User talk:Scope creep/Archive 3

Barış Arduç

Hello, I hope you are doing well??? What happened with my InesNY(talk) article??? Why you delete all information??? Do you have a proof for your actions??? What here the reasons??? I hope to hear from you!!! Send me your email, we have to talk!!! —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Barış Arduç

Hello Scope creep, thank you for quick reply! Thank you that you make some corrections! Can you tell me what I InesNY(talk) need to do to keep this page active and without any notice on the article from Wiki? Other words how may I fix the article and remove all errors or mistakes at the article? The Wiki instructions are not really helpful.. Thank's again! —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Barış Arduç

Hello, how are you doing there? Why you requested for deletion the page of Baris Arduc? I am the author InesNY(talk) of this article... What did you mean no references??? (The article Barış Arduç has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references.) There are 62 references ... I was asking for full protection of this article, because of people violations... They put there what ever they want, I am periodically removing fake information. There no fictions, that a real person with real life events... What is wrong there? Can you tell me the details? May we discussed? I hope, to hear from you soon. I appreciate your time. 1 february 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by InesNY (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Rane2030

Hi there, Thank you for your comments, I really follow you - I should focus more on the subject I write about! - your in my thoughts. ............. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rane2030 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Dear Scope creep, Thank you very much for reviewing my page. It is my first effort, your review of it is a greater courage, and I hope to follow similar reviews. I have taken out the refs etc you have have enlisted. Hope it's is okay now! -- Thanks

Sphingosine 1-P receptor modulators

Hi, Scope creep. Thank you for your review. We have changed the refrences and put in the receptor link. We resubmitted it --anhahe (talk) 15:33, 3 october 2017 (UTC)

Sylvan Edwards

Scope creep - thanks for your notes on Edwards. I would like to get a picture up but I would worry about the Wikipedia Copyright issues. With rugby grounds I visit and take my own pictures so not a problem but with Edwards playing for a side that is not local to me it is a different matter. I may be able to contact one of his clubs to ask for permission. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Talkback Hawar_News_Agency

Hello, Scope creep. You have new messages at Talk:Hawar_News_Agency#Illegality of Facebook reference count.
Message added 21:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Batternut (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Scope creep. You have new messages at Talk:Hawar_News_Agency#Illegality of Facebook reference count.
Message added 08:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Batternut (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

new article Paolo Aldighieri (sculptor)

Hi, i'd like to create a new article: Paolo Aldighieri. I write it in my sandbox User:99ernst/sandbox . What can you think about it? Can i create it? --99ernst (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Craik–Leibovich vortex force

Dear Scope creep, thank you very much for your positive review! All the best, Crowsnest (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Barcade

Thank you for reviewing the Barcade page. It was getting frustrating trying to make sure it fit encyclopedic standards with so much pushback from editors who are bar regulars. Dragonmaw (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Scope creep, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Early NSU cars

Dear Scope creep, thank you very much for your review of the NSU-Pipe 15/24 PS. I am only disappointed that you didn't also reach the page NSU-Pipe 34 PS before it was considered un-wiki-worthy and changed into a redirect. Any thoughts as to how I can help bring it back? Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dan Wagner

Thank you for your recent contributions to the Dan Wagner#Talk page. I do agree with your observations and numerous rewrites have been attempted over the life of the article to address your observations. Unfortunately, edit wars have broken out when attempts to restore the 'puffery' of the article have occurred. I think the whole article needs a rewrite given that a major contributor User: Techtrek has been indefinitely blocked for WP:SOCKING and would welcome/actively encourage more involvement from previously uninvolved editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.159.223 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the IP address whom initiated the rfc. I'm happy to close it in favour of a full article review. 82.163.113.33 (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I have closed the rfc to allow for a full article review. Thank you for your input. 94.193.159.223 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, I noticed you removed the entire section on Venda from the Dan Wagner page. It is very odd to ignore a company he started in 1998 and sold to Oracle subsidiary NetSuite in 2014 after having built it into the European market leader for SaaS enterprise e-commerce especially as it represented 16 years of his career and you have retained coverage of Dialog and Powa. Can you please either revert your edit or redraft it?

95.210.221.6 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the 'Orcale subsidiary NetSuite' angle. This has been covered many times on the talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Wagner#Edits_26th_June_2017 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Wagner#Venda. Venda was sold to NetSuite in 2014, NetSuite was sold to Oracle in 2016, yet you conflate the two. The same POV as other previously banned editors. WP:QUACK Yak shaving (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, I have noticed another edit you made that I think needs further consideration. You left in the reference from the FT Blog about their independently determined valuation of Powa at £75m but removed the fact reported by the Times and City AM that Goldman Sachs had valued the business at $18 billion was on a "clear path to a $50bn". I think it is completely misleading to remove the widely reported Goldman Sachs valuation (a highly respected investment bank) and instead leave the page with the statement from the FT Blog. Goldman Sachs, as advisors to Powa, are in a much better position to have opined on valuation and the FT blog was referencing a tax return as the basis for their much reduced valuation. As it is, it makes out the subject was a fantasist in stating the value was over $2bn but clearly this is not the case. Can you please revert your edit so that it is more balanced?

