Hi there! Thank you for the edits to the article I submitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jessica_Rich_(designer)). I've removed the Filmography section--I thought that including her IMDB links would add more weight to her notability, but I understand your comment about these being notable only if she is a lead. This edit also addresses the 3rd comment you made about article length.

With regards to the comment you made about celebrity clientele and WP:PUFF--

Because Jessica Rich herself is not yet a household name, I thought that including well-known celebrity clients in the article may help readers learn more about her and, in particular, her design aesthetic and target market (many of the celebrities listed as having worn her shoes are very high profile African American women/women of color). I also noticed that mentioning celebrity clients is common practice in Wiki pages of other designers, even some who would be considered household names by many. For example:

Christian Siriano - has an entire section devoted to his celebrity clientele
Jimmy Choo Ltd - mentions Princess Diana as one of his clients in the opening paragraph
Jeffrey Sebelia - mentions celebrity clients of his former label by name
Christian Louboutin - though specific celebrity names are not mentioned, a reference to him having "celebrity clientele" is made in the opening paragraph

Specifically, I think the references I made to Jennifer Lopez' use of these shoes in recent events are useful for notability, as some of these looks were very widely publicized. The looks perhaps may not be quite as iconic as JLo's green Versace dress from the '90s, but they are still memorable and were discussed in reputable media. I have additional references that can help establish this point (here is one example: https://us.hola.com/fashion/2019101428052/jennifer-lopez-fashion-moment-orange-dress-style/); please let me know if it is useful to include these.

Also, when creating Jessica Rich's page, I modeled the content after other Wiki pages of subjects whose careers similarly started in reality TV and later evolved into design or entrepreneurship, and who might be considered peers to Jessica Rich in some respects. For example:

Olivia Palermo
Emily Weiss
Whitney Port
NeNe Leakes
Cynthia Bailey

Given this, perhaps a simple rewording of that celebrity section would help make it more acceptable (as opposed to eliminating it completely)?

With regards to the Daily Mail reference--I can add more references from other publications that regularly cover celebrity news to substantiate the subject's personal relationship.

Please let me know thoughts when you can. Thanks again! macgirl (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Loch Loch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Neo-Bechstein at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SpinningSpark 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! puggo 20:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Bug2266: That is very nice. scope_creep^Talk 20:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bug2266: Here is another one I did so far, Machrihanish Bay. I plan to create articles for all of them in Scotland eventually. scope_creep^Talk 20:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

are you a geologist? this seems like a neat hobby puggo 20:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bug2266 (talk • contribs)

No. Not at all. scope_creep^Talk 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article on the web that had been written by a geologist and based the stuff on that. I was fairly straighforward. scope_creep^Talk 21:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mixed Drinks Barnstar

Hi Special:Contributions/51.9.194.50 That was very nice, although I'm not sure it is for. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

first of all: Sorry for the confusion I've created by modifying the spelling of some words. I didn't realise that one of these words was actually the name of a file, which must of course not be changed. Shame on me.

I've seen that you reverted my current try to put this right. However, I think that in fact outstation is correct and not out-station, although I'm not a native speaker: See e.g. Merriam Webster or Wiktionary. Also I've made some other changes, f.i. High frequency into high frequency. Although all Wikipedia articles start with a capital letter, therefore High frequency, in the article it is then spelled with a lower caps h. high frequency also is a valid link.

Also, I've deleted one instance of the picture "Luftwaffe Radio Communication Network of VHF and Radar Intercept Out-Stations, Signals Regiment South.svg" because it was two times in the article.

Regards --Cyfal (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cyfal: The article needs tons of work. Your very welcome to help. scope_creep^Talk 12:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! So in some cases in Luftnachrichten Abteilung 350, it should be spelled out-station (when its a named item, a designed product, that could be duplicated), and in some cases outstation (when its an outpost), as far as I understand. I applied now my former modification again, but this time leaving the all stations untouched. Thank you again --Cyfal (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James Its good that somebody is noticing. I plan to continue doing more this year. scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laurence Oliphant, 1st Lord Oliphant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, it's been three weeks since you were pinged above about issues with this nomination, and there haven't been any edits to the article or response to the review. Please post to the nomination page regarding what you plan to do, if you wish to continue pursuing this nomination. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BlueMoonset: I will take a look at it tomorrow. scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sir Comyns Berkeley.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your interest in this article. It was posted by me as a new article but the reviewer decided it was not good enough so made it into a draft. Then when the draft was submitted it was not accepted on the grounds of inadequate sourcing. As the French article lacked inline citations and I had no access to any printed sources it was not possible to do much about that. Good luck with expanding it.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get a hint of writing under contract? Just weird to pick an AFC as your second article, after your first was a more obscure 'academic'. I then notice them start another sandbox item that hit a spam blacklist item. I think that it smells, though I am a suspicious from my anti-abuse background. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scope Creep, Sandaig, and its islets, is located several miles further up the coast from Loch Hourn. Look on Google maps or Ordnance Survey maps. Glenelg has a Wikipedia page you where you can see more details on the other Sandaig and its connection to Gavin Maxwell. Cheers,

Jamie Stuart (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say I understand your point, but as they are right now, that's not what it looks like. It simply looks like there are duplicate entries in the list. To disambiguate them (even if it is a redlink), if you know what body of water they are on, that would do the trick. For instance, if one was on Loch Fyne, you could say, South Bay (Lock Fyne). Or something like that, I'm not really sure of the exactly correct titling guideline for bodies of water.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969: Yip. There is that one problem certainly. I started doing coordinates later, probably too late in the day really. The other problem I've got is I dont even know if the list is complete. I'm comparing it with the one in List of bays of the British Isles which I filled several years ago, but that has several missing, even I though I went over it several times, mostly due to a misunderstanding of Gealic place names. I really dont want stuff going missing. Thanks for the help. I plan to put them all in tables, with coordinates and local location names. Thanks for the help on the dimab.scope_creep^Talk 14:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Kt is not usually used as a postnom. Knights Bachelor do not use postnoms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes exactly as Necrothesp says, Knights Bachelor don't add Kt after their names, presumably because the title "Sir" shows that they have a knighthood, and such a knighthood is not one of the orders of chivalry. That is why I removed the KT, not just because it was in upper case, as I think you assumed.Rcb1 (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)rcb1[reply]

Thanks, yes exactly as Necrothesp says, Knights Bachelor don't add Kt after their names, presumably because the title "Sir" shows that they have a knighthood, and such a knighthood is not one of the orders of chivalry. That is why I removed the KT, not because it was in upper case, as I think you assumed.Rcb1 (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)rcb1[reply]

Hi @Necrothesp: In the James Spence Medal articles I adding in thing FRCP into the post-noms. Have they all got to go as well. scope_creep^Talk 11:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, fellowships are fine. They're recognised postnoms. But nothing below fellowships (not MRCS, for instance; but FRCS is fine) or any degrees. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. @Necrothesp:, @Rcb1: It might be worth removing the Kt from the post-noms template as well, which I added. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

• User:DannyS712/communicator
• User:DannyS712/copyvio-check
• User:DannyS712/Undo
• User:DannyS712/Quick-undo
• User:DannyS712/Readonly
• User:DannyS712/Redirectify
• User:DannyS712/Section-strike

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my Wikipedia page showing wrong information I m trying to remove that but it's never goona remove in google search . Can anyone please help! Kandesrikanth (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kandesrikanth: I can help. The reason I removed it was you don't seem to leave an edit summary. Please change and at the end leave an edit summary. If it is your Wikipedia article, the proper mechanism to update it is usually a Wikipedia:Edit requests, and once it has been posted on the talk page, some other uninvolved editor will come along and address the request. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope Creep, I saw that you removed the music section, referring to it as "puff, native advertising per WP:NOT and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Do not add back in. Less than 4000 in Spotify." Where does it say in Wikipedia's guidelines that a musician has to have 4K+ followers on Spotify to be worthy of referencing their music on Wikipedia? It's not as if the entire page talks about his music. The section you removed included the fact that he charted in the top 10 on Billboard - is that not worthy of note for someone who started his career as an athlete? I could understand changing the name of the section, or removing something that doesn't appear truthful. But everything contained in that section referenced legitimate music industry sources, and I only named it "Rafa Selase (Music)" because of the fact he produces music under a different name and it seemed noteworthy to make that distinction. Taryndejesus (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Taryndejesus:. It a very poor section. I will check it. scope_creep^Talk 00:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Taryndejesus:. Its a top-8 on Billboard's New Age Albums chart, which I think is not notable. The rest is native advertising and full of puff. scope_creep^Talk 00:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, "I think is not notable" - that and the rest of your critique reflect your opinions, which I must say I don't find trustworthy. People have always used their opinions to marginalize others. Everything I wrote is verified, not my opinion! Another source in the music section is a quote from a writer at No Depression Magazine, which is covered in Wikipedia. Is their opinion not reliable? This biography is in no way advertising. I will continue to refine the page and see if there are areas that can be improved. I am not trying to skew anything, just contribute to the richness of this online encyclopedia with a biography of someone who is well known in my region for having accomplished some out of the ordinary things. Taryndejesus (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Taryndejesus:. Morning. Any volunteer editing Wikipedia has a duty to follow the policies that Wikipedia adheres to. These include for this instance, the policies: WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:BAND, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOT that apply here: There is more, but these are the most important ones. Ultimately anybody can take stuff out an article if they are in good standing, not blocked or not a sock puppet, and other people, in the same manner, could put it back in by reverting, including yourself, or adding all or any part of the work back if they think it is important. If no agreement of what needs to be done is reached, via discussions on the talk page and no consensus can be reached, then something like WP:RFC can be created and a question is set, folk come to an answer it to resolve the break-in consensus and hopefully through the RFC, consensus is reached as to what content can be in the article, and the agreed content put back in. If that doesn't work, and no consensus is reached, then a dispute is probably the next step, via Dispute resolution. If the article survives Afd, it will be copyedited to remove the WP:PUFF.

