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

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

@Rosguill: It perhaps legitimate now after the editor was forced to update the article. Before that it was a complete mess. The editor has all the signs of being UPE, readying the film for the American Blue-ray release market, which is the main driver of film profitability, after the cinema. If you think it is notable, please remove the G11 tag. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've restored the pre-speedy-tag version and added pov/UPE tags per your underlying concerns, which seem valid. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@CityLimitsJunction: Comparing one article against other as though if one is present the others should be present is both disengenous and unhelpful. The articles references are really poor and until they are fixed, it will remain in draft. The Miami Herald newspaper article is about the house, not her, as is the New York Times, both of them don't prove the person is notable. This is a WP:BLP. Add valid WP:SECONDARY sources and it will go back in mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 07:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: My intention in drawing comparisons was to illustrate that subjects in this particular industry are often reported on in similar publications, which appear to be acceptable for some but not others. Nevertheless, I have cited additional newspaper articles from the New York Daily News, the South Florida Sun Sentinel, and the Palm Beach Post. An additional reference from the Miami Herald has also been added. Given the introduction of aforementioned credible sources, the article should be ready to reenter mainspace. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Have you had a chance to re-review the Lisa Hochstein article? As previously mentioned, several additional credible sources, reinforcing the subject's notability, have been referenced. With that said, is there anything else preventing the article from moving to mainspace? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CityLimitsJunction: It needs reviewed by an uninvolved independent editor so I can be sure it is notable and written properly. It shouldn't take that long for somebody to review. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 19:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello Scope creep,

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

I have checked the source you provided (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11190827) and I have not found that picture in the file.

By the way, there are several copies of a photograph of Dübendorfer in the files https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11190819 and https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11190820, but she doesn't look much like this one.

Are you sure you there is no mistake ?

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

@Rob1bureau: No. I could have been looking at several documents, searching and selected the wrong one as the source, so it could be somebody else. Human error maybe. It certainly not the ideal picture. I'll do an image search and see if I can find the url for that. If not then any one from those two documents above would be ideal. scope_creep^Talk 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob1bureau: I just looked at the National Archives at https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11190820. She doesn't look like her at all. There seems to be several images named Dübendorfer but they are nothing like the image in the archive document. It will need to come out. scope_creep^Talk 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi @Whitestar12: How goes it? I hadn't seen that. It normal to put the square brackets around wp links so we can follow on it without actually doing a search. Its not number of sources that count, its the quality. You have two reference, to commericial organisations, one which is selling product, making them effectively spam links. Yoga is a very old practice. There should be plenty of sources on gbooks and other academic archives. Never use this types of spam references, ever, particularly since the average web page is only up for six weeks. Hope that helps. Once its fixed, please submit it for review. scope_creep^Talk 16:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitestar12: I sincerely hope your not adding these spam links in to other article. I see you have already been warned by Hipal for adding promotional material. Are you being paid to add this stuff? scope_creep^Talk 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the quick reply back.

Sounds good, I'm adding the square brackets for WP links here. Thanks for letting me know.

Firstly, I had no intention of using promotional material and I am not being paid. As for the insistence with Hipal, that was one time & I was unaware it was promotional in nature. That was not my intent and I corrected it immediately.

Secondly, your comment for reverting to draft specifically said "more sources needed," which can be interpreted as more quantity. Thanks for clarifying.

Which sources are you referring to in specific as spam? 3 out of the 5 references are books. 1 reference is the yoga journal which is used in every single yoga asana page on wikipedia (including "good article" status asana pages such as virabhadrasana, siddhasana, and more) and is reliable. The 4th reference (website), I can see how this one may be questionable, and I am happy to remove it and replace with another reliable source. I can remove this one until I find something else.

Overall, I see only 1 reference that may be questionable. What is the second reference " to commercial organization?"

Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitestar12: I suggest you don't use any of these commercial sources again. I notice that on the Siddhasana, the GA reviewer is blocked, which doesn't imbibe confidence in me, that the article are genuine GA articles. On the virabhadrasana, there is a reference to https://bahiranga.com/the-history-and-meaning-of-warrior-pose/ which is selling product. That is straight spam link. This is selling product [1] I will need to talk to an admin for advice. scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I agree with both your points, and with that in mind I removed the website.

