User talk:Scope creep

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Congratulations

Congratulations, you have successfully deleted my article. I think you are happy and got your reward. But you did avoid explaining me why you consider the article the structure of which i have followed as not promotional and why you are not deleting that. I wish your kind and considerate response will give me another learning opportunity. --Chiro725 (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Chiro725: I'm not looking for a reward or praise. I want Wikipedia to be a higher-quality product than it currently is, and hopefully that will happen. On yourself, why not stick around and create some new decent articles, that are not meant to be advertisements. We are always looking for decent editors. I saw that Administrator Jim Bleak has not indefinite blocked you, which I guess is good sign. scope_creep^Talk 12:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In the end, you still avoided answering my question. My question may have bothered you which was not my wish. Forgive me if you feel bothered. I really was willing to know what went wrong and thought you may have helped me to learn some more. But obviously it depends heavily on you. Fortunately most of the veteran editors here are very helpful and my expectation was high. Anyway, I only received unwelcoming satire and eyeballing from someone but thankfully my experience at Wikipedia overall is far more better and richer than this. --Chiro725 (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chiro725: If your about, and I sincere hope your about eventually, I will find an article that is promotional and we will go through it. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification of new discussion concerning Marquita Bradshaw

You recently expressed an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marquita_Bradshaw. (That AfD closed Sept 4 with consensus expressed as "The result was keep. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect can happen after this AfD.") A new proposal, to redirect searches for "Marquita Bradshaw" to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee is being discussed at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee#Proposed merge of Marquita Bradshaw into 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ceylinco Life/Insurance

I recently noticed that an anonymous editor has re-created articles on Ceylinco Life and Ceylinco Insurance, two articles which you previously redirected to Sri Lanka Insurance on the basis that both Ceylinco articles were not notable. Given this view has been contested you may wish to consider whether you take the issue of notability to an AfD discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Dan arndt: How goes it? Thanks for that. With a bit of luck they have been updated. scope_creep^Talk 05:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no change/no additional information or sources - they just reverted your re-direct. Dan arndt (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Aye, it is always the way or mostly the way, anyway. You get the odd one that try's to make an effort. They have their instructions. scope_creep^Talk 05:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

G11'd article recreated

Hello Mr/Ms Creep. Could I please trouble you for some advice again? On 20 September, I requested a G11 CSD for National Action Plan on Climate Change (India) and it was deleted by admin. The following day, its author re-created the article at India's National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC). Could you please suggest what can be done in this situation? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@1292simon: It is Mr. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@1292simon: I had a look at the article. It looks identical to previous version. It doesn't have any copyvio, which it did the last time. It has been reviewed already at NPP. The only to get rid of it, at a Afd. You will need to nominate it. The references have been tightened up as well. 4 out of the 7 are pretty decent. scope_creep^Talk 11:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you sir for looking into this for me, I really appreciate it. Hmmm, looks like I've stumbled across another loophole where people can recreate a deleted article with a slightly different name. Given that there are some decent references, I'll have a think about whether it's worth sending it to AfD. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

They do that all the time. It is a common tactic by the paid crowd. That is why I was putting in these long descriptions at spam showing that they have created several times, then eventually salted for the worst cases. I wanting to find out how bad it is. scope_creep^Talk 06:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring

Hello,

Actually, though I write on WWI military personages, I generally avoid WWII. Then, too, this is a huge article. I doubt I could do it justice, which is why I didn't start a review. You are most certainly welcome to review this, as you will do a better job. I wish to thank you for your courtesy in inquiring.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Georgejdorner: Coolio. I can make a start on it. Aye, its a fair old size. I know what you mean. I think that is what attracts me to then. I did a couple of reviews 3-4 months ago, and they were both big articles. One particularly , a Japanese boxer was massive. It took a couple of months to get it in shape, taking 80k off of it. I don't mind doing the big ones, and really enjoy it, as long as I can keep the momentum going. scope_creep^Talk 14:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Margaret Garrett has been accepted

Margaret Garrett, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Orchestra (espionage), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages People's Court and Heinrich Müller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rose Tarlow

Is this just a referencing concern or notability concern? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @CNMall41: How goes it. It is the fact it entirely unbalanced, in it the only 3 refs for a BLP, the rest for the work and has a slight POV Like much of her work, the house has a romantic character, slightly PUFFY, doesn't have a DOB, and doesn't say she is alive, or dead or if it s BLP and the quotes are less than salubrious. On top of the available references are passing mentions, or puff pieces themselves. I think she is probably notable, but it needs a lot of work, that could be copyedit probably. scope_creep^Talk 00:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Makes sense then. I thought maybe it was because there weren't any links to references. I found a good AP article that was picked up [1] by a lot of publications as well as quite a few others so I think notability is fine. I will leave it for someone else to review then if they want to copy edit. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a good reference. The references at the bottom of the article also confirm she is notable, which I missed. A good copyedit would do it. I'll do it this week, if nobody else works on it. scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yasuko Endo