I get two to three of these types of articles every week that are promotional and have been doing so for more than 7 years, so I am well experienced at determining what is considered notable and what is not. I make mistakes in the work I do, but at the end of the day, promotional content that is advertising and that damages Wikipedia, must come out, at every stage. Here is an article I came across a few days ago: Ilaria Ramelli that is similar to yours. I think it is laudable that you are trying to update the article. I dont mind if you add some new content in from the old content as long as its well sourced and notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep I appreciate you taking the time to provide such a thorough response. I will continue to refine the page and hopefully in the end this process will bring about a better biography. Thank you for your help! Taryndejesus (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Sukolov Group Belgium.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No longer need. I built it and it has some mistake in it I cant rectify. Created a new one in a different format which is ok. This is no longer needed.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Anatoly Gurevich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cartagena

Ilse Stöbe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Typist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in the account creation process. I have verified that you have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and approved your request.

You may now access the interface here pending a tool root marking your account as identified in the tool database. Before you begin handling any requests, please ensure you have read and understood the account creation guide and username policy to familiarize yourself with the process.

Please subscribe yourself to the private ACC mailing list by clicking here and following the instructions on the page. I also highly recommend that you join us on IRC. We'll be able to grant you access to our private channel (#wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect), where a bot informs us when new account requests arrive, and where you can chat with the other members of the team and get real-time input, advice, and assistance with requests and how to handle certain cases that are giving you confusion or trouble.

IMPORTANT: Please note that repeatedly failing to correctly assess and process account requests and take the correct resulting actions will result in suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Processing account creation requests is not a race, and each request should be handled with your upmost diligence, care, and attention. Closing each account request correctly, accurately, and within full compliance of the ACC tool guide is your goal and your priority; never sacrifice accuracy and compliance of policy in exchange for quantity, or to close a high number of requests that are in the queue.

ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL: Releasing any kind of personally identifiable information or any kind of non-public data listed in the access to nonpublic personal data policy (such as the IP addresses or email addresses of account creation requests), whether intentionally or unintentionally, is treated as an extremely serious violation of policy and breach of confidential information, and will generally result in immediate suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Depending on the severity of the offense, the intent, and the level of misconduct that occurred, the violation and the breach of the confidential information will be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation, which can result in further sanctions and actions being taken against you (such as being blocked, banned, or having your access to nonpublic personal data status revoked). If you have questions about this, or aren't sure about anything in regards to this policy, please ask a tool administrator.

Your current user rights allow you to create up to six accounts in a 24 hour period. After this limit has been reached, you won't be able to create any more accounts. However, you can still process ACC tool requests without any issues; just place any approved requests back into the queue so that another tool user can perform the account creation step and finish the process for you. You also won't be able to create an account with a similar username to that of another account that exists; these requests are listed in a separate queue on the interface, titled "flagged user needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator after you've demonstrated a few months of experience and proficiency with processing and handling new account requests.

Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you for participating in the account creation process, and we're glad to have you as part of the group! Welcome to the ACC tool user team! — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JJMC89: Thanks. I plan to spend the next couple of months examining the process and I plan to follow individual cases ran by other ACC folk for a good while before proceeding, if its possible. Cool, the IRC relay chat is real handy. scope_creep^Talk 07:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll be able to get much out of requests handled by others. Private data is only visible when you reserve a request, and it is purged after the request is closed. The only thing you'll be able to see otherwise is the username. You'll learn more my taking requests then stepping through the guide and asking questions as necessary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harro Schulze-Boysen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the map you need, maybe WP:VPT would be the place to ask. Or have you gotten the help you needed?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vchimpanzee: I have worked out a way to display the coordinates via the built in template:kml . Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People of the Red Orchestra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fritz Lange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">[[User:scope_creep|<font color=" #3399ff" face="Papyrus">scope_creep</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|<font face="Papyrus">Talk</font>]]</sup></span>''' : scope_creep^Talk

to

'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' : scope_creep^Talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anomalocaris: How are you? Its an old signature. Its very nice of you putting another together. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 19:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People of the Red Orchestra, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Karl Müller, Kurt Müller and Anna Müller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luftnachrichten Abteilung 350, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep. I saw your comment on my talk page regarding paid editing. I'm just getting into editing wikipedia articles--I read a lot of news about startups and read a lot of YA fiction, so I figured I'd put it to use. I wasn't paid for any of my edits that I made. Thanks! Let me know if there's anything you think I need to add in my explanation for my recent edits as I try to get better at being a Wikipedia contributor! FrankieCP (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikiproducer123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mohit Bahl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Scope Creep, Thanks for reviewing an article recently created by me for Mohit Bahl, a well-known Personality in India. I wanna request you to review it again as we had added almost 10+ media coverage about him. I had not added those which I think hardly pass or written by him on well known trusted media sites. Please review it again, I had added each source to prove the originality. I hope you will review it and let me know... Thanks again for contributing for Wikipedia Community.

Wikiproducer123 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikiproducer123: I dont think the draft article is notable per WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. However, if you'd like to get a review from another editor, you are welcome to resubmit the draft. I do not plan to review it again. scope_creep^Talk 07:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-American_Petroleum_Company https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch-Amerikanische_Petroleum_Gesellschaft bonus https://av.tib.eu/media/25678 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.203.140 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

95.90.203.140 Thanks for that. I have added a citation into the article to video. Quite interesting. I adds a bit more depth to the article. scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add categories to Trade Facilitation Agreement 2014, possibly with other edits, since AfCH didn't complete its' job. I've already started a thread about the issue here. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 12:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @I dream of horses: I never added categories. It was the last Afc I did last night. I'm not the best at discovering them, unless they are BLP draft submissions. Generally I can sit there for hours trying to discover the right ones, but after years of trying to master it, I've managed to create a working relationship with Vycl1994. When I post an Afc, Vycl1994 comes and post the cats very quickly. scope_creep^Talk 13:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Do you use the AfC helper tool? Because I had to remove the AfC templates manually.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 13:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: Yes I saw that. All the time. I would never consider a manual move. The script is basic but good. It is not a template that I have seen before, but certainly would have removed it today. I always do a post cleanup, even a complete article rebuild if the draft submission is notable. The fact it was very late last night and it mentioned revision history and some instructions meant I would have left it until morning when I was cogent. I think you would have never seen it otherwise. scope_creep^Talk 14:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think long-term editors like ourselves have edited overly fatigued at least once.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 08:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

People of the Red Orchestra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Karl Müller and Kurt Müller