Every single asana page on wikipedia uses the yoga journal (quite literally) as a source. You are welcome to search and check. I believe yoga journal is a reliable source and is not promotional according to WP:RS; it is a national publication. If you search any yoga asana from the list of asanas you will see yoga journal being used, including the yoga page itself. I'm happy to loop in other editors who have been editing yoga pages for their input.

Aside from the website, which I already removed, which other references are you referring to as "spam?"

Whitestar12 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap - Hi! I know you're always editing yoga pages & have given input on my edits previously. What are your thoughts on yoga journal as a reliable source (if it's used in compliance with WP:MEDRS)? Would love your input. I wonder because majority of the asana pages I've seen reference it - I went down the list of the first 20 asanas in list of asanas & I found that 18/20 used yoga journal, see below.

Adho Mukha Shvanasana

Akarna Dhanurasana

Anantasana

Anjaneyasana

Ardha chandrasana

Astavakrasana

Baddha Konasana

Bakasana

Balasana

Durvasasana

Bharadvajasana

Bhekasana

Bhujangasana

Bhujapidasana

Bidalasana

Chaturanga Dandasana

Dandasana

Dhanurasana

Most pages I've seen including the yoga page itself references it. If it is not reliable, then perhaps we should open a discussion in WP:Yoga.

Thanks in advance!

Whitestar12 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YJ is the journal of record on modern postural yoga. It takes great care to be accurate, and its articles on the asanas are explained and illustrated with precision. From its foundation, it had serious and scholarly yoga teachers like Judith Hanson Lasater editing. It has a glossy side but it's also extremely responsible. You may find it helpful to read Yoga as exercise to grasp the relationship between all this and classical yoga.

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

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

Thanks a bunch! I figured YJ was reliable, but thank you for providing the background & confirming.

As for the janusirsasana page - I will reinstate the redirect.

Whitestar12 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitestar12: I don't this is settled. The relevant entry at Reliable Source Noticeboard is potentially this: [2] and seemed to be driven by Chiswick Chap. The consensus seemed seems to be clear it was a commerical site and as such is breaks Terms of Use. I intend to open a coin entry on this and let other have a look at it. scope_creep^Talk 16:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep I believe you are mistaken. The conversation in the RS noticeboard is discussing Yoga International which is different from Yoga Journal. If you are taking this to others for discussion, please ensure you are referencing the correct site - we are talking about Yoga Journal here in this thread NOT Yoga International. Also, a good option would be to post on WP:Yoga [3].

Thanks!

Whitestar12 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitestar12: Yes, I think coi noticeboard is the wrong location. I will take a look at the Wikiproject. I'll post a message and see if I can get a view on it. scope_creep^Talk 16:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep Hi again! I reinstated the redirect but the "submit for draft" is still there. Do you by chance know how to submit this for speedy delete? Or if there's a way to remove it? Help would be appreciated.

Also, I'm planning to post this topic on the reliable sources noticeboard to solicit input from others.

Whitestar12 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Egeymi: They don't have publishing details in there, which means they are quite close to being bareurls. Having just the name of the web page and the organisation isn't enough to identify it later. It essentially makes it unfindable, unless its in an archive. Also can you add a trans-title property to the references so folk know what the say in English. scope_creep^Talk 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? There's no bare url so the template is unfit. You request, "Also can you add a trans-title property to the references so folk know what the say in English", is totally irrelevant as an answer to my statement.--Egeymi (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: They are close to bare urls. I guess your not interested in fixing either of these problems. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(drive-by comment) @Egeymi: neither of those requests is at all unreasonable. Elinruby (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Arbcom modification request I was talking about in the thread. A bit hard to find, so here:I think this link nk will work. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me like it passed for Holocaust in Lithuania, and they are cautiously interested in extending it to Eastern Europe, but it might be the wrong kind of hammer, in other words how do you get peer reviewed sources on the War in Ukraine? Please let me know if you think I am reading that wrong. Ta. Elinruby (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Perennial sources: The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.

Gonzalo Lira seems specialized to me. I am going to take a serious look at new sourcing now. Elinruby (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep,

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

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

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

Greetings!