95.210.221.6 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Pers Z S

Material you included in the above article in the section "Operational Environment" appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08850609608435314. Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Chung-in Moon @ CogitASIA.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Chung-in Moon @ CogitASIA.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 in 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)} 11:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.210.221.6 (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sergio Cotta

I'm pleased to see this article getting some attention, but can I ask where you got the birth/death dates in the infobox from? Or is that a copy-paste error? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Scope creep, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you know when it was built?

San Francisco Medical Center that is? and what do you think of Bernardo Fernandez?Wikigirl97 (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Scope creep, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to Retrospect (software) article

I was rather taken aback by the 13 edits you did to the Retrospect (software) article on the morning (NYC time) of 19 September 2017. You took out information that is important to understanding the software, and that I shall now proceed to put back. You also messed up information that was left in the article, especially by putting in links to irrelevant or non-existent articles. All that gives the impression that you were suddenly impelled to a furious burst of activity. You first said on 15 September that "People are losing patience with you"; I think that you just "lost it" on the morning of 19 September.

When that happened, I think you ignored the fact that since 15 September I have been systematically cutting out the contents of sections beginning with "Concepts prior to Retrospect 7" and moving them—greatly cut-down—to a new "Main features" section. I was less than a day's work away from completing that. Possibly you are not happy with the fact that, in doing that, I have demonstrated my point that there is no reasonable way a complete "Main features" section could be cut down below a single screen page—much less a paragraph. (If you give me a chance to finish it, I'll be happy to sit back and watch you try—with or without rehashing it in terms of production versions.)

I have in fact read and understood all the points you and others have been making about the lead (not lede, that's a newspaper term that isn't in Wikipedia), "History", and "Architecture" sections. I was just holding off on making the necessary changes to those sections until I did away with the old back sections first. After all, this whole issue started off with a mention of template tags placed at the top of the article by the editor now known as 2001:2003:54FA:2751::1 back in October 2016. I thought everybody was most concerned about the "overly detailed" problem.

I shall now proceed to make what I consider to be the necessary changes to the first three sections of the article. I'll start with a paragraph or two on the article's Talk page, outlining why I consider some of your edits to be erroneous. I will not revert your edits; I'll just rewrite the sections in the way they need to be IMHO. I'm just writing this post on your Talk page first to alert you. If Wikipedia had a Private Messaging system of the type many forums have, I would have sent you a Private Message instead—but AFAIK it hasn't such a system. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Der Fall Wichter

Hi, I have just received a copy of the following document from a colleague at The National Museum of Computing on Bletchley Park. It has a lot of detail of the development of Enigma and of the differences between TICOM interview results and other evidence as to the extent to which the Germans considered that the allies deciphered Enigma messages. Because of your recent post to the Enigma talk page, I thought I would let you have this information in case you don't already have it, and before I have tried to locate it on line. Meyer, Joseph A. (2007) [Unknown], Der Fall WICHTER: German Knowledge of Polish Success on ENIGMA, Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 10-31-2007, DOCID: 3838699, NSA Regards, Ted. --TedColes (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

NPR Silver Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		For reviewing over 2,000 pages this past year, it is my pleasure to award you the NPR Silver Award. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auckengill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing RfC listings

Hi, there's no point in making edits like these since it's a bot-built page, and Legobot will merely alter it back to how it was. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, Thanks for telling me. I never realised the bot would act like that. When I initially looked at the RFC, I closed the window, did some work, and went back, and it was gone. I thought somebody took a disklike to the article, and deleted it. What do you think about deleting all the train stations? scope_creep (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The redlink problem was because Legobot can't handle Unicode characters in page names, it alters them to question marks. The proper fix is to create a redirect like Talk:Asahi-ekimae-d?ri Station; I had to do the same with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/?/2017 Advisory RFC a couple of weeks back, this is linked from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals.