John Graudenz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saddler

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is far beyond my own scope of Wikipedia, buy I noticed this history. You declined the notability of a draft, yet within 30 minutes, the creator of the draft seemingly over-ruled you and the article went live. I suspect this may be a pattern, but I don't know yet. Perhaps you could look at your history of evaluations and see what happens after. If I am reading everything wrong, let me know. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jayjg: I happened to be reading the page and noticed there was some dud content that was being added and continually going back weeks it was being reverted, so I reverted it, so not really directly involved. scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you don't need to respond there. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Hi, mind reviewing the draft I'm working on? 137.74.150.79 (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 137.74.150.79 I've reviewed it. Pretty decent wee article. I have left a comment to provide english translation of the refs using the trans-title property to make them more readable. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 14:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:  Done, although crediting my IRL family friend Mr. Evren for the help with his mediocre Chinese-language skills. 137.74.150.79 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmit it. scope_creep^Talk 16:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:  Done too. 137.74.150.79 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Le Huic‬, I never received your email. For some reason I dont receive them. If you want to drop me a line on here, I can give you my email directly. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 15:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I really liked your sign can I copy it? with a different color? that shadow looks dope. --Siddharth 📨 19:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. scope_creep^Talk 19:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, I just left an "unsourced" warning at User talk:Priyansh90, and noticed you had left an earlier warning about paid editing a couple of weeks ago, asking them to stop editing until they responded - neither of which they've done. It wasn't quite clear to me why you considered them to be a paid editor, though I haven't looked very deeply into their edit history. Do you think it's pretty certain? Should something further be done? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IamNotU: I have looked at this several times now but cant remember what it is for. I would ignore until it resurfaces. scope_creep^Talk 19:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your extensive work in removing frivolous citations from the Hair Peace Salon article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: Thanks for that. That is very nice of you. scope_creep^Talk 16:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Telford Parliamentary church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tobermory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Patxi_Xabier_Lezama_Perier Hi, Scope Creep I just finished the job. Article is ready to be published. Greetings and thanks.--85.84.193.6 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)83.213.83.49 (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Can you remove the tag and publish the work?--85.84.193.129 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 85.84.193.129 that is in the mains-space. Good work on the article. How about finding some public domain or appropriately licenced images for the article regarding some of the sculptors he has made and/or an public domain image of him. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scope Creep, just as you asked me, I just found and add a public domain with an appropriate license for the article. Can you remove the tag and publish the work? Thank you so much.--85.85.195.81 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got a reply back from the editor so I have a way forward to keep it as a seed article. scope_creep^Talk 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean, could you explain better?--85.85.195.81 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC) I do not understand, could you explain better?.--85.85.195.81 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you resubmit it please. I plan to edit it down to a smaller article with the best references. scope_creep^Talk 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand anything. First you put a label and you ask me for a link from an accredited Spanish national publication of the author, I search, find and send the corresponding link. Then you congratulate me and congratulate me for the good work and then you remove the label and publish the article thanking me for the contribution. Then you advise me a public domain with a suitable license for the article and inexplicably you put the label back. Then I surprised I go back to find and find a website with an appropriate license for the article with the content available under the appropriate CC-BY-SA-3.0 license and I added it to the article and now that it is sent again. I do not understand anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Patxi_Xabier_Lezama_Perier#Bibliography Re-send it? I am a beginner in wikipedia, but I think you can reverse the changes and see the article as it was a few hours before putting the label, I do not think it is difficult for you a professional wikipedia. The sculptor is in wikipedia in Spanish, French, Basque, Catalan, etc ...--85.85.195.81 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 85.85.195.81. It is all part of the process for gettting the article for Wikipedia. Another editor has pointed out that the article needs a rewrite and there is potential for it to be deleted. So I moved it to draft so as to ensure it is not deleted. I intend to rewrite it and put it back. If you have an image please add it in. scope_creep^Talk 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, editing it in a smaller article is impossible. The editor who pointed out that the article needs a rewrite is Akerbeltz, a character for which many contributors are leaving to write in wikipedia in English and that many editors are putting complaints for editing conflicts with that person. It takes time that instead of building is dedicated to destroy in the wikipedia and people stop collaborating to avoid conflicts with this person, it is a shame but it is reality. To give you an example: Pages in category "Basque sculptors", for Akerbeltz there are only 4 Basque sculptors and it turns out that one is not even Basque but French. As many of the contributors and editors will not waste my time more on collaborating in wikipedia in English, it's not worth it. As I told you to edit the smallest article, I find it impossible when, precisely because of Akerbeltz, I had to reduce it to the minimum expression by leaving the article in a simple sentence without any interest. I suggest creating a redirect from another wikipedia page, for example from Spanish. Greetings and thanks for your interest, it's a shame that others like Akerbeltz have lost it and say it verbatim: Greatly reducing my involvement on the English Wikipedia. Too many nutters, POV pushers and Wiki lawyers without a shred of common sense and not enough people willing to stand up to them ....by the way The Basque Barnstar of National Merit does not deserve it and they should take it away. Greetings and thanks. As I say, it's not worth wasting your time with that Akerbeltz editor, it creates a redirect.--85.84.35.45 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 85.85.195.81 I wouldn't worry too much about the initial size of it. Even the smallest articles grow in Wikipedia. People see it and information appears and added; they start to grow. I have seen small article of a few hundred bytes grow to 80k in three years. scope_creep^Talk 12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scope creep, I still think that it is best to create a redirect. So that you see a clear example of the weak favor that Akerbeltz is doing to wikipedia in English and especially to Basque art and culture; Here is a list of the current Basque sculptors in Spanish wikipedia who had planned to write their biographies in this English wikipedia, but given the attitude of Akerbeltz, I do not intend to waste my time fighting against their despotism and egocentrism.--85.84.192.250 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Category: Sculptors of the Basque Country (Categoría:Escultores del País Vasco).[reply]

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor%C3%ADa:Escultores_del_Pa%C3%ADs_Vasco

Arturo Acebal Idígoras Aitor Ruiz de Egino Ana Laura Aláez Lucas Alberdi Juan de Ancheta Andrés Nagel Andrés de Araoz Txomin Badiola Néstor Basterretxea Julio Beobide Naia del Castillo Eduardo Chillida Horacio de Eguía Carlos Elguezua Jon Mikel Euba Agustín Ibarrola Cristina Iglesias Lope de Larrea Mikel Angel Lertxundi Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier Joaquín Lucarini Matías Maestro Remigio Mendiburu Pablo Milicua Nemesio Mogrobejo Juan Luis Moraza Jorge de Oteiza Pello Irazu Javier Pérez Ricardo Ugarte Daniel Txopitea Eduardo Úrculo

As you can see the list of Basque sculptors is in the Spanish wikipedia, in the Basque wikipedia there are still many more. Greetings Scope creep. For my part, I stop making contributions to this wikipedia like many other collaborators and editors that we only want to help and only because of a perona, Akerbeltz. we abandoned this project. Greetings Scope creep.--85.84.192.250 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some of these folk would be notable. Jorge Oteiza This person already has an article. This person Remigio Mendiburu could probably achieve an article and has several reference in GBooks. scope_creep^Talk 16:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All these people are remarkable sculptor artists. You say of Remigio Mendiburu thatDo you have several references in GBooks? That does not matter to Akerbeltz, do you know that Akerbeltz is systematically erasing a book of Basque mythology from the author of the article he was writing and that book also has references in GBooks and also has references in The Royal Academy of the Basque Language (Euskaltzaindia), in the Public Reading Network of Euskadi / Library Bilbao-Mediateka BBK of Azkuna Zentroa, Dialnet, etc ... well, it does not matter to him the references to that Akerbeltz, which are also the best contrasted references that I have seen. that as I say, I will not waste my time more contributing here, looking for the best references, etc ... I already tell you that editor Akerbeltz is having several disputes and discussions with other editors who do not think like him and have put him in knowledge of the superiors, but they do not do anything to him and he gets away with it. As I say, I will not waste my time contrasting more than reputable and outstanding references or writing in wikipedia while there is this type of editors who do not reason and always has to be what he says. Greetings and thanks and you go very well.--85.84.192.250 (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC) As I say Never seen removing a book of Basque mythology from the Basque mythology article that is referenced in the Royal Academy of the Basque Language Euskaltzaindia ... incredible but true.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lezama Perier |first1=Patxi Xabier |title=Euskal Mitologia |url=http://gorbeia.euskaltzaindia.eus/cgi-bin/abnetop/O7191/ID49d02563/NT1 |website=Royal Academy of the Basque Language Euskaltzaindia |publisher=Euskaltzaindia |accessdate=18 June 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Lezama Perier |first1=Patxi Xabier |title=Mitologia Vasca |url=https://www.liburubila.euskadi.eus/Record/000001222429 |website=liburubila.euskadi |publisher=Liburubila |accessdate=18 June 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Lezama Perier |first1=Patxi Xabier |title=Mitologia Vasca |url=https://www.katalogoak.euskadi.eus/cgi-bin_q81a/abnetclop/O9599/ID76632f1c/NT1 |website=katalogoak.euskadi |publisher=katalogoak.euskadi |accessdate=18 June 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Lezama Perier |first1=Patxi Xabier |title=Basque Mythology: History of the myths and deities of the Basque mythological universe. |url=https://books.google.es/books?id=vlpZDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y |website=GBooks |publisher=Gbooks |accessdate=18 June 2019}}</ref>Do you find few references for a book? Regards.--85.84.192.250 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This its completed. scope_creep^Talk 19:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cipher Department of the High Command of the Wehrmacht (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Friedrich

John Graudenz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Undercarriage

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People of the Red Orchestra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the page for Julian W. Lucas was just deleted due to lack of notability and not enough credible sources. Today, literally an article was just posted via the Inquirer, one of the largest most respected news sources in the country and has won 20 Pulitzer Prizes, talking about him, his accomplishments, and his notability. The article literally has in the title that he is one of the first an only one armed models. https://www.inquirer.com/news/julian-w-lucas-tommy-hilfiger-model-actor-comedian-one-arm-from-bucks-county-20190703.html It's one of many articles done about him that are about him and not a trivial mention and are considered "Reliable" just as the Wikipedia guidelines are stated. These are also independent sources. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, Notability is defined as "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. " As he is one of the only one armed models ever, and is legitimately successful, documented, and followed, he clearly falls under the definition of Notability, being "worthy of notice" "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" as it is literally being done from various news outlets. I would like to be able to recreate the deleted Wikipedia article and have it successfully stay published as he is clearly deserving of one, and is clearly eligible based off of the current Wikipedia Guidelines. Livewire123 (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Livewire123: I know how you feel, but at the moment he is simply not notable. My first article was deleted and it peeved me off to say the least after spending 2 hours. He may become notable as time passes. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bays of Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glenelg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elfriede Paul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Johannis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep. I added a few sources to the page and moved the existing ones into relevant places within the paragraphs. This is my first article and I'm not really sure what happens now - do I resubmit, or...? Thanks TonalThomas (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TonalThomas: The article is in better nick than it was before. Find a reference for the history section re:speakers and then resubmit and I'll post it to main-space. scope_creep^Talk 14:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added those sources and resubmitted. Thanks for your help!TonalThomas (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johns holds a named chair at Vanderbilt University, so he meets notability via WP:PROF #5. I am myself not a fan of WP:PROF in general or this criterion in particular, and the draft has, of course, other problems, but "notability" technically isn't one of them. Huon (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Huon: How are you? Yip it is a named chair, very prestigious and eminently notable, but the problem with the article is that there is no sources worth talking about, so notability hasn't been proved. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "eminently notable" and "notability hasn't been proved" can both be correct. Are you saying it hasn't been proved that he holds a named chair? Regarding the lack of secondary sources, that is, of course, a problem, but that's a different problem, and it would have been more helpful for the author to leave more specific feedback. Huon (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon. It is not a dichotomy and not mutually exclusive. He holds a named chair, but it must proven. There must be sources to establish notability per WP:V, so it is technically correct that notability has not been established here on Wikipedia. 100 years up the road, the only things that will be left to prove that he is a named chair is a page or two in archive entry and this entry. The guy is in orbit and anybody of that standing you would expect to see about a dozen or more good sources to establish every facet of their life. Any academics life is built on collaboration, so there should be a tremendous amount of concomitant information on him. When I looked at it, I did check the editor but he wasn't coming back, otherwise I would left some instructions. I do regularly leave instructions if I think they're keen to work on it. So many editors just dump the article and don't come back. I don't plan to leave it in there. It will need rescued as the editor is not coming back and I plan to do it now. scope_creep^Talk 20:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it revdel'd? scope_creep^Talk 20:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did come back (or more precisely, they came to the IRC help channel) after the draft was rejected. They might want to work on it some more. I told them that published reviews of his work might be helpful, so with any luck they'll improve the draft. As I said above, I fully agree on the sources issue; in fact, one of the two doesn't even mention him, and some content was copy-pasted from his own "faculty" page; I got rid of that and revdel'd the copyright-infringing revisions. You can find the explanation in the logs, too. Huon (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Yip. I would never have known that help was requested. Its completely transparent. You may need to look some way of sending a notification to the reviewing editor that help has been requested, so they can get into gear. The reviewing editor is at the sharp end and are the best folk to expedite any help, when they are in the context, so to speak. I could have offered another ref as a get go.: CV. There is more. scope_creep^Talk 21:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bracell Limited was redirect to Sateri. Please start a WP:RfD if you want to change the consensus . Matthew hk (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Matthew hk: I'm cool, but not different industries? I havent looked at it in weeks. scope_creep^Talk 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please help booky oren getting his entry inside wikipedi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Booky_Oren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.37.197 (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luftnachrichten Abteilung 350, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I was doubtful that the original article for Roland SP-606 I started was going to be reviewed anytime soon, so I had a duplicate on hand. Overall, I greatly appreciate your time and response regarding this matter, and I hope this "Barnstar" actually amount to some kind of significance in the long run. LonerXL (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LonerXL: Thanks very much for that. That is very nice of you. I forget thank you the first and I just notice. I hope you have good year next year. scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, let me try again.... Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fiachra10003: I put most of your stuff in, apart from pieces of text. scope_creep^Talk 20:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of bays of Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Montrose and Wick