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

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

@Yevrowl: I think you will probably need to rewrite it. It needs a chunk of work. scope_creep^Talk 20:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:, the article was rewritten, sources from interviews in one publication were removed. Yevrowl (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:, I removed paragraphs that you consider unnecessary. With all due respect to your arguments, I don’t see any advertising here. There is a list of facts: held a competition, gave lectures, invested, declared, etc. And is it necessary to be a professor or academician to give lectures? There are links to the universities themselves, where he gave lectures on robotics. Yevrowl (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yevrowl: I made an assumption he perhaps was an academic when you give lectures, otherwise its just generally a talk, although he is the president. The article was written in a promotional manner, thats why the tag has been put on it. Its still WP:PUFFing him up when there is no need for it, although there is less of it now. Yevrowl, I don't have time available to take you through rewriting this article, in a step by step manner. Its going to take weeks and I don't have time to rewrite it myself. The whole thing still needs rewritten and removing certain text isn't going to fix it. It currently not fit for review. For example the references are all still WP:BAREURLS. Take a look at WP:REFB which is a small tutorial on how to do full citations. I would suggest doing two things. Take a look at a good biographical article that has passed WP:GA to see how the language flows, how it is descriptive. Second thing is to join the Wikipedia:Teahouse. They are more orientated to new editors and can provide step by step on how to correct the article. For example, the following "He was born in the Jewish family of Zinoviy Meirovich and Nina Borisovna Ginzburg. Engaged in sambo". You would usually say something like "Ginzburg was born into a Jewish family. His father Zinoviy Meirovich was a <employee subject> and his mother nee <put her previous name> was a <subject> As a child he became interested in the martial art known as sambo that eventually led him to winning the .... in <date>. The point i'm trying to make is text is very dry and not very readable. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcement Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event. Tip of the month: AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

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

@2001:EE0:5005:81A0:ACD3:2F49:4492:2C82: Let me check. scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@DrUtrecht: I reviewed the article. It was redirected and then it was recreated so it is valid move, I think. The article is complete mess. I will need to send it to Afd due to the state of it, if it appears back in mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current article is a complete mess. DrUtrecht (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrUtrecht: Once you fix it, ping me and I will review it for you. scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your consideration and for taking time to review my articles and provide constructive, positive feedback. Much appreciated! 💚🤍💚🤍 TheEagle107 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheEagle107: Thanks for that. That was really nice. scope_creep^Talk 09:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why discogs is non-rs if many articles list it as a source and there are no problems with it(example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_(Death_in_June_album) )? Ezoteric bimbo (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezoteric bimbo: It is not a reliable source and the fact that other mistakenlys use it, doesn't mean you use it. Take a look at entry for discogs on this list WP:DISCOGS.scope_creep^Talk 07:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the band's site(http://deathinjune.net/index2.htm) considered a reliable source? Ezoteric bimbo (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, generally not. Take a look at WP:MUSICRS. These are the magazine sites and other journals and so on, which are considered reliable sources bassed on a consensus decision at the reliable sources noticeboard. The bands own site would be considered an WP:SPS source, i.e. self-published and WP:PRIMARY. Any sources from out of MUSICRS would be ok. These sites have editorial teams that strive for intellectual honesty and published genuine researched fact-checked articles. They are journalists essentially. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 07:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for help! Ezoteric bimbo (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