When you say "all the train stations", I have two questions: (i) where is the list; and (ii) if more than one station is affected by this RfC, why is it being held on the talk page of a single station, and not somewhere more central? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The list could be created in an instant, and second one, who knows. Possibly to guage opinion, before kicking it off the correct location. Personally I don't think it has any standing. scope_creep (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ferdinand Feichtner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Retrospect (software)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Regierungsbaurat

In all German states, the term Regierungsbaurat ("building engineer") was, or is, a structural engineer who worked for a government or an authority. Hope that helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Retrospect (software), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Scope creep, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi,Scope Creep Thanks for all your commendable work for Wikipedia. This short message is to to express you my heartfelt gratitude for the work you have rendered to Wikipedia including reviewing my page. Rane2030 (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carl Paul Pfleiderer has been accepted

Carl Paul Pfleiderer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Request on 08:24:10, 25 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rane2030

• Rane2030 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wickrama Bogoda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Scope creep, Thank you very much for reviewing my page, I have revised the references you have highlighted, and taken out internal links etc. I hope, now the article is improved. Please let me know if there is anything I should attend. I have resubmitted the article.

Regards Rane2030

Rane2030 (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Undone Steve Down Vandal Edit

Hi Scope creep!

I noticed not too long ago you undid a recent edit to to the Steve Down page. It was obviously vandalistic and I thank you. But in your edit summary you incorrectly mentioned my username as the offending vandal. Whats the deal with that? I've been framed haha! Quite clearly, a newly created user, SaltLakeSnape edited the page in that instance?

-Anon1-3483579 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Resumbmitted Draft:Robert Kost (Artist) Per Your Suggestion

Hello Scope creep!

Thank you for your comments on Draft:Robert Kost (Artist). I appreciate your taking the time to review my draft and also for encouraging me to resubmit it. I have resubmitted the draft as-is as you requested.

- Noitidednoces October 25, 2017

Hello

The changes requested have been made and you do not have to keep reverting them. If you feel there is something missing or lacking, let me know what they are.

If you read this, respond or back off.

Because I was to make links, then you decided I had too many links. I am going to make a complaint that you are merely hassling me here.

I am still going to ask that you recuse yourself and I will ask that someone else look at your decisions in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leebrandoncremer (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ahmad Milad Karimi has been accepted

Ahmad Milad Karimi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

German Radio Intelligence Operations during World War II

Hi Scope creep, let’s look more closely at what Praun wrote;

"The volume of messages was very large, the average word count was 200 letters.”

Perhaps you might like to explain what this means to you? I don’t really understand it and if I don’t then other readers are not likely to either. Perhaps we can look at ways of simplifying the intention behind the statement?

The way I see it. A word is typically made up of a number of letters (aka characters). In an encrypted message we may just have a sequence of letters or effectively a message block. A plaintext message will be a sequence of words, space separated. To say that the “average word count” is a number of letters does not make sense to me. If we say that a message contains a group of words then the average ‘word count’ would be a number, a number of words. So we can say that for a set of messages that the “average word count” is 200. This would mean that messages contain an average of 200 words. We could say that the “average word” was 200 letters. This would more likely be a reference to a message block, as an “average word”, as we know, is more likely around 6 or so letters. Perhaps the intention is to comment on the average message as being 200 letters? So which is it? “200 letters” is not a reference to a “word” as I understand it, unless the “word” is intended to mean a message block.

Your comment?

Neils51 (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neils51, looking at it, it must mean it is a message block of some type, but it doesnt make any sense otherwise. Ideally I would try and find out what code (simple) or cypher (strong and more complex) it was assocatiated with. Generally it will resolve itself, if I can find a ticom document which explains it, which I intend to do. I think it is one of those points, which the article rotates around. It is salient enough, as a point, which can be used to identify the code or cipher, and subsequently add much more details about later, as tends to happen, possibly enabling the creation of other articles. At the moment I dont know what it is. It is very early days in writing about this organization and its people. With a bit of luck, a doc explaining what codes were used in that sector will be found, perhaps at NARA, or the NSA will show up, and I can subsequently request it. That is my plan anyway. He was an important guy, and he is all over these docs, but the article itself needs detailed up if that is the right phrase, with other sources, (docs found at a future date) which may not be possible, as he was a military man, working in a secret, obscure org. Which brings me onto my last point. Praun must have been quite clear headed, being a military man, who was at the top command hierarchy. So they dont tend to make mistakes, they are acute thinks, which makes me think the sentence is genuine. He wasn't a pure cryptanalyst, so he is not at the coal face, he is getting the details from his cryptanalyts. So I think at the moment, leave it as it is, keep it parked, until I can find a document. I have lots of sources now which can locate these types of docs. The docs TICOM and released by NSA tend to have good details on this type of stuff as well. When your write about these guys and organizations, who never knew that Enigma was broken until 1974, and subsequently make claims which you know are junk, it must be stripped out. scope_creep (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the section, it was Praun himself who wrote, hence it must indicate a property of the code or cypher used. scope_creep (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Neils51 the codes used in that Norway sector during that time:

1. Naval Cypher No 1, a 4-figure book used since 1934.
2. Administrative Code, a 5-figure book used since 1934.
3. Auxiliary Code No3, a 4-letter book used since 1937 by small units.