Ian Donald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Brown

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Scope creep! I didn't want to muddy the waters at RfA talk when you'd asked for very general feedback. Are you talking about secret ballot, set terms with regular re-elections, no votes counted until the vote is over, simple majority rather than consensus? I assume you're taking into account that admins operate here as enforcers of rules. Some jurisdictions vote for judges and prosecutors, a few for sheriffs, but often they're appointed by elected officials. And does anyone vote for police officers? So I'd almost think it would need to be an indirect process -- that is, we elect our representatives and rely on our representatives to make appointments. --valereee (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Valereee: None of that. Transparency is really important. Consensus is important as well, but the time frame is important as well. The number of admin that are being accepted is the critical part and the lack thereof. One person per vote is massively inefficient. The reason I asked for feedback is that don't know how the WP:RFA process got started and how/if it can be changed. i don't know enough about it. I think it is incredibly wasteful of time, good candidates are turned away by dodgy voting and it scares a lot a people away from it in the first place, because it doesn't address the nature of administration. It is administration. But the primary problem is we not getting a large block of folk through it on per yearly basis. I plan to write a essay so I can bring it all together. scope_creep^Talk 17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Glad I didn't ask there and possibly create silly offtopicness! --valereee (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input and feedback - very helpful - we'll adjust the text accordingly. Please note, we are not being paid to edit the page and do not have a conflict of interest. We have removed all of the unreferenced elements of text. We will keep the awards as the Drum is one of the top 3 design and marketing publications in the UK (the European hub for creativity).

Jhoward734 (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhoward734: Thanks for getting back to me. The Drum awards are for the company and this is a BLP article, so they won't be staying as they are non notable and only indirectly linked to the subject. You can post and Rfc, but it wont be favour of your view. It is promotion and awards must be won by the person. The link to the famous architect is a good knowledge, if you have a ref for. scope_creep^Talk 13:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Thank you for your clarifications. I have edited the new information to be more relevant to the guidelines of BLP articles. Jhoward734 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 11:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhoward734: That is still promotional. Blp article are written from the viewpoint of the past. So if your talking about services, then what services they offered in the past. Your saying He has an interested in company scale-ups Thats is promotional, advertising his business and it is talking about the present. Also you seem to be pushing the exact same sentence over and over again. You say your not being paid, but it is indicative of you being paid or least have a conflict of interest. I plan to post you to the coin boards. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhoward734: I've posted it. They'll look at it and see if it is promotional and if not it will go back in. scope_creep^Talk 11:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bays of Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balintore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying really really hard not to badger anyone who !votes at the RfA, but you're the first I'm replying to directly, because your neutral opinion sounds like a support - and it confused me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I hadn't posted it as it was mixed message. I'll get rid of it. scope_creep^Talk 16:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are stalking my edits and undoing them for ludicrous reasons. Get a grip on yourself and start editing productively. Lqqhh (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lqqhh You took out a notable piece of information from FA article without consensus thereby breaking the FA criteria, particularly since anybody with a military hobby, watched a tv series on the war, read some books on it, would know it was famous. You've added a date range into a lede, which a no-no generally, usually discussed into the body of an article and you have still not added a reference into a section. Your editing is really decent so why not add a reference into the article. I looked for one and couldn't find a thing. It puzzles me why your not putting one in? I'm starting to think there is some other reason, that perhaps you found the information on a blog. Although I hate adding warnings to a decent editor, if you can't follow the normal rules of discussion. If you keep going your own way you will be blocked. Lastly when warnings are issued, an entry is made is made into a category which is monitored by administrators. So clearing the talk page, which is a known tactic to hide warning, doesn't work. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough that content. I know you never added it, but it still should referenced when updated, otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't be updated. scope_creep^Talk 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Lqqhh (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the draft and for your comments. As requested I added a number of references and links.

Hope this is OK for publishing. Still working to find more references in English publications. Most of the references are in Dutch or French.

JAN52 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAN52 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JAN52: Coolio. It is ok if the reference are in a foreign language. Half the references I put in are in German. I'll try and find some as well. If there are still some bits or sections are unreferenced, they can be pulled before it is published. They can always be added in later, as time passed more references are added, the article will grom the section can go back in. Gallery is really cool. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a number of links and references. Could you please tell if the article is now ok for publication? Thanks for your help! JAN52 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)JAN52[reply]

GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Hey you rejected my article Campaign to Electrify Britain's Railways on August 20th. Since then I have made quite a few changes at your suggestion. Would you mind taking a quick look to see if you think I am heading in the right direction please? GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yip will do. scope_creep^Talk 13:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GRALISTAIR: It is much better. Can you provide a reference for the minister in the lede and then resubmit. scope_creep^Talk 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC) thanks very much - done as you suggested - also resubmitted. Very grateful for your help. Hope other will improve further GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Scope Creep

Please do not delete this page, I am constantly working on this page and other pages. In the coming days, I will add more information related to this page and I will continue to support my work on Wikipedia, so I request you not to delete this page and give me a chance to do more work on this page. Thank you--Romeonew (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed any semblance of promotional language and added ISBNs for the book sources. Thanks!

BnBatchelor (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)BnBatchelor 9/30/19[reply]

I don't want to pester you, but are you still working on Talk:Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/GA1? SpinningSpark 14:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Spinningspark: It slipped my mind. I've have been busy off site and barely been doing any work onsite. Will restart it again tonight or tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, I noticed that you and I both warned user Carajou on the same day with respective to potentially disruptive comments on our respective AfD discussions. Looking at his or her Special:Contributions/Carajou, he or she seems to post the same sort of irrelevant links to Bing searches on multiple AfD discussions. I can't find where to check his or her IP as I've encountered similar problems with Eliko007 and wanted to confirm if there was a potential WP:Sockpuppet. Do you think it's worth raising an issue together in some venue, other than or in the Administrators' noticeboard?

Hi @Dmehus: There behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewtonX, Inc. (2nd nomination) I found to be a bit unusual. I've posted the whole thing up to WP:COI. It is worth singning your comment with four titles like ~~~~ scope_creep^Talk 02:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, That's unfortunate. It's sooo disruptive. I wondered if maybe they had edited some articles and had their articles AfDed so they maybe though they'd try and disrupt AfD processes? Thanks for the reminder re: my signature. Doesn't a bot usually auto-sign comments if you forget, or do they not check user talk spaces? Doug Mehus (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yip scope_creep^Talk

Hi Scope Creep. I was adding stuff from published major newspapers and including Wagner's new company Rezolve and two other big companies that are not even mentioned - Attraqt plc and Venda - which was sold to Oracle. It seems very odd to not include those companies when they represent so much of Wagner's life

Also, there has been a lot of news in the London Times about his latest company Rezolve which needed adding and cannot have been there two years ago....

finally, everything i just added (its taken an hour!) is all from highly reputable sources - Wall Street Journal, PC World, The Times, The Telegraph, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.18.228 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 89.248.18.228. Good to talk to you. Two years ago the article was copy-edited and article consensus was reached with Request for Comment that decided all the oracle related stuff is non-notable and your trying to add it back in and turning the clock back four years. It is clear you've been paid to write this. Declare your a paid editor per WP:PAID and WP:DISCLOSURE and make an Wikipedia:Edit requests on the talk page, where it will be checked. No doubt a good chunk of it will go in, but the puff with stay out. scope_creep^Talk 15:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• BlueCheese2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:USB3 Vision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I took a stab at adding some book references to Draft:USB3_Vision. Please let me know if this now meets the notability requirements.

BlueCheese2 (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BlueCheese2: I promoted it to main-space, copy-edited it up a bit, added a reference and a tag to add categories. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 16:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom. That was very much appreciated. As you have taken such a detailed interest in it, perhaps you would like to follow it on the path to FA, on which I intend to take it? If you're not interested, please say, otherwise I'll give you a ping when it's up for review.

I think you mentioned that this was your first review of a GA. I thought I should come here and give you some advice – in the spirit of helpfulness rather than criticism. You would be unwise to review all GAs to the extent you have with this article. Many editors will become upset if you start asking for changes outside the GA criteria. You could have even got a response like that from me if it wasn't for the FA potential of this page. Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not is a useful essay on common mistakes in this regard. My personal approach is to only include things outside the criteria if they are likely uncontroversial and quick fixes. Uncontroversial will usually mean that it is recommended in a guideline. Anything else I studiously ignore. If the nominator declines to do any of the out-of-scope issues, then I just pass it anyway without comment. Telling them they are wrong just generates bad feeling. Another approach I have seen from some editors is to list the GA issues that determine whether the article passes or fails, and separately create a list of suggestions for further work. One approach I wouldn't recommend (but I have seen a lot of reviewers do it) is to run through the article themselves with a copyedit before starting the review. Unless you know the editor, and know what they are going to find controversial, that method has the potential to start a dispute before the review has even begun. SpinningSpark 16:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i jumped the gun a bit. I have a message which I was going to post at 4 saw there was another message. I plan to. scope_creep^Talk 16:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please read the talk page of this page, and remove to speedy deletion template if the explanation is sufficient? Thanks. Otherwise, let me know what should be changed. See [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Initramfs (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Initramfs: It fails WP:PRODUCT and doesn't have a originating article that proves its notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep: I do not think that the *company* BaoFeng is notable. However, I do think this specific product of BaoFeng is notable, which is possible according to the page you linked: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right." Initramfs (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I don't think it is notable. It needs to be inordinately popular product to make it on here and it needs prove it. Four or five small references won't cut it. WP is not product listing site generally. You can contest it if you want to and then it will go to an Afd. I would suggest that. scope_creep^Talk 16:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: How do I contest it? BaoFeng does not release their sales numbers (of course), but this particular model has thousands of reviews just on Amazon for a single listing, it has been sold through different channels (especially Chinese web shops). This model is also the base of a lot of other radios under different brands. [2] [3]

There is a button on the front the dialog. Supply a reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Hmm, I already did it before, but now there are two different entries. I think the explanation is a sufficient proof that the product is notable. Anyway, can I ping someone apart from you to review this entry in the talk page? Initramfs (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Initramfs, ask an administrator for help. Bbb23 is pretty decent. Post a message, see what they say about it. If the speedy is rejected I plan to take it to Afd. scope_creep^Talk 17:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Initramfs: I've sent it to Afd, see what they make of it. scope_creep^Talk 19:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep: and @Onel5969:. I updated the user page to include a paid disclosure. I definitely don't meet the test in a traditional sense but I think it's easier to simply disclose a conflict rather than face immediate assumptions at every turn. :)

On to the topic of Bonin Bough. My understanding of the situation is that he does meet WP:NOTABILITY, but some of the sources are "paid for" -- as you put it (scope) and "PR pieces" (One15969). It's (truly, truly) a serious accusation to claim a publication is paid off without disclosure but setting that aside for a moment, the articles that support his notability are:

• Fast Company |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• The Guardian |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• Adage |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• PBS |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• PR Week |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• American Inno |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|

Mashable |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|

• EMarketer |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• C-suite Quarterly |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• The Drum |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• [Salon (website)]] |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• Foodbeast |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• Cleveland.com |in depth = no|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• Page Six |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• Fortune |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|
• Forbes |in depth = yes|different journalist than other publications = yes|

And there are others. Many others. The journalists who wrote at each are all different. And of course there are multiple articles at each publication. I itemized "in depth" and also "different journalist" above so we don't run the risk of the same writer at more than one publication covering Bonin.

Intuitively, the youngest black man at a Fortune 50 -- not 500 -- in the C-suite seems fitting for a page given the volume of coverage on him. One who was a host for a whole season of a show on CNBC seems even more of a shoe in.

Further, a comparison to "peers" who are on Wikipedia yields hundreds if not thousands of subjects with far, far less coverage. Like embarrassingly less. Here's just one the Wiki tools directed me to for first edits to "help" Allison Kugel. I can find thousands of others. :)

So tell me, what am I missing? Would you reconsider if I redrafted this without an accolades section, shorted it way up, tersely, and stuck to just a few lines of facts on him supported by the sources above?

• "Why Bonin Bough Left Mondelez To Help Shepherd Small Businesses With LeBron James". Fast Company. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Exploring the growth of branded content and native advertising". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Bonin Bough on His Next Gig and the Future of CPG". AdAge. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Generation like". PBS. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Bonin Bough departs Mondelez". PR Week. Retrieved 19 October 2019.
• "Cleveland Hustles: Meet Bonin Bough, the Host of Cleveland Hustles". CNBC. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "This Marketing Guru Says You Should Focus on a 'Coalition of the Willing'". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Bonin Bough: Mobile Mogul and Disruptor's Past, Present, and Future". CSQ magazine. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Bough looks to the East for inspiration". PR Week. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Bonin Bough has left Mondelez". AdAge. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Inside Gatorade's Social Media Command Center". Mashable. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "PepsiCo10 Winners Announced: Includes Two Boston Startups". American Inno. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "An Interview with B. Bonin Bough". emarketer. Retrieved 19 October 2019.
• "Bonin Bough: mobile has become society's crystal meth". Campaign Live. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Mondelez launches content deal with BuzzFeed within new marketing model". Campaign Live. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Bonin Bough talks his new hosting gig, the future of messaging apps and today's media landscape". The Drum. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Mondelez Pairs Brands With 2013 Class of Mobile Futures Startups". Brand Channel. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "I have seen the future of retail and it looks like an oreo". Salon. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Oreo's Dunk in the Dark Super Bowl tweet 'a huge win' and 'a huge failure' states Mondelez digital chief". The Drum. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Marketers Jump on Super Bowl Blackout With Real-Time Twitter Campaigns". AdAge. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "This Year's SXSW Has a Vending Machine That Makes 3D Printed Oreos". Food Beast. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "At SXSW, taste testing 3D-printed Oreos". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "How Bonin Bough pivoted from marketing guru to reality tv host". Fast Company. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "LeBron James investing 'time and influence' in 'Cleveland Hustles'". Cleveland.com. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "CNBC's 'Cleveland Hustles' launching spin-off series". Page Six. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "How This Mobile Marketer Dominated His Field". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Advertising Hall of Achievement". American Advertising Federation. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "40 Under 40: Bonin Bough". Fortune. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Most Creative People: B. Bonin Bough". Fast Company. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
• "Power List 2012: Bonin Bough". PR Week. Retrieved 18 October 2019.

Respectfully and sincerely here. SilvanJo (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SilvanJo: Thanks for that and getting back to me. I think that article is in draft. Its a redirect, ok. The reason it was posted was that most of the reference are from paid for work. It becomes very easy over years of doing NPP review and AFC review to see articles that have been paid for and have really dodgy references like this article. To make the article work, I would suggest WP:THREE sources, which are good WP:SECONDARY references that are independent and in-depth about him and only him. I would suggest creating a draft and start with the Guardian reference. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 17:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth pointing out that paid work is good if the editor declares and the work is high quality. scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It goes without saying that probably his page should be maybe 200 words and not 800+. While notable, he's not Kissinger. Back to your question on the three:

• Guardian keynote and editorial panel
• PBS PBS, discussed nine times
• Fast Company Fast Company both digital and in-print written by P. Claire Dodson, an editor who was also at Vogue and Rolling Stone (and definitely not contributor side or other nonsense.)

These are the three least suspicious articles that explain the core reason he's notable, too: "best known for hosting CNBC's Cleveland Hustles and as a Fortune 50 CMO. I don't think race (he's black and that's very rare for C-suite execs at Fortune 50) or "paying" for articles had so much to do with all of the coverage -- so much as simply some creative campaigns like "you can still dunk in the dark" for Oreos. And pointedly -- there's just no way he paid for an editor at Fast Company to write a feature on him. CNBC, too. That's just absurd. That said, regarding the Wiki page itself, I do think avoiding any editorializing, any promotion nonsense, and keep it very straightforward, you have a good page here that adds value to the community and puts Wikipedia first. SilvanJo (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SilvanJo: References really shouldn't be suspicious. The ideal secondary is from a newspaper or an book. The first two references are video and not ideal as as references. The second guardian reference is media-network-blog/ is a blog ref and is unsuitable. The fast company article is tiny and its intellectually independent and in-depth.scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I only started with Guardian because you mentioned it.

• 1. You wrote regarding Fast Company its intellectually independent and in-depth. Is it safe to say that's one of the three?

There's a second, full spread piece in Fast Company at [4] -- and the print version is five pages long. Elizabeth Segran, again, staff -- has very clear editorial oversight over her.