Hello and thank you kindly. Existing sources are all from Japanese newspaper and book, do you have other suggestion? None are self source, most released after death of subject.Giocabene (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Giocabene: What is this regarding. I had a look at your contributions but couldn't identify an article. scope_creep^Talk 13:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Giocabene: I finally found it. Please add more sources if you can. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, how many source do you think is good? I thought it was okay because all five are independent source and reliable. I know other source exists but I would need to hunt and buy very old magazine...it may be difficult. Giocabene (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually I look again at your comment and it says about information without citing. All information in article text is cited except some part of project list but I can get credits for movie maybe.Giocabene (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Hu Zhiying

Hi Scope creep, I've added more secondary WP:SECONDARY sources to most chapters of the draft. There are 12 sources in the Life and Career section, only two of which are from his own books. Some sentences with promotional tone have been deleted. Part of the sentence was rewritten, keeping the tone as neutral as possible. Could you please review it again? I can continue to revise the draft. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jujiang: Sorry I couldn't find it there. I will take a look it tonight. scope_creep^Talk 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Jujiang (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, Thank you for your careful revision of this draft. I also made a little change. Can I resubmit it now? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jujiang: Yip of course. I still plan to work on it, to ensure it gets to mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Good. I'll resubmit it when your modifications are done. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jujiang: I'll try and get it done over the next couple of days. I'm going out tree planting, so if I forget it, just submit it and see what happens. scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Scope creep, Draft:Hu Zhiying The exhibitions section is just the names of the exhibitions. Can you explain the meaning of "issue with tone is the "Exhibitions"" in order to improve it? Because I don't understand the issue very well. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Carl Forssell (graphic designer)

Dear Scope creep: sincerely I appreciate a lot your work. Wikipedia is a collective construction and controls are necessary, but I disagree with the edits in Carl Forssell's article.

If in my investigations I come across someone interesting, before I start editing, I do research to find out if that person is notable and then I look for the references.That's why I did the biography of Carl Forssell because he is a person who stands out in the world of design and because he has independent and verifiable references.

I believe that without a good reason you has removed important references that support his value as a professional. Not everyone is interviewed by Forbes. After doing these editions and clearing the article of content, the process of deletion began and other editors have read that, as it stands, it is not worthy, but I bet on it...
With all due respect and appreciation for your work, but also for the time I have spent on the article, I will add the references, change the wording and try to get the article approved by the community. Cordially --Fittipaldi92 (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Fittipaldi92: Forbes is deprecated by the community, here at Wikipedia as it is low-quality content, re: WP:FORBESCON and as a result per policy we are instructed to remove it as part of NPP/Afc. So please don't add it back in. If you want to keep that article, then please make a case at the Afd, by finding extra sources that clarify the discussion by proving he is notable. By putting such references back, you prove it is an article that is needed deleted.

If you looking to create an article that is not going to be deleted, then create an article on architecture critic Julie I. Iovine. There is mountain of sources on her and it will not be deleted There is currently about 15 links on Wikipedia needing the articles. Its one of these jigsaw types, that links everything together. If your up for it of course? scope_creep^Talk 11:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fittipaldi92: I know how you feel. I had several deleted at the beginning of the year, without a word from the nominator and it pissed me off severely but he was 3/4 right. scope_creep^Talk 11:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Scope creep:: Thank you very much for answering me so quickly, and I appreciate the reasoning about the credibility of the sources. I went to the Reliable Sources list and found this regarding Forbes:

“Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable”

"Forbes collaborators: Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL"

I have seen that the author of the article is Alejandro Medina, an expert in new technologies, and he is part of the staff of Forbes Mexico. I have also seen that the interview is also published in the print edition.
I contribute as much as I can to Wikipedia. I will try to develop Julie Iovine's article as soon as possible .

When you have checked the reliability of Forbes, I would like to introduce it again, but always with your permission, of course.

--Fittipaldi92 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fittipaldi92: Forbes is deprecated on Wikipedia. Do not add it back in. scope_creep^Talk 16:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Union générale des israélites de France

Hi Scope creep, and thanks for your recent contribution to Union générale des israélites de France. As you well know, policy requires everything to be verifiable, however your recent addition has no citations. Are you planning to add some? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mathglot: Fancy giving me a hand? scope_creep^Talk 19:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Pretty busy on several drafts (French topics, and others), as well as some other stuff, so can't right now. I can do one thing for you, though, if you can just tell me this, then: where did you get the information you added to the article? Not out of your own head, I hope. I will write the citation for you, if you tell me the book or article, and page number. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Right. Are you always so combative? I got it from the French WP article, Jstor article and book article. How did you know I started the article anyway? scope_creep^Talk 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Forget what I said about collaborating. I've had a look several of your recent articles and they are an absolute mess. All you have done is left a bundle of work for other people to do and you have the gall to ask me about references. scope_creep^Talk 20:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, it isn't my intention to be combative, just to ensure that content you added is sourced. With respect to the French WP article, that is a self-published source, thus unreliable by definition, and cannot be used as a source. I'm still willing to add the sourcing for you, if you give me the book title (or isbn) and page number, or the article doi or title-author-year, or JStor id, of the book and the article you used. I did not think you started the article; I was only talking about this one edit of yours. By the way, if you are translating text from the French article, then a translation attribution statement is required in the edit summary. See WP:TFOLWP for a model attribution statement you can copy-paste into the summary. If you meant to add one for an earlier edit but forgot, see WP:RIA.