They are all 4 and 5 alphanumeric words. Having now figured it out. You need to read it as an aggregation. It is a 4 or 5 digit words, adding up to 200 letter. So it was accurate.scope_creep (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Neils51, I have clarified it somewhat. scope_creep (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That is an exceptional piece of clarification work. Well done! Neils51 (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Neils51, it was only perchance that I had them lying about from a previous article, and I noticed it was the Norway campaign at the last minute, while I wanting ranting on, and got them from the B-Dienst article. Otherwise it could months for a document to turn up. scope_creep (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

Indeed thank you, I'll follow what you have suggested about the Character Actor Section of the Article. May I request you, are there any other comment you can give me to improve it in terms of copy editing (I like to add a little bit more information Early life section). --16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Rane2030 (talk)

Indeed thank you, I'll follow what you have suggested about the Character Actor Section of the Article. May I request you, are there any other comment you can give me to improve it in terms of copy editing (I like to add a little bit more information Early life section). --16:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Rane2030 (talk)

A Barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For being one of the top 15 reviewers of the last 12 months. Thank you very much for your reviewing. Hope to see you back over there sometime! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Revert on German Radio Intelligence Operations during World War II

Hi Scope creep! I see you reverted my edit on German Radio Intelligence Operations during World War II, for what appears to be reasons of date formatting (use of ordinals). Per MOS:BADDATE, the format to which you have reverted the article is unacceptable. As such, I've reverted the article back to my original edit. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks! Phuzion (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ordinal dates on Erhard Maertens‎‎

I tried to look for a WP:MOS-clause allowing ordinals or "British English dates" , but couldn't find one. To the contrary, MOS:NUM explicitly states on the Unacceptable date formats table: Do not use ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). To what clause do you refer?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tom.Reding, Try WP:DATERET. There needs to be some differentation between American and British articles. This is written in British English, using standard English date formats. It is also a European standard, Germany uses that format also, as does most European countries.. So it is correct to use it, and reflects their standard. scope_creep (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh, that's an interesting internal contradiction that I think deserves more discussion; will ping you on MOS talk.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm hoping I might help with your discussion on ordinals in dates. I also found it odd that we say "10th of May 2017" with an ordinal number, but the MoS demands that we write it as 10 May 2017 with a cardinal number. There are, however, good reasons for this. In addition to the press links that SMcCandlish provided, you might have a look at the BBC website and page 8 of the Oxford University Manual of Style. Both are reputable British publishers, and both use the format 10 May 2017. This format has also entered into common usage in British English over the last 50-60 years. Have a look at this Google analysis of books published between 1800 and 2008. Note that the corpus is set to British English. You can see that, from the 1950s, usage of the cardinal is significantly greater compared to the ordinal. Whatever its origins, and however we still speak it, the format 10 May 2017 is these days very British. I hope this helps, and good luck. FactotEm (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks FactotEm, that is great help, as I didn't know where to start. Although it is disheartning to a certain extent, I can lots of work has been done on it already, in the past 10 years. scope_creep (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I can sympathise. I have used the word "whilst" my whole life, and was really offended when I found out that we should use "while" in Wikipedia. "Who are these damn foreigners to tell us how to speak our own language!?", I thought. I did a little digging, though, and found out that "whilst" is very old-fashioned, even in British English usage. The MoS does a great and necessary job, but sometimes it can, in my experience at least, appear to be ridiculous, illogical and dictatorial, and I wish they did a better job of explaining themselves over there. I'm not sure if you're still planning to try and change it to accept ordinals in dates; the modern world is against you and I would encourage you not to, but who am I to try and tell you what to do? FactotEm (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Scope creep. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

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.)

Erbusaig Bay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Scalpay

Joan Triadu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Baccalaureate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Scope creep, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited General der Nachrichtenaufklärung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Scope creep!!


Hi Scope creep, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 09:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep. Thank you for your Christmas wishes! May you and your family have an enjoyable festive season and New Year! Neils51 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Tauschtafelplan.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tauschtafelplan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

Also:

• File:Reservehandverfahren Booklet.jpg

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. 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) 23:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:21:30, 29 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rudolfpolzer

• Rudolfpolzer (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gradient controller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The gradient controller is a Wikipedia page in German Language: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradienten-Regler

and can be reached by a link within a controller selection page of Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Regler

Do these links make the article acceptable?

Rudolfpolzer (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Scope creep, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Scope creep!

Happy New Year!

Scope creep,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard ‘Dick’ Passingham has been accepted

Richard ‘Dick’ Passingham, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg

Hello, Scope creep. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg

Hello, Scope creep. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

16:06:25, 11 January 2018 review of submission by PhilJackson

• PhilJackson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Philip C. Jackson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not requesting a re-review yet, but I have some questions for the reviewer before submitting a revision and requesting a re-review:

Google Scholar indicates there are 168 citations for my book "Introduction to Artificial Intelligence", 10 citations for a paper I co-authored ("Summary of the Characteristics of Several "Modern" Programming Languages"), and 4 citations for another paper I authored in the AI Journal ("Proving Unsatisfiability for Problems with Constant Cubic Sparsity").