• 2. Number two would then be reliable source CNBC, at Exec Bonin Bough... (written by Zack Guzman, now PM Anchor @YahooFinance -- with clear editorial oversight at CNBC at the time)

and

• 3. AdAge: Bonin Bough leaving Mondelez..., AdAge, also a clear reliable source written by staff. There are four of these at AdAge alone including [5], [6], [7]

Are we satisfied on these three? Because I can go on and on -- there is The Drum written by staff [8] and Entrepreneur, Forbes, and Financial Times beyond that. SilvanJo (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC) SilvanJo (talk)[reply]

• checking in. SilvanJo (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,I made all the changes to draft:Aaron Lapedis that you mentioned, is there anything else I should change to have it approved? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BnBatchelor (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BnBatchelor: Supply references that are WP:SECONDARY. As it stands at the moment it won't pass draft. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get a response to this question. Did you find what you were looking for? I don't really understand the question since I haven't worked with math-related articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vchimpanzee: If you have a look at the talk page of user:BetterMath and regarding the article Relative likelihood. It regards the term itself, Relative likelihood, was originally in bold all over the article. I thought bolding wasn't used for the name of a mathematical function in an article, nor italics. However BetterMath converted the name relative likelihood into italics. The fundamental question is supposed in Italics or is it bold. I don't think it is anything. The function is left as a plain name. Thanks for coming back. scope_creep^Talk 20:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in with that reversion! Schazjmd (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the IP at AIV and requested page protection for the article. I'm going to give it a bit of time for (hopefully) the IP to blocked before reverting again, otherwise it's just whack-a-mole.Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Schazjmd: Indeed, it gets a bit ridiculous after a while. I posted a note to Alexf. They are very keen to keep it. After it is gone they will recreate it by a new, perhaps a middle initial, perhaps in draft, so keep watch. scope_creep^Talk 19:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet oddly enough, they're not defending it at the AFD discussion! Thanks for the warning, I'll keep an eye on new page creation. Appreciate your help on this! Schazjmd (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you really are a fan of Bertrand Russell, it would behove you to remove your pseudoscientific Myer-Briggs score. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:20CD:573D:257B:CFFB (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment concerning Loch Long, Highlands. I'm not sure why coordinates would point to the end of a body of water. However, I have on occasion pointed them toward a center point that actually was outside a body of water with a very irregular shape. In most cases, I try to use my best guess in placing coordinates. While there is undoubtedly a way to mathematically find a shape's center, most water bodies expand with rains, tides, etc., and contract in dry periods, so calculating most centres, lengths and widths is not an exact science. Bill Pollard (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wpollard: In that case you shouldn't really do that, particularly if its UK loch or lake or land feature, e.g a bay. In the long run its better to keep then synced with the Ordnance Survey coordinates, which is the most importance geographic dataset in the UK. Your stab at coords when they are already available, are probably wrong, now that I've thought about it. You have got for Loch long at Coord|57|17|53|N|5|29|21.2|W| when the coords are actually at 57°18'46.1"N 5°27'45.3"W. The only people that update these maps are the Ordnance Survey in the UK, so when you putting in your own coords, your making the geographic dataset that is available on Wikipedia a secondary source, a lesser data source by definition. The Wikipedia geographic dataset is available as a download and it needs to be in sync with the ordinance survey or its useless. To find the coords for place in Google or Bing put in Loch long highland getoutside, turns up [[9]]. At the moment I'm putting in Scottish lochs and bays. I have done about 40 so far and plan to do them all. I now plan to go around and update all the ones you've incorrectly updated. I'm sorry about that. scope_creep^Talk 22:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had a ton of work in front of me. That cool. Sorry about that. scope_creep^Talk 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have changed very few coordinates in Britain. For Britain, I will go by what the ordinance survey uses, if they have something. In many places in the world, there are no coordinates and I have corrected coordinates that I have found wrong. I will try to find where in Britain I may have changed coordinates and change them back, but I know at most only a few places would be involved. I regret having caused anyone problems. Please accept my apology. Bill Pollard (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that I added a lake infobox, as this loch is listed under WikiProject Lakes (although it is not truly a lake). I have been going through the 'stubs' list of the Lakes project and adding information to articles to improve them. This has been quite fascinating, as lakes, swamps, parks containing lakes, dried lakebeds and even water bodies connected to seas and oceans are included in this project. Bill Pollard (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Zohra Aghamirova, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, first, thanks for all you on WP, especially at NPP. A few months back (maybe as many as 12), it was decided at NPP that articles which were either prodded or speedied shouldn't be reviewed until the prod/speedy had been determined. AfD's are okay, but not the other two. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969: I've been doing that all week. I'll give it a swerve. Thanks for updating me. scope_creep^Talk 19:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I used to do it as well. No worries. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Yeva Meleshchuk, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article ripoff, although badly written, has been there for a while. I don't think a speedy delete draftify is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies as to ripoff. The article has been around for a while, and I can see no justification for speedily removing it from mainspace. The appropriate venue is WP:AFD. Please revert yourself, especially since the first to move it was a blocked sock, and you are restoring his edits. If you can point to a guideline which allows this, we can discuss it there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Drafts#WP:DRAFTIFY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DRAFTIFY, I'm objecting. Please restore the article to mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Draft:The Albanian Great Doors just came up for WP:G13, which I fixed. I see you were interested in this last year. Did you make any progress? It's an obviously well-written article, so I don't want to see it get lost. But, nobody seems to be able to find any information about it, so I don't want to accept it into mainspace, so there's a WP:V problem. For all I know, it's a hoax. That, plus the neutrality template somebody dropped on it. Any thoughts on this? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RoySmith: It's been a while since I looked at it, unfortunately. I think it a translation of an Albanian Wikipedia article. When I first saw it, a did some research and found out it was talking about the Albanian merchant class. I posted a note up to a reference desk looking for an Albanian expert who could perhaps copyedit it, tidy it up and make it more recognisably English, but nothing came of it. I don't know if maybe want to find another expert. It certainly looks like a decent article and lot of work has gone into it to try an align the Wikipedia article with the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately the editor has dissapeared. scope_creep^Talk 20:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I started digging into this again, I discovered I had asked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania#Need help reviewing some drafts a year ago and got discouraging input. Do you remember if you ever found anything that used the term "Great Door" in this context? It's weird that I can find absolutely nothing. My hunch is that "Great Door" may be some weird auto-mis-translation. Google translate gives "Dyert e Medha Shqiptare" -> "Great Albanian Doors", and "Oxhaqet e Medhenj Shqiptare" -> "Large Albanian Chimneys". Maybe I'll just G13 it after all, but I figured I'd give it one last shot to see if I could make any sense of it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RoySmith: I think it was the best thing for it. It has to be in context, in the language we're speaking and verifiable, and it only partially fit that. On top of that two separate attempts, to try and understand it, is a lot for a draft particularly if you can't make any headway.scope_creep^Talk 18:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing this up - no hard feelings! WJ94 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Besnik Sulaj edit
	We are reaching you out about one warning we have received from you. This is not right as we are adding the information based on fact and not promotion. AnxFab (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AnxFab: Unfortunately that individual is not notable. I reviewed it as part of the NPP process. There is some minor coverage but not nearly enough to create an article. I did do a good search. The only thing I could find was his association with a football team and it was only that association that brought the name up. There is nothing else, no bio information at all. He may be mentioned in Wikipedia in several places as has several million other people, but that doesn't make him notable. I would suggest creating a draft on other Bulgarian subject or individual. Bulgaria is under represented on Wikipedia and there is lot of articles that could be created. I will remove that tag. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besnik Sulaj

What do you think for Saimir Mane? How is possible that he has two wikipedia article: https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Mane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Mane Besnik Sulaj has the same possition like Saimir Mane in Albania. He is a businessman and he has opened dfferent business as we have mentionet to Wikipedia Page. i don't know who is your purpose? AnxFab (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @AnxFab:, I meant to say Albanian. That was a bit crass. scope_creep^Talk 12:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your correction. I just jumped in, because the subject is important to me and I believe that the official view (New York Times etc. citing psychologists) leads astray. I will try to present something better prepared next time. Kurt1703 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted the change I made on Ace of Coins. The change I'm reverting happened years ago, the website you linked clearly copied it from Wikipedia. You are the third person who has made this mistake, please let the change stick. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.87.59 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today I converted the ZWNBSP page from a redirect page (to WJ) to a disambiguation page; you rejected this edit because I did not provide references. I have thanked your edit. In Unicode, FEFF is still called ZWNBSP, even though usage as ZWNBSP has been deprecated in favor of the equivalent WJ. Here are some rationales of why I considered this change to be fit:

• The WJ character is not called "ZWNBSP" but it functions as the zero-width non-breaking space. Therefore, it is 'functionally' a ZWNBSP.
• Unicode continues to refer to FEFF as "ZWNBSP" even though it is now meant as the BOM. Users who search up "ZWNBSP" will now be able to know both code points.
• ZWNBSP is now used as BOM, yet WJ is used as ZWNBSP space.

Here are two references:

• Arabic Presentation Forms-B: FEFF is the ZWNBSP codepoint; it has also been called "special" and that "use as an indication of non-breaking is deprecated" in favor of WJ.
• [10]: BOM is even called the "old" name of ZWNBSP.

--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MULLIGANACEOUS: That information is partially represented in Word joiner article. It would be better if that article was updated as ZWNBSP is deprecated, which doesn't make it non-notable but there is really no point in duplicating information. The whole point of redirects it to enable the reader to find the subject. When you remove the redirect it makes it harder particularly in the light of having a partial definition in the Word joiner. At the same time WP is not a Faq, nor a howto, nor a manual and no point in list deprecated unicode character that nobody is going to search on. scope_creep^Talk 21:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It would be good that a user searching up for a "non-breaking space of zero width" ends up on the WJ space because the WJ space has the same whitespace properties as ZWNBSP; that is likely the primary audience. It is rather interesting why Unicode refers the name "ZWNBSP" almost exclusively to FEFF. The fact that ZWNBSP specifically refers to FEFF in Unicode provides the motivation of why I converted the ZWNBSP page into a disambiguation. --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scope creep! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I only started with Guardian because you mentioned it.

• 1. You wrote regarding Fast Company its intellectually independent and in-depth. Is it safe to say that's one of the three?

There's a second, full spread piece in Fast Company at [11] -- and the print version is five pages long. Elizabeth Segran, again, staff -- has very clear editorial oversight over her.