Oh, while I've been composing this, I see you've added two references; great! That makes this discussion moot; happy editing!

As a final point: I'm sorry you think that any articles I have worked on are a mess. If you would like to take the time to comment on articles I've worked on which need additional referencing or any other work to bring them up to Wikipedia standards, I'd certainly appreciate your feedback. Please add a section to my user talk page, list the articles you found defective, and what you think needs improvement, and I'll deal with it right away. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, we will go through the three articles that I looked at when I get back in a couple of days. What source exactly are you talking about? The organisation is well covered in archives and gbooks and I see no problem in finding and selecting sources. The article is visible to anybody who wants to look at it, as it is being built. This is my 631st article. I know about the trans tag. I've translated hundreds of articles. Next time, it might worth looking at the editors contributions before you steamroller in. It doesn't leave the best impression at all. scope_creep^Talk 21:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about this source and this one. But I see what the problem is, now. This is a brand new article, which you were in the middle of working on. I had no way of knowing that; all I got, was a notification of an addition to the article, and since it links to a watchlisted article, I had a look, and saw it had no citation. I should have just waited till you were finished, but afaict, this was your only edit on the article; none of the other edits caused a notification. In a case like this, if you put a {{under construction}} or {{in use}} template at the top of the article, then I would steer clear of it. Alternatively, if you create it as Draft:Union générale des israélites de France, then you can develop it in relative peace and quiet, and other users (like me) won't get notifications when you do stuff to it. (You can still move it to Draft space, if you want, even now.) Another advantage, by the way, of developing in Draft is that google doesn't see it there. If you develop it in main space then google will find it right away; that might or might not be what you want. In Draft space, you're incognito, till you release it. I also like editing in Draft, because you can juggle several articles at once, and if they're related, include content or links back and forth in relative peace, until you're ready to release them.

Sorry for the confusion; I won't say anything more about this article, until it's been stable for at least a week or two. Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nightfury 14:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Presley Deletion

Can you help me understand why this page is up for deletion? It appears that there are plenty of sources that Wikipedia considers reliable. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @RedDirtRedBird: I don't think she is notable. She has been going for three years and there is no sign the explosion of coverage that new band/singer gets when they are successful, globally successful. The coverage isn't there. I understand how you feel. My first article was deleted. It does sting a bit, but you move on. The lassie isn't notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually didn’t create this page. It’s been up for a while I believe because it was already there. What I’m having a hard time understanding is why opinion is taken into account at all here. Per the guidelines, she meets the criteria...specifically #1 & #4 as someone pointed out on the deletion chat, then I read those as well and had to agree. I’m only asking because I’d like to learn because, to me, when I read those guidelines; it’s clear that she meets the requirements.

Also, unrelated, but thought you may have some insight. I understand if you don’t have time to answer. My question is how do you prove a person’s birth date? I don’t see references noted for any birth dates on Wikipedia, but the birth date keeps getting taken down on this page. I keep trying to add references but it still gets deleted. I’ve tried to find some public archive of a birth certificate but I don’t think that type of thing exists. So, why are birth dates included on most pages without a citation? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Updated Hōji Shimanaka page - please review

As you requested, I updated Draft:Hōji Shimanaka to include additional information and citations and submitted the draft for review. When you get a chance, please take into consideration all the time and effort I put into this and have a look at it. Thanks! Ash-Gaar (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Noticed you've got 69970 edits, congratulations

If you want to do something silly for your 70,000th edit, let me know and I can set you up for the punchline :^) jp×g 14:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@JPxG: Thanks very much. What punchline are you talking about? scope_creep^Talk 14:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you know, any old crap. What I did for my 9,998th edit was get a "this user has made 10,000 edits" userbox on my page, then with the 9,999th edit I rolled it back and the 10,000th I gave myself a {{uw-joke4im}} for introducing a deliberate error and then doing the joke of rolling it back. Very meta, but it would have been way funnier if someone else had set it up, though (instead of just adding it and then rolling myself back). jp×g 14:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is miles past it now. Its says I've done 70,849 edits. That's the first time I've looked at the edit summary for ages. scope_creep^Talk 14:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: J. Yolande Daniels (October 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:J. Yolande Daniels and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:J. Yolande Daniels, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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! MurielMary (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ibo van de Poel

You commented " The cites for published show up as copyvio. They need to be manually created via doi. " I do not agree. They may show up as copyvio, but the are uncopyrightable statements of fact. How they were made is irrelevant. If you want to standardize them further, there's no objection, but it's no reason to keep the page in draft. I've accepted the article, as he holds an named profesorship and is unquestionably notable--and, as has been pointed out by another editor, the page is CC compatible in any case. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)