Is this information sufficient to establish noteworthiness for Wikipedia. If so, should it be added to the biographical article?

If someone else submits a biographical article about me does that carry more weight, in terms of establishing noteworthiness?

If so, is there a way for me to be notified whenever an article is submitted about me so I can check it for accuracy, and perhaps improve it?

Thanks in advance for your advice,

Philip C. Jackson, Jr., Ph.D. Unsigned comment by user:PhilJackson

Hi user:PhilJackson. All articles must have verifiable sources, that can used to verify the contents of the articles. This is covered by policy WP:V. For biographical articles, the appropriate policy, WP:BLP, defines how they are supposed to be structured. BLP is very strict policy. All BLP articles must have sources, that satisfy WP:RS, i.e. verifiable. Your article doesn't have any refs. If I posted that into mainspace, it would get deleted immediately. I think the article is notable, as it passes a higher standard of notability, for senior academics, which is WP:PROF. This standard is a much more objective, than something like WP:BIO. To pass WP:PROF, On GScholar your citation count must be reasonably high with a high H-index. Another way you can be considered notable, is if there is coverage within media, of your work, which is the criteria it fits into, regarding the book.

If you are they person who is the subject the articles, then it is a WP:COI. Conflict of interest is a serious issue on Wikipedia. It really is. You will be blocked from access to the article, and it will likely be deleted.

It is strictly illegal on Wikipedia to edit infomation that is related to yourself. It is the primary rule on WP.

scope_creep (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you have made a COI declaration. Get some refs added to the article and remove the promotional information, and submit for re-review. scope_creep (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Scope creep, it is not "illegal" for a user to edit their own page. It is strongly discouraged, but if they can actually manage to add information in a neutral, well-sourced manner, they are not prohibited from doing so. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathias Uhlen has been accepted

Mathias Uhlen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yidan Prize COI Issues

Hi Scope, I just added some Yidan Prize-related photos on Yidan Prize Wikipedia but I realised that it caused the COI issue. So I added the COI disclose as per Wikipedia's instruction and deleted all the visuals but it seems it doesn't help. What else should I do to resolve the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeysdy (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Scope, I have add more on COI.But on Yidan Prize page, there is another template saying "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". I really have no idea what it is and how to help solve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeysdy (talk • contribs) 03:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Douglas Vernon Hubble

Thanks for your edits to the above article but please take more care when populating infobox fields. Under "Known for" you wrote "a number of excellent papers ..." which is not written from a WP:NPOV. Under "Prizes", you added a variety of acronyms (including LRCP, which simply indicates that someone is training to become a physician) but missed an actual noteworthy prize, the James Spence Medal. Most bizarrely, you included a parameter for "Author abbrev. (botany)", filling it with "paediatric" – not remotely relevant or correct. 97198 (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Re your ArbCom post

[1] Hello, and thank you for taking the time to participate in the case to rid me from the website. I don't believe we've met? I felt compelled to clarify your above post, I do hope you don't mind. "Infoboxes are used everywhere in the world to provide a succinct subset of information about a subject, so why are they not used everywhere on Wikipedia." Ok, well, to answer your point, we currently have a policy which says "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." That basically translates to: "I have as much right not to use an infobox, and to delete them, as you do to use one, and add one". Flawed, isn't it! Maybe...just maybe...that Ian the root cause of all these problems. I know, crazy, isn't it! Anyway, sorry for coming here, I hope you don't mind; but rather than adding to the drama at the ArbCom case, I thought we could have a civil discussion here. If not, feel free to delete this...I'll AGF. Good evening. Cassianto^Talk 18:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cassianto, How are you? I'm glad we spoke. I really don't want to get rid of you from the WP. That would be a sad day for the project. You write excellent articles, and it would be a real loss if told/forced to go. I think the whole thing is storm in a teacup. The reason I added a rationale was I believed the infobox issue needs to be settled once and for all, to remove the ambiguity that is present, in the guidelines and that has lead to so many acrimonious discussions. Its not just the bio articles, I've seen similar discussion on a whole host of different article areas. I managed to settle an argument in one about 9-12 months ago, on an Operetta article, with the same behaviour, using that rationale. I was really suprised it worked. I'm a software guy, I like things that work. I known the research, that users of these devices, using smartphones and mobile devices, has changed drastically in the last 5 years. It is a known they like userboxes. A quick visit to establish the facts, then back to social land. So the policies are severely lagging in this respect. But don't really mind if editors or a group of editors, including yourself, don't want an infobox, because it would be intrinsically unfair, and unflexible. I do agres everybody who to has a rigt to add infobox, has the right to remove it. Anything else would intrinsically even drastically unfair. I do think there is agenda on the go, old scores being settled. It is human nature, and can't overwritten or controlled by rules. scope_creep (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, it's the adhering to such a chocolate teapot policy that's led to the ARBCOM case. I like infoboxes on certain articles; my problem is with {{Infobox person}} which does not do the job it sets out to do. Grown up discussions cannot be had as there are too many people out there who think it's either their way or the ANI way. That is why things get so heated. Cassianto^Talk 20:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikilove

Thank you for the rainbow barnstar! Seraphim System (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editors

Maybe you've used it before but in case you haven't, the {{uw-paid1}} template is useful for notifying undeclared paid editors. The nice thing is that you can then escalate it with {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}} and {{uw-paid4}} if necessary. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Coolio. Thanks Drm310. I've never knew they existed. I must have posted 100+ message to their talk pages, but i'll use these from now on. I'm glad there is an escalation process. Most folk seemed to ignore my message. scope_creep (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John C. Pollock has been accepted

John C. Pollock, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Troels Engberg-Pedersen has been accepted

Troels Engberg-Pedersen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Humorous Magistrate (Play) has been accepted

The Humorous Magistrate (Play), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Partners

Barış Arduç and Elçin Sangu are definitely not partners in real life. I've put an html comment to that effect in the partner field of the Infobox person in the Barış Arduç article. I've also added a section Personal life to the Elçin Sangu article, naming her real-life partner.  --Lambiam 09:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lambiam Thanks for that. Hopefully it will slow it down a bit. scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Scope creep, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Elçin Sangu

Hi! It seems like you are not getting things right. If you look to this page (and many other), you can have an example of an "advertising information" that is allowed to put in articles. Just a sentence about someone who is the face of a brand clearly does not mean advertising. Better research next time. Sebastian James (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That will be coming out as well in due, as it is promotional and is no basis for basing ideas of what constitutes advertising. scope_creep (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hans Globke

It looks as if the discussion at Talk:Hans Globke has dried up. I suggest you go ahead and make the necessary changes. The lead is far too long and some of that content can go in the body of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I completly forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me. I have been really busy at work at the moment. I'll do it over the weekend. scope_creep (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

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

Ronald MacKeith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alice and Supernumerary

Leonard B. Strang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Spence

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Advice for pages with different langugages

Hello and thank you for your welcome message! I thought I would reach out with a question I came across today. I was trying to expand a stub article and saw that there is a duplicate article but it was written in a different language. The second article has more information but I'm not sure how or if I can share the information as it (and its sources) come in a different language. Can information between similar pages in different langauges be shared and, if so, how would you cite the information? The pages are Cab No. 13 and Fiaker Nr. 13 Kelsey246! (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kelsey246!. A 1926 film, that is early. The way I was told, was generally speaking the information is copyright, when it is written by another person, so a full size attribution tag, called the Template:Translated page needs to be placed in the talk page, which is a legal requirement. Take a look at the Talk:Wolfgang Franz (mathematician). You will see the Translated page tag on the right hand side. To create it, you dump the tag in, you go the dutch article, you look at the page history, you click on the date of the top most version of the article you are retreiving the text from, then you look in the URL in the address bar, and you will see the oldid attribute in the address url. Copy that 9 digit number value out, and place it in the Translated page tag in the talk page, and sav the save the page. That takes care of the legal requirements.

As regard the sources, I generally update them to a certain extent. Generally you want to improve the imported sources, to the best possible format. Often in a foreign language or in a bareurl state. As English is the primary language here. You reformat the reference, if possible. If it is a bareurl, meaning it is like www.jim.co.uk, you convert it into a real full references, e.g.

<ref name="wistrich2002"/><ref name="Wieliński">{{cite journal | author = Bartosz Wieliński | year = 2006 | title = CIA kryła Eichmanna | journal = [[Gazeta Wyborcza]] | volume = | issue = 8 June 2006 | pages = | url =https://www.jim.co.uk | accessdate = 2006-06-08 |language=pl}}</ref>

and if you have good translation skills, put the English title and the native title next to each other, e.g. English title, Netherland: netherlands title, and then the rest the same, except you set the language attribute to dutch. You will not this example Template:Cite journal source, has the language attribute set to pl for polish source. In this way, the references are in best possible state with the most information, and best long term chance of surviving. Hope that helps. If you need hand with the tag, give me a shout, I'll do the first one. scope_creep (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep. I followed your advice and added the Translated page template to the talk page, updated the content of Cab No. 13, and added more references. Thank you for all your help! Kelsey246! (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir Bibikhin

Hi, thanks for the feedback, I'm very much new to wiki (it's took me an embarrasingly long to figure out how to reply to you, or type it correctly, for instance), so still finding my feet, but I'll be a little more discerning with my edits from now on. Cheers. Goldencalves(talk) 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Comparison of MQTT Implementations has been accepted

Comparison of MQTT Implementations, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Forbes

Scope_creep: "Forbes is open to anybody to edit, and is under no editorial control"

• Where is your reference for this? It's not stated as a problem here: Forbes 30 under 30. Thanks — Qualifications (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Goodshop

Considering the extensive history of the article, I think it would need AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG What one is that exactly. Ah, right got you. Right. It is heading for the Afd shop. Surprised it was taken off. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Scope creep from Nastyasova

Thank you for your kind explanation. Wiki is new to me and I had no purpose to receive compensation for my edits as I am willing to share some interesting facts and in case scientific articles the professional information from Journal of Science Spinoffs and other sources as I do many unique interviews and research work we can share with Wiki communite such information. Our team of 5 people works at non-profit and non comercial project willing to share the information with science society. I didn't want to do editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting only as informative sciencific aditions. Please advice how should I and my friends add the information and the links in this case in order to fulfill all Wikipedia requirements? maybe like this <ref> '3d printing of personalized food'. Journal of Science Spinoffs - via the Yissum Research Development Company .28.02.2018 [spinoff.com]</ref> or could you advice the best way? With respect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nastyasova (talk • contribs) 08:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

John Sing Tang ‎

Please do not remove tag without improving it first to show notability with sources supporting the architect's notability in his field per WP:CREATIVE. Add sources first before removing the tag. Failure to show notability will result in the article being deleted.Hzh (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

General der Nachrichtenaufklärung

Hi Scope creep. Would like to discuss style and float some suggestions. The lists are varied in style, including bullet, a,b, & 1,2, etc. I would suggest a standard style, perhaps bullet? The short name 'In 7/VI' tends to get lost in sentences and can be confusing. Perhaps this could be be in italics? Most quotes are italicised however some are in quote marks. Perhaps all in italics? Neils51 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Neils51, how are you? You have been doing a stellar job mate. A lot of the stuff is repeated I know, and I don't mind if a lot is in italics, if it can break the text up a bit, it needs it, although it is a ton of work. The reason for the a.b.c then 1,2,3, is that a,b,c means majors actions in part of the forces, while 1,2,3 is minor actions, with a single action. It is completly logical. It mentions it in one TICOM docs. You could lose the meaning, if you change it too much, as the documents is all you have, and you can't search for different source on the internet. This is an example of one it needs fixed: 1939–1941. e) should be 1,2,3,4. It needs an ordered list. I'am also planning to take a logical textual chunk out it, to slim it down. Regarding 7/VI, I don't mind that Italics either, if you think it needs it and it works. I try to put in agency, unit, section, referat and so, to split it up, but your still left with too many In 7/VI etc. scope_creep (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it, if the a,b,c stuff needs redone, do it. scope_creep (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, thanks, I'm good. Congratulations on the material, great articles. I'll try an example and see how it flies. Neils51 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Micro Focus

Hi - I am not sure why you removed the properly sourced information for operating income and for net income for this company. If you look at any other NYSE Arca Major Market Index company, FTSE 100 company or FTSE 250 company you will find disclosure of such information. I do not see why it is advertising. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sangu

To be honest, I don't even get what you mean. What is the definition of a major award in your opinion? She has received three Golden Butterfly awards in her own country which are among the most major awards in Turkey. She's a Turkish actress; do you expect her to receive awards in any country other than her own? Keivan.f^Talk 22:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It is nothing to do where the awards given. I spent a lot looking at these awards, and how valuable they are, most of them are scrap. There is not a general notabily standard for awards, so they rely on coverage, so most of them don't qualify. When you are given an award by your university for essentially starting your career, then it is not notable. The average star, like Keanu Reeves or Margot Robbie will get dozens of awards every year, as this lady will, if she is sucessful. Most of them are junk, and get put in the cupboard and forgotten about. They are simply not notable. Only the Golden Butterfly is notable in this instance, the rest are not, and in the lede. scope_creep (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cuil Bay Winters Night.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cuil Bay Winters Night.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent work

	German Barnstar of National Merit
	For your astounding dedication to Ferdinand Feichtner with Neils51, I award you German Barnstar of National Merit. Sehr gut, friend! Vami_IV✠ 00:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