• 2. Number two would then be reliable source CNBC, at Exec Bonin Bough... (written by Zack Guzman, now PM Anchor @YahooFinance -- with clear editorial oversight at CNBC at the time)

and

• 3. AdAge: Bonin Bough leaving Mondelez..., AdAge, also a clear reliable source written by staff. There are four of these at AdAge alone including [12], [13], [14]

Are we satisfied on these three? Because I can go on and on -- there is The Drum written by staff [15] and Entrepreneur, Forbes, and Financial Times beyond that.SilvanJo (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SilvanJo: Have a go at creating an article in draft at WP:AFC. An independent reviewer will take a look at it and evaluate it. It is probably the best approach. I must admit it is borderline for me. There is a fair amount of coverage which I have seen in the last several months as being able to pass WP:SIGCOV but it is tenuous. The economist has a reference about, its small but it is the economist. scope_creep^Talk 20:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and lucid opinion. SilvanJo (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly message in connection with your recent good-faith edit on Louise Dittmar. You replaced Category:German philosophers by Category:German women philosophers. It's important to keep the master category when using a non-diffusing category, many of which are used in connection with women. You many remember the outcry a few years ago when there were complaints that women no longer appeared in category lists of American artists. I think I've taken care of the problem.--Ipigott (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott, Yip I remember it clearly. I will keep it in mind in the future and the article I'm doing now. Thanks for reminding me. I think I'll need to go and look at all the rest of the articles I've completed on women. scope_creep^Talk 13:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Notable Person
	As we can not create an article for Besnik Sulaj, which is a known businessman in Albania, please can you give me more details how is this possible for this person to be online on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Mane He has same background as Besnik Sulaj and you have allowed it to be onlien. Just be fair for all the users. AnxFab (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AnxFab: He has some coverage in major daily Albanian newspapers which helps. It not is lot, there is a good two or three references. Coverage is WP:SIGCOV. Your man was quite obscure and failed WP:BASIC. Your obviously very keen to get your man Wikipedia. Are you being paid to do this?scope_creep^Talk 13:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're now a member of Women in Red. I know you are pretty good at writing biographies but in connection with women, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any problems or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep Also we have entered the article where is mentioned his name. These were newspaper article also. What is your purpose for your question? What is the difference, this person is notable and needed to have a wikipedia like all the businessman on all the countries. AnxFab

Hi AnxFab. There is no criteria or policy that states that a businessmen must be in Wikipedia. Have you read the notability policies at all? Start with reading WP:BIO and WP:BLP. It is all in there. Here is the statement, at the beginning of the article. 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. Here is WP:SECONDARY. That is also essential reading and is everything that Wikipedia encompasses.

To get it down to basics it must be a person or group talking about you to some other person or group, in detail, who are independent of you and do not know you within that context. scope_creep^Talk 15:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnxFab: Does that definition at the end make sense? scope_creep^Talk

@Scope creep:. No I am not clear as you have delted all our information when we have add all the article and we have met your criteria. I am not clear about your criteria.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No arugment, I didn't realize that was a blog I was referencing. But she was guillotined. A fact and there are RS on that. And an execution is a judicious murder. Same thing just not as aesthetic as saying "executed". Hitler did not execute millions of people he murdered them, he and his minions.Oldperson (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oldperson: How are you? I read your user page. I hope your making progress!! I put your sentence in and plan to use it in several other articles on that type. The ref that is on the page should cover it. The book is very detailed. It was murder. no doubt about it. I knew she guillotined, some of the hatcheted, others were strangled and some were hung by piano wire. I'm currently updating the Red Orchestra article and plan to create as many as possible article on this list: People of the Red Orchestra. I plan to create articles for most of these. At the moment I am working on Gisela von Poellnitz who was a courier for the Schulze-Boysen group. She was a also a young women. scope_creep^Talk 22:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Scope. I came upon her article in Women in Red, Totally impressed, and extraordinarily sad at the same time. I am horrified by the number of (brave) women murdered by that fascist monster, we all know about the holocoaust and the massacre of gypsies, social democrats, Poles, etc but little attention is paid to the murder of his political enemies, and I am amazed at the number of women amongst them, including a nun. Beheaded and thrown in a mass grave, because Hitler refused the request of her order to bury her in their cemetery. Every woman murdered by Hitler deserves her own article, but sadly there is a dearth of reliable sources to justify one, but one can try. I want to check out the Nun who was murdered. BTW I pinged you to an RfC thread I started. I am seriously irked by the whitewashing of state sanctioned murder by RS, the media, even schools and publishers calling them executions. We are so inured by these words, that they do not have any import anymore. I understand WP's need to speak in a NPOV, but we don't have to whitewash murders do we? If carried out by a "Democratic state" they are referred to as executions.Oldperson (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As regards my health. Oncologist told me that I am the poster "child" (at 80) for Keytruda. Had a CT Scan Friday, an MRI yesterday, will meet with Oncologist tomorrow, he will render a verdict whether I continue on with Keytruda (2 years of treatment, 34 sessions to date). All considered I am doing well, just some deficits, verbalization,balance,short term memory, after the craniotomy (removed the tumor) and radiation. Oncologist will decide if I continue on or stop treatment. I opt for stopping, I receive infusion via an IV and my veins are increasingly more difficult to access. I am hoping for full remission. Pres Carter had the same regimen as me, just different cancer (melanoma metastisized to his liver), they stopped treatment after three months. I had stage 4 lung cancer and beat my expiration date in June of last year. BTW I would like to follow your work onthe Red Orchestra. I found myself very motivated by the White Rose society. I stand in total awe and respect for those brave young folk. I read that the executioner of Sophie Scholl said that she was the bravest person he ever executed. Much respect.Oldperson (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scope creep. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Catherine Stokes, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims coverage in reliable sources (maybe not Deseret News, but SL Tribune should qualify). Thank you. SoWhy 11:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coolio @SoWhy: It is still there, which is a good sign. scope_creep^Talk 20:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently User:mwgamera mentioned me after starting a talk page for the ZWNBSP redirect. Although I [reluctantly] agreed with the redirect rejection; he also finds it confusing that ZWNBSP now redirects to WJ. I am proposing that ZWNBSP should redirect to BOM instead, because U+2060 is never called ZWNBSP despite being a non-breaking space of zero width. The context of these two articles is about Unicode and understanding the technical details of Unicode; the audience is for people who either work for Unicode, are developers who use Unicode, or want to know more about Unicode; ZWNBSP is in fact a very notable special character in Unicode.

ZWNBSP is called ZWNBSP historically because it was used as a non-breaking space of zero width. We could say, "ZWNBSP was historically used as a WJ; at that time it served a dual purpose as a BOM when used at the beginning of text files, and as a WJ when used anywhere else."

The whitespace character that is non-breaking and has zero width is called WJ, even if it is not named consistently compared to the other whitespace characters and is a retronym for ZWNBSP.

• A common breaking space is symbolized as [SP]
• A non-breaking space has width of [SP] is symbolized as [NBSP]
• A fullwidth space used in some CJK texts is breaking and symbolized as [ID SP]
• A zero-width space that is breaking is symbolized as [ZWSP]
• A zero-width space that is non-breaking is however represented as [WJ], a "word joiner" or a "non-breaking space with zero width".
• [ZWNBSP] always refers to the special codepoint FEFF, and for the target audience, they should know that [ZWNBSP] is an entirely separate character whose name suggests the usage of WJ, and was once used as WJ.

I hereby propose that ZWNBSP should redirect to BOM to suit the audience better; and that BOM should note that FEFF is once used as WJ.

--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coolio. @MULLIGANACEOUS: There seems to some page consensus forming, which is good. Crack on and I will check it when it's finished and assuming if follows WP:THREE ref's at the least. Discovered a new word, retronym re: above. The day is truly charmed. scope_creep^Talk 20:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harro Schulze-Boysen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neustadt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lera Loeb. I mentioned you in relation to an AfD you participated in but was not suggesting you did anything wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147 Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red... Online events: New: Parliamentarians / Classical musicians / 2019 deaths / Geofocus: Arab world Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi scope creep, I appreciate your time for taking a look at the page about Viberate Viberate. My guideline was creating a page from a completely neutral point of view, citing only verifiable and independent sources. If you believe there's something in particular that has to be changed or added, please do let me know. Nice regards Erujsl (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2316 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gerda Arendt:, that's very nice of you. Although we have never spoke, I've admired your writing for years. I'm glad you noticed my message to Jytdog. With a bit of luck he will come back. scope_creep^Talk 22:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I look at Chuckstreet, see my talk. Can we afford to drive away editors who would improve? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have closed several AfDs of BLPs to which you were yourself a contributor. Please do not do this. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Xxanthippe: I'll keep it in →mind for the next time. Thanks for keeping me right. scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good day!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olshana and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilshana

it`s differrend villages in Ukraine.--ДмитроСавченко (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Macgirl: You've made good start but the article still looks like an advertisement and it still has refereces that are illegal like the Daily Mail. Remove all the advertisement, who has bought the shoes. That is advertising. Clean it up, and somebody else will review it.scope_creep^Talk 19:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Scope creep:. Not sure if you saw my earlier response about the reasoning behind including celebrity names in the article, so copying it again here:

"With regards to the comment you made about celebrity clientele and WP:PUFF--

Because Jessica Rich herself is not yet a household name, I thought that including well-known celebrity clients in the article may help readers learn more about her and, in particular, her design aesthetic and target market (many of the celebrities listed as having worn her shoes are very high profile African American women/women of color). I also noticed that mentioning celebrity clients is common practice in Wiki pages of other designers, even some who would be considered household names by many. For example:

Christian Siriano - has an entire section devoted to his celebrity clientele

Jimmy Choo Ltd - mentions Princess Diana as one of his clients in the opening paragraph

Jeffrey Sebelia - mentions celebrity clients of his former label by name

Christian Louboutin - though specific celebrity names are not mentioned, a reference to him having "celebrity clientele" is made in the opening paragraph

Specifically, I think the references I made to Jennifer Lopez' use of these shoes in recent events are useful for notability, as some of these looks were very widely publicized. The looks perhaps may not be quite as iconic as JLo's green Versace dress from the '90s, but they are still memorable and were discussed in reputable media. I have additional references that can help establish this point (here is one example: https://us.hola.com/fashion/2019101428052/jennifer-lopez-fashion-moment-orange-dress-style/); please let me know if it is useful to include these."