On Wikipedia, links to social networks and YouTube, Spotify and Soundcloud channels are allowed, which violates that space there. deleted links 57ntaledane9 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is not allowed is a slew of promotional/commercial links, which is basically what those are. I cited WP:EL in my edit summary; maybe you should read it, 57ntaledane9. I'm going to revert your most recent edits, again, and drop yet another warning for improper sourcing, which by now adds up to a violation of the WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, there's a decent article hiding in the sources, particularly the articles from Harper's Bazaar and NME, but it needs decent writing for it to come out. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. @57ntaledane9: I suggest you attend the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Its for new editors who have joined Wikipedia recently and it provides guidance and mentorship. It is worth knowing that Wikipedia is not a social media site in any shape or form. Its not a webhost, nor a forum, nor a blogging site, where anything goes. There is clear rules on what can be included in a WP:BLP and what can't be included. Promoting the singer with social media links is deeply uncool and illegal. You cannot promote or advertise on here. There is a legal basis to this, defined in the Wikipedia Terms of Use. Advertising and promotion is strict illegal. I hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 18:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Creation of articles without sources, not acknowledging user talk page discussions Shazback (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@WhatamIdoing: I don't know. They say there is two periods in medicine, before Lister and after Lister. Before Lister, if you were cut i.e. wound and it became septic you were done for, after Lister you had a chance of surviving and is still celebrated to this day. I think it is quite absurd to set the rating so low, although I've no confidence in talk page banners and don't know if it means anything. The values seems to be arbitary. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're thinking about real-world importance. The |importance= or |priority= ratings for WikiProjects are about how interested the group is in improving the articles, which often have nothing to do with real-world importance. We used to tag Leonardo da Vinci as low importance (i.e., to us), and eventually someone apparently decided the subject was so unimportant to us that we don't tag the article at all any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I never knew that. I've never looked it in detail probably. I shouldn't have reverted. scope_creep^Talk 23:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no harm done. If I'd done that by mistake, then I'd have appreciated being reverted. We all have to look out for each other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Ymblanter: Why does the script show them as blacklisted? It the only reference I've ever seen that has been blacklisted. Are all the lenta.ru references in the article before 12 March 2014, are they all before that date? scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, I did not write the script, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is pretty clear on the reasons as why the resource is blacklisted. I did not check all the references in the article, but it has been blacklisted quite some time ago, I would expect the "bad" references to have been already removed. Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are before that date and all the refs source seem to archived. It will be a quality article when finished. There is still ton of bad references in the article, including dodgy newspapers, excessive social media links, livejournal and other non-rs refs. I was driving-by and thought I would help this other editor to clean it up a bit. It still under quite heavy development I see, so I'm not worried if its left. I don't mind leaving it as it will get done eventually. Those lenta.ru references probably need whitelisted somehow, although I'm not sure to do it, so somebody else doesn't remove them. scope_creep^Talk 18:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi @Joseph2302: Apparently it wasn't her. I made a mistake. There is another conversation further up the talk page, for reference. User:Rob1bureau was checking the images I think on the Red Orchestra folk and noticed it wasn't her. When I looked it, and examined the docs, it wasn't her right enough. No kind of similar appearence or bad light or bad composition, just wrong image. scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I presumed there was a sensible reason (as you're a sensible editor, so it clearly wasn't vandalism), but was curious. And I also didn't notice that it was already mentioned on this talkpage, apologies for the duplication. :) Joseph2302 (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: I find it hard to find previous conversations on the talk page, even with search. There is another image needing replaced on Leon Grossvogel, which needs done. There both on my todo list and will get done this week or next. I'm really happy there is folk looking at it and not just myself. scope_creep^Talk

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

@BusterD: Well done for spotting that. I never even saw it. It is beautifully constructed photograph, perfectly in focus, take at the right just as dusk is settling and all the lights are on and perfectly framed with no cars on the road. Probably taken a few minutes after dawn, instead of dusk (road closed) and got the classic red, blue, yellow and green and the metadata of course. Its brightended my day. Thanks for posting that. scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the the classic blunders. If your uploader is the the page creator, chances are excellent they have provided us more information than they suspected. This user is 100% coi, so apparently paid. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301 Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Art+Feminism | Find Her Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements Celebrate Women – All content gender gap events, in every language Wikipedia, in March 2024 Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024 Feminism and Folklore 2024 Writing Contest Tip of the month: When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

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

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

@Polygnotus: Will do. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Good work. You have got eyes like a hawk. The 2nd one is good. The first still working on. scope_creep^Talk 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We make a good team. You write, I nitpick. Polygnotus (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: I checked the document finally. Spelt wrong. scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: This one must be double strength wrong. Katherine Singer Kovács Prize Gold star for spotting that. That is quick!! Speed of a hawk as well. I wouldn't seen it, I'm going to start doing a check in the future. I'll check it when I get back. scope_creep^Talk 16:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked them to fix the typo on their site as well. Polygnotus (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Fred Zepelin: A script will come around in a couple hours and add the missing references back into where they are invoked in the article. I know you can run the script manually but don't know the name of it. You could ask around, or at the help desk. If it not done by say, tommorrow morning it may need to be done manually by fetching the reference from the previous revision and adding in yourself. It slow but will only take 20 mins. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 22:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Zepelin: It is the AnomieBOT. I see it just ran. Quicker than it used to be. scope_creep^Talk 22:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wow, that's handy. Thanks for responding. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304 Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Gender studies | Health Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman. Tip of the month: If you run into technical problems, you might find help on our Tools and technical support page Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

Hello Scope creep,

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

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

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

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

2023 Awards

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

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

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

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

Reminders:

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

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