DXC Technology

Within seconds of me protecting the page, PibeDeOuro reverted the revert. Suggest this is may possibly the IP editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yip.I noticed that. I was going to send PibeDeOuro up to coin. The user gives the suggestion they are an established editor, but with 38 edits.scope_creep (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Read Template:Infobox company. There are no restrictions for adding executives. It is officially allowed to add non-notable executive there.--PibeDeOuro (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is unsourced content, and it I have reported you to WP:COIN scope_creep (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No. It is sourced and it is officially allowed to add it there.--PibeDeOuro (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Beatriz Gonzalez.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Beatriz Gonzalez.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Ronhjones, there is no rationale, that I can give that will keep that file. It is the smallest image available of the artist.

scope_creep (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not allow any non-free images of living persons, unless it's absolutely impossible to see that person, which is rather rare (e.g. long time missing, some high security prisons, etc.) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess that is the reason why Wikipedia is still a desert when it comes to images. It has signally failed to address the problem, of a changing digital world and it is not exactly the vision I had of a world wide encyclopedia when I started. Please delete it. scope_creep (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Scope creep, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

21:26:39, 11 April 2018 review of submission by Vicki.olds

• Vicki.olds (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Thomas Linn Dinwoodie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DATE: 180411 TO: Scope Creep FROM: Wiki User Vicki.olds RE: "Tom Dinwoodie" wiki page ("Thomas Linn Dinwoodie" search redirects here)

Dear Scope Creep;

I am ready to submit new contents (copy & photo images) for the "Tom Dinwoodie" wiki page that I believe is suitable for Wikipedia publication that has gained the approval of the subject, Tom Dinwoodie. *Whew*

I hope that you, or someone with more experience than me, will review and provide feedback. I hope this is the right channel to request such help.

The contents for this revision exists in two MSWord files, which I can upload. Could you review before I attempt, again, to program a Sandbox entry that includes 60+ external Web references and many wiki link references?

I hope my request is kosher. If not, then I hope to be pointed in the right direction!

THX for your help, and I look forward to your response.

Truly, Vicki Olds shibumi2 21:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

shibumi2 21:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:Vicki.olds, Thanks for getting back to me. I see there is a Draft:Thomas_Linn_Dinwoodie but there is also an actual article about Tom Dinwoodie already present What is the purpose of doing a draft, when the article is already present. The both of these articles are highly promotional, particularly the draft, but also the actual articles, which has only a couple of real primary references. The rest are invalid. The article doesnt have any secondary source at all, and none seem to exist, which makes the existance of the article problematic, since it is not likely to survive as it is a clear WP:Afd candidate. It would need reworked and some second sources to survive. The draft, is massively promotional and WP:POV laden, it needs to be neutral.

You also seem to give the impression that your working with or for Tom Dinwoodie, is that the case?

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Victor Dubowitz. Using false edit summaries, as you did when claiming restoration of a disputed nonfree image was merely a copyedit ("Ce"), is generally deemed the equivalent of vandalism of otherwise editing in bad faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Victor Dubowitz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Nonfree images of living persons are paradigmatic violations of nonfree content policy, and claiming that a notable person has died without providing a single shred of evidence is wholly unacceptable as a basis for repeatedly restoring such an image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Victor Dubowitz

Before re-inserting a non-free picture you need to provide credible evidence that the subject is dead, otherwise with very few exceptions, ENWP does not allow non-free photographs in biographies of living people. See WP:NFCCP first line emphasis mine: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

ENWP has come to the consensus decision over many years that for living people, there is always the opportunity to create a free equivalent. Where the subject is dead, and no free picture is easily available, then a non-free alternative can be used. As Victor Dubowitz was born in 1930, absent any evidence he is dead (obituary, news reports etc, even primary sources such as his employer or a personal website) he is considered to be alive for the purposes of non-free content (especially since he was still alive and being interviewed in May last year).

Rest assured, if you keep replacing a non-free picture without providing evidence the subject is deceased, you will end up blocked very very quickly. See WP:3RRNO exemption 5. Removal of clear violations of NFCC are not edit warring. What this means is that you can be reverted as many times as is necessary to keep the material out (while no source for the subject's death is available) but as soon as you hit 3 reverts you will be blocked for edit warring.

I hope this explanation is clear enough for you. Please do not accuse other editors of 'harrassment' for enforcing wikipedia's content policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end. I know what the consensus is. I understand the rules implicity regarding image use, having been doing it for over 10 years. I though the guy was dead and made a simple mistake, because I didnt check the university listing, that indicated he was still life. It was harrassment, plain and simple. I never started it. The editor failed to send me a message that he was going to do it. The editor didn't need to do, but it is courteous, and coversation is the lingua franca of Wikipedia and without the whole project would collapse. I added it back in twice, would no reverts, the first time, when I still didn't known he was was, the second time to annoy him, but still no message, instead a block message. Now I have a red block message on my talk page, which I didnt ask for, because he doesn't want to send a message. scope_creep (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Victor Dubowitz.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Victor Dubowitz.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Victor Dubowitz.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Victor Dubowitz.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) 17:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)