Given that I'm simply following established precedents, I think the inclusion of celebrity names in the Jessica Rich article is suitable. Perhaps a rewording of the sentences would work here? macgirl (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Macgirl:, it's not really established precedents, it is mostly branding and is considered advertising on Wikipedia per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Mentioning they bought it, particularly when they themselves are products and/or are heavily involved in selling their own products is advocating the sale of those products on Wikipedia, which is explicitly banned per Wikipedia Terms of Use. Wikipedia is a charity, and its licence is contingent on not selling or advocating the sale of any products on Wikipedia. So saying the Jennifer Lopez, who is huge cultural icon is advocating for their sale. Looking at your list, because they doing is not a argument in any circumstance. It probably a fact most of them have never under kind of copyedit. Mentioning Princess Diana who transcends all cultural boundaries is probably ok, it is mention. Christian Louboutin is a mention. It is best way of doing it. It has probably been copyedited in the past. There is a whole of people who see Wikipedia as place to sell their stuff and at moment Wikipedia is losing the battle. Most of types of articles are written by the paid crowd, or those folk who are in the industry and are so steeped in advertising. It just not fact it must be neutral, balanced and free of promotion. Your article is full of WP:PUFF, or I will need to remove it. scope_creep^Talk 19:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t hear it from me, but I recommend looking through this user’s talk page history, specifically around April and May 2019. I’ve had it on my watchlist from interacting with them before and noticed the current shenanigans. I wanted to make you aware of the full history of the user, in case you weren’t already.

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently removed a section in Envy Gaming, and your edit summary was "advertising". I am curious as to why you consider the content in that section as such. Thanks. Pbrks (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pbrks: It is good to meet somebody from Blighty. It is a good article and Wikipedia needs these types of articles, but it is promotional. I reviewed it as part of WP:NPP review and I think the section fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. Company articles are supposed to be written in the past, not in present and writing about branding is clearly advertising. Do not put it back in. scope_creep^Talk 18:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I see where you're coming from. All-but-one of the main verbs used in the section were in past-tense (signed, made, partnered, announced, included), so how was it written in present tense? Further, WP:NOTADVERTISING does not imply that major sponsorship deals are considered advertisement, and the only thing I can see being applicable is the first sentence of #5, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." While I disagree with you, I will not be adding it back in, as this seems to be one of your main areas of focus on Wikipedia, but I am hoping to get some clarification. (Also, "Do not put it back in." was implied when you removed the section in the first place, and really didn't need to be reiterated – the tone is a bit off-putting). Pbrks (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbrks: Sorry if my tone is a bit crass. I see so many business articles. I work up at WP:COI and Spam noticeboard and see many many business articles coming through that are full of puff and are highly promotional, usually one or two a day and it is the same arguments every time. Everything about companies on the web are written to be promotional, its they're nature to promote themselves, they have to, to differentiate them and make a profit. So I think it very hard to write an article using those types of sources, so you end up with an article that doesn't reflect the values of Wikipedia, which is to be neutral, factual, encyclopedic, high quality and free of WP:PUFF. Stuff like funding news, share prices, buyouts, forecasts, expansions, acquisitions, mergers, capital raised and so on. Its very low quality information. Most folk don't want to read and its out of date so very quickly, hence the reason for the update to WP:NCORP criteria 3 years ago. Most of it can't be used to establish notability. When is it put in, it out of date within months, and the evidence is in, that those who need to read it, would rather read most detailed information on sites like Bloomberg and other specialist finance and investment sites. So that kind of finance information that is used to bulk up these company articles makes them less attractive, more generic and of a lower quality than on other best of class, company articles, that tend to focus on why that company is notable and prove it with good non-finance secondary sources. It is those types of company articles that tend to survive over the long term and are never deleted. On top of that, the paid crowd that come in and make their article like company brochures. They are the lowest quality articles on Wikipedia by far, as they are like snapshots in time, with very low quality short lived generic information. Junk crap at the best of times. scope_creep^Talk 09:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply, I really appreciate it. I can imagine seeing the same junk would get repetitive and somewhat frustrating. When you say funding news, I'm surprised that acquisitions and mergers are considered low quality. So, does that include investors as well; namely, should the the section of "investors" on the aforementioned page be removed or incorporated better into a different section? Pbrks (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbrks: Sources about acquisitions and mergers are non-rs so can't be used to source the article. Have a go yourself. Merry Christmas Pbrks. I hope you and your family have the very best of health and happiness next year. scope_creep^Talk 12:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

. Andrew Base (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Andrew Base: 12:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Base: Merry Christmas. I hope you and your family have a great year filled with health, happiness and joy. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Hi @CAPTAIN RAJU: Merry Christmas. 12:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Maria Canals (pianist), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 13:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Scope creep
	Hi Scope creep, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010talk 00:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)|}[reply]

Hi Scope creep. Just to let you know I declined two of your CSD nominations for Shape Security and Let's Do This (website). Just wanted to reiterate that the CSD criteria are written explicitly and we don't really have any scope for creative interpretation (this issue is currently under the spotlight at ArbCom) - just bear in mind that the articles have to fit the criteria exactly. Let me know if I can help. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elahrairah: I know. It's the reason why I barely use it. Shape Security was deleted in a Afd discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shape Security, late last year. I'll send the other one to Afd. Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Merry Christmas. scope_creep^Talk 16:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not wrong, the biographies of Juhi Rustagi, Shivani Menon, Rishi S. Kumar, and Al Sabith does not conform with WP:NACTOR, WP:1E, or WP:TOOSOON. Probably created by fans of the show Uppum Mulakum. Can you consider nominating for deletion. 137.97.5.21 (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Hey do you think the Special Recoginntion Award by City People Entertainment Awards is not notable enough? Come on discuss with me.Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hi @DBigXray:, Merry Christmas. I never managed to create a card myself this year as I've been very busy in the last few days with work. I hope you and your family have a really good year, next year. scope_creep^Talk 11:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am who made the Welli Hilli Park page. All of the information in the page can be found in their official website. You can see their history here (in Korean language) and see their course information here. So I wrote the official website in the page. What can I do more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhasu (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unhasu: Add proper secondary sources that show it is notable. I think the article is notable but it needs more references. scope_creep^Talk 10:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bays of Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloody Bay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official website is already saying the information I wrote the page. And I linked the website at the External Links. Can not the External Links be reference? The ski resort is one of the notable ski resorts in South Korea. I think the website has enough notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhasu (talk • contribs) 11:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the website isn't sufficient to establish notability. Read Wikipedia:Notability scope_creep^Talk 16:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC, are you page mover? This one could do with moving. I noticed that when you did this earlier to one of Biografer's articles, it did not leave a cross-namespace redirect. I saw the move to draft script but I am inexperienced in that area.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ThatMontrealIP: I prodded it, there isn't enough to send it to draft. Nothing there. scope_creep^Talk 01:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scopecreep. You may wish to add your thoughts to the discussion at Talk:Robert Salisbury. Regards, Hallucegenia (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Utopes (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Utopes: Happy New Year. That is a cracking diagram you have made. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep - Happy new year and compliments of the season! Congrats on the stuff you have been working on. Anything in particular you would like proofread, please let me know. Best regards. Neils51 (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Neils51: Happy New Year. It's been really decent work that you have been doing over the last couple of years, particularly on the Luftwaffe signals stuff and the GDNA article. Both of these articles I think would have been in some mess, if you hadn't copy-edited it. You have really brought it into focus. I think I only realised how rank my spelling and grammar was when I saw how many mistakes you have fixed. I will do. I have several in the works. This could do with a look over Signal Intelligence Regiment (KONA). I see you have copy-edited the Funkabwehr article. I must have missed last year. I hope you have great new year. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my attempt to provide easy navigation to two articles about two subjects with similar names: Marshall L Saunders and Margaret Marshall Saunders. Without my change, searching for 'Marshall Saunders' takes one directly to 'Margaret Marshall Saunders'. If the user is looking for Marshall L Saunders, but does not know the middle initial, they are thwarted. Since you did not approve of my solution, could you advise me how to solve the issue? I thought replacing the rather aggressive redirect with a disambiguation page was an appropriate solution. With my change, searchers can easily find whichever page they are looking for. Mbcoats (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mbcoats:, One of the article is going to get deleted as it is entirely non-notable, so the disamb is not necessary. In the end up, even if other article was notable, a dablink template would have sufficed, per policy. I see a lot at that at NPP. Happy New Year. scope_creep^Talk 00:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The jury is still out on the question of Saunder's notability. Did you see the comment by DGG at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marshall_L_Saunders in favor? I see your point about using a dablink. Mbcoats (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, I just saw that. DGG is an excellent editor, I'm glad he picked it up. I plan to take another look at it, in a couple of days. The dude is a climate change activist though. All power to him. scope_creep^Talk 01:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long does the deletion review process take? Can you be sure to revisit Saunder's page and reconsider your input before the process concludes? Mbcoats (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mbcoats:, I don't think there is any problems with it. It will be a no consensus vote and it will finish tomorrow. I cant see their being a deletion review being needed. scope_creep^Talk 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]