their hard work is deleted (when it is not) and hence presumably your suggestion here.
- And yes I was also conscious of doing "the right thing" for @PeterCBTurnbull since they have spent vastly more time on this than me. There is no requirement for editors to be here all the time (in fact I guess we would be better editors if do other things!). You (@Scope creep) were given complete permission and we seem to doing the consensus bit here. I will do it tomorrow (Friday UK) just in case this benefits from more reflection or there is some other factor involved here. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing that worries me is the revision history. It would be ideal if we could maintain it. I'll have a chat with admin I know. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrysGalley: I spoke to the AFC helpdesk and left a note on PeterCBTurnbull talk page. We can crack on and create new draft. scope_creepTalk 19:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. PeterT 2A00:23C7:AE8F:5501:8917:8808:2751:4C61 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrysGalley: That was @PeterCBTurnbull: just left a message and said its fine to move on creating the new draft. That is ideal situation I'm looking for. Please crack on. scope_creepTalk 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @PeterCBTurnbull: I've added a ref but couldn't find the page number details in the two welcome collection books. Good books. History is solid. Add "page=" to that first ref. Or you could post them here. scope_creepTalk 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @PeterCBTurnbull: I'm not searching for your article. If you can't find provide a link what is the point of me searching for it. scope_creepTalk 18:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red September 2025
[edit] Recognized as the most active, topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 9 September 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation loses a round in court
- In the media: Congress probes, mayor whitewashed, AI stinks
- Disinformation report: A guide for Congress
- Recent research: Minority-language Wikipedias, and Wikidata for botanists
- Technology report: A new way to read Wikisource
- Traffic report: Check out some new Weapons, weapon of choice
- Essay: The one question
September 2025
[edit]
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Barochan Cross. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Zackmann08: Thanks for fixing that. I thought I'd tested properly in a sandbox offline. Many eyes make light work. scope_creepTalk 16:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- All good! We all make mistakes.
— Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- All good! We all make mistakes.
- Hi @Zackmann08: Thanks for fixing that. I thought I'd tested properly in a sandbox offline. Many eyes make light work. scope_creepTalk 16:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 24
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Lister, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Morton and Thomas Keith.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Donald Winnicott.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Donald Winnicott.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10
[edit] Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever.
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 2 October 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Larry Sanger returns with "Nine Theses on Wikipedia"; WMF publishes transparency report
- In the media: Extraordinary eruption of "EVIL" explained
- Disinformation report: Emails from a paid editing client
- Discussion report: Sourcing, conduct, policy and LLMs: another 1,339 threads analyzed
- Recent research: Is Wikipedia a merchant of (non-)doubt for glyphosate?; eight projects awarded Wikimedia Research Fund grants
- Opinion: Some disputes aren't worth it
- Obituary: Michael Q. Schmidt
- Traffic report: Death, hear me call your name
- Comix: A grand spectacle
In Daniël Goulooze, do we know if Daan was an alias to disguise his identity, or simply his "roepnaam"? I would expect it to be the standard shortened form of his name, and not an attempt to disguise his identity. If it was an attempt to disguise his identity he would pick something very different from his real name, right? See also Daan#People which says Dutch short form for Daniel
. I removed that sentence. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
On 23 October 1943, Goulooze, Postma, [[Kees Schalker]] and {{ill|Ko Beuzemaker|nl}} meet in an insurance building at [[Catharijnesingel]] in [[Utrecht]], with the expectation that the war was coming to an end, with a plan to formulate their positions after the war.{{sfn|Harmsen|1980|p=214}} At a second meeting arranged in Utrecht for the 11 October led to the arrest of Ko Beuzemaker and his wife.{{sfn|Harmsen|1980|p=216}} This eventually led to the arrest of Goulooze, Postma, Cornelis Schalke on the 15 November 1943.
Can you check that source please? It seems more likely that 11 October
should be the 11th of November, which makes more sense chronologically.
But https://www.rudi-harthoorn.nl/personen-uit-verzet/ says Op 10 november werden de prominente communist Ko Beuzemaker en zijn vrouw op hun onderduikadres in Leersum gearresteerd, omdat men hem voor een Jood aanzag.
, referring to the 10th of November 1943, and De nieuwe top van de illegale CPN had voor 14 november 1943 om 11 uur ’s-morgens een vergadering gepland in een ruimte van de Verzekeringsmaatschappij Hollandsche Sociëteit aan de Catharijnesingel 25 in Utrecht, die door de verzekeringsagent Oene Jonker ter beschikking was gesteld. Deelnemers zouden zijn Ko Beuzemaker, Daan Goulooze, Jan Postma en Kees Schalker.
So something went wrong with the dates and/or chronological order in that section.
Polygnotus (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Polygnotus: Good to see you back. No, it was just his nickname, family name. Geez, I see what you mean. I missed that. I'll need to look the book out and not sure where it is. It's in all in Dutch, which is Dutch to me, so will take some time to figure. Eyes like a hawk. I know it. I didn't see that. Its plain as day as well, once you see it. Yes, that makes sense. Excellent work!! scope_creepTalk 20:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- It needs a "source vary" added now since the date of arrest of Goulooze and the others don't sync across Harmsen, Kesaris and the Rudi Harthoorn blog. I need to redo it. scope_creepTalk 21:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks again! Interesting article! I made some minor edits, please take a look. Polygnotus (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus:, much improvement there I see. scope_creepTalk 16:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks again! Interesting article! I made some minor edits, please take a look. Polygnotus (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 October 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Board shuffles, LLM blocks increase, IPs are going away
- Special report: The election that isn't
- Interview: The BoT bump
- In the media: An incident at WikiConference North America; WMF reports AI-related traffic drop and explains Wikipedia to US conservatives
- Traffic report: One click after another
- Humour: Wikipedia pay rates
Short descriptions and AFC
[edit]Hi, in the future, when cleaning up after publishing drafts into mainspace, please make sure that the short description is short and complies with WP:SDFORMAT. Ideally under 40 characters, but up to 60 is normally fine as long as the key information is in the first 40. This one showed up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Long short descriptions as it was over 95 characters. For people it's usually "[Nationality] [notable occupation]" and either "(born [birthyear])" or "([birthyear]-[deathyear])" if that is known (see WP:SDDATES). Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Patar knight: I'll check it in the future. scope_creepTalk 19:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red - November 2025
[edit] Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging