Jump to content

User talk:Scope creep/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Summa Group has been accepted

[edit]
Summa Group, 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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jason D. Washington (January 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
DGG ( talk ) 10:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Scope creep! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 10:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic,"

[edit]

Dear User:scope_creep. I have no financial connection with companies and persons, on which I writing. Currently I'm writing on themes about Russian govermantal monopolies and semi monopolies, and about connection of russian billionaries and subbillionaries, and govermental structures.

So. About my investigations and writings. Summa Group - is a biggest nonfinancial corporate fail in Russia from Yukos times. It controlled a biggest Russian South seaport. and goverment subsidied grain export monopoly - United Grain Company. Alexander Vinokurov - the man, who as generally recognized, fronted a privatization of UGC, working in Summa. Later he worked in Alfa Group A1 and outing from this company creates a Marathon Group - a company, that tryes to form together with govermental Nacimbio, create a official monopoly in a mandatory vaccination market. Later he works together with stateowned VTB Bank in combination of defacto nationalisation from Sergey Galitsky and reprivatization of a biggest russian food retail chain Magnit.

I'm planning to write about Summa's, A1 and some other russian billionary structures more. And, as I understand, nobody can say, that the companyes with auditable billionary assets and hundreds of press references are not notable. Please, explain me, how to act in this situation. Not being very experienced at Wikipedia, I would not want to receive this sort of charge in the future. Rus Investigator (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Scope creep Revenge and disruptive editing regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Mztourist (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GirthSummit (blether) 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say that I'm flabbergasted that an editor of your experience openly admits to having attempted to scare another user into withdrawing their AfD nominations. The undisguised personal attacks were also way beyond the pale. I don't understand the circumstances under which those nominations were made, but that kind of behaviour is absolutely unacceptable no matter what the circumstances were. GirthSummit (blether) 16:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of posting a comment in response, but I guess its finished. scope_creepTalk 16:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I'll just point out that indefinite is not permanently so a response might still be helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Thanks for that. I'll post a response after dinner. scope_creepTalk 17:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I came here to say something similar - I'd be happy to read anything you care to say about the situation, and I'll be happy to post it to ANI if you wish, on the proviso that it doesn't contain anything that could be interpreted as harassment or intimidation towards to OP. GirthSummit (blether) 17:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I didn't expect to end up here. I was planning to spend at least another 20 years on Wikipedia and get to 2000 articles. Let me explain the context. There has been several times in the 15 years, four times to be exact including this, when it's set me off and have been warned about it, several times, which is the reason I have taken cognizance of it. I thought I had conquered it, I really did, take a step back and forget about it, move onto something else and have tried to follow that path consistently since then and for the most part over the last seven years I have and its worked. But this time it was different, because it was on a bigger scale and no communication. The thing that really set me off and bugs me to this day and always does, even when I'm at work, is the lack of rational interaction. There was no interaction, no rationale conversation, a meeting of minds, nothing. It is an assumption that people make, that you'll be OK with it, they won't tell you about, but you'll OK with it, even though you bee. In the scenario they see you as characters on a page and profile, they don't really see you, so they crack on and then it blows up, they get upset and don't understand why the other person gets upset. It's like two folk talking about a third person while they are lying dead of a slab. It is completely non-collegiate. It wouldn't have minded if he had said something to me. The editor asked me a question about one article and I thought, that's it. But nothing else. A simple talk page message would have been all needed. The very first article I wrote was deleted within minutes, and the deleting editor left me a message, why it was deleted. That was that. No reaction ad it didn't bother in the least, the rationale conversion had taken place. That combined with the amount of work it took me to create those articles. I know any article can go to Afd. I joined and several years later was a big presentation about bias in Wikipedia, it was apparent even then, and I happened to read the Alan Turing article and thought I'd look at the German folk who did the same work, of course there was nothing, not a single article. So I spent the next 5+ years creating 48 articles on them, months upon months of research. All that doesn't excuse my behaviour, but MZTourist didn't even make an attempt to find that out. I did try and scare him into withdrawing them, mainly by channelling my family. I certainly do not believe in revenge, it is hateful and imagine it makes you very bitter, which is itself destructive. I must admit I did want MZTourist to feel some the pain that I was feeling, but I felt as though I was being targetted from his comments. He is not exactly the most sanguine character, having had complaints from several editors in the last couple of year. His comments in the Afd talk, gave me the indication that he was targetting me as he assumed I didn't under notability. None of that is excuse. It is worth noting that all content creators kick up a stink when they're stuff is threatened. Think of Missvain getting several of her articles prodded last week. She went ballistic as I did, pointing out the prodding editor didn't understand what notability is about. Wikipedia gave me a lot, I really care for it and I gave a lot back. scope_creepTalk 20:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, hi, and thanks for this response. I'm lucky in that nothing I've written has ever been nominated for deletion, but I can imagine that it must be frustrating, and that having multiple articles nominated in rapid succession by the same user must be particularly galling - I totally get that you will inevitably have had an emotional response to that. Some of the things you said though, as I think you've realised now from what you've said above, were totally out of line, to the point of being threatening - and you admitted that you were attempting to frighten another user - we simply can't allow that, no matter what the circumstances. I have no interest whatsoever in having an enthusiastic and capable writer prevented from contributing to the project, but I think that you need to give some pretty cast iron undertakings about future conduct if you want to be unblocked. So, what do you want to do now? With the comments about the OP's character in there, I don't feel I can post that at the ANI thread, but if you want to draft something else with some indication of how you'd like to proceed, without commenting on the OP personally, I'd be happy to post that. Or, you can make an unblock request, and I'll leave it to another admin to review. GirthSummit (blether) 20:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I apologise to everybody involved in this. I have really wasted everybody's time, including my own. Looking back, the stress put me into overload and I reacted in a way that I would never react to in normal manner. I would never react like that in manner at work or amongst friends or colleagues and wouldn't expect anybody else to react in that manner towards me. Its entirely outside my normal experience. It's only been a few days and feels like it was last year. I don't think I can come back in the short term certainly. It has completely switched me off and would be unable to start editing. If I did come back, I wouldn't be working in kind of non-mainstream article, particularly of the type that was sent to Afd. I never planned to work on any more of types of those articles anyway except b-dienst which needs some work, but for the most part, what could be discovered was already in and already completed. I was planning to create a couple of templates in the first three months of this year to pull all the articles together. I'm certainly much less attached to the question of deletion than I was before. When you go through this sort of experience, you look back and say, you've done it and you know about and know how approach it without causing any hassle. I don't ever plan to create the kind of article that requires thinking out of what box on constitutes notability. For those articles I took the approach that as Wikipedia was the universal encyclopedic it should have at least some kind of entry on every subject, even if it was obscure, secret or byzantine. That has certainly not worked. They will be mainstream articles and if they put up for nomination, then I don't plan to defend then. scope_creepTalk 18:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scope creep, I really understood why you did what you did, but in the eyes of most editors, it'll really mean WP:REVENGE. This is what really forced Onel5969 into an unfortunate retirement, and it's what happened to Missvain recently. Having most of the articles that you suffered to write and create over the years taken to AfD or PROD in quick succession, will really affect anybody, no matter who the person is. I'm really sorry that you have to suffer this and I don't want us to lose another experienced Wikipedian, and especially someone like you, who really have Wikipedia at heart. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those words Scope creep - I've posted that at ANI. You haven't requested an unblock, but should you do so, I would have no problem with any admin granting one if you were to accept a one-way IBAN with MZTourist. (I'm confident that you have no intention of harassing them any further anyway, but in a case like this I think that would need to be formalised.) I hope that you do decide to come back, when you're ready - I know that your contributions will be missed at NPP, and I'm sure there are other areas of the project which will be worse for your absence. GirthSummit (blether) 12:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I suggest you post an unblock request along these lines, I think most of us at least understand your frustration and I think a lot of us are prepared to take your apology at face value. Guy (help!) 09:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Seema Yasmin has a new comment

[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission,: This needs exact specification ofthe various awards--whetherit was as a winner or just nominee, whether it was a geographic section or national, and which subject subdivision it was. Each one needs an exact reference. For any awards where she was one of a group, that must be specified, with a link to the WP article.

The official announcement of her appointment to Stanford must be listed, as well as her official CV. The effective date of that appointment is critical information. . Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red

[edit]
February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Nomination of Ferdinand Feichtner for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ferdinand Feichtner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Feichtner (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Olaf Groth (February 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KartikeyaS343 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Seema Yasmin (February 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KartikeyaS343 was:
Please go through the comments made by DGG and improve accordingly before submitting it again for the review. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

[edit]

I have opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scope creep Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, I've blocked the IP. You know the rules around block evasion. I appreciate that you will have a natural desire to defend your work at AfD, and I personally miss your contributions to NPP, but you need to make an unblock request if you want to continue contributing, you can't just edit through an IP and expect us to look the other way. GirthSummit (blether) 09:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Girth Summit: That is fine, I wasn't planning on editing as an IP address. I would be an absurd position to take. I wanted to make a comment, although I doubt it will make much difference to the Afd, since it is already gone. scope_creepTalk 18:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I really think you could be unblocked today if you made a formal request, including a 1 way iBAN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 is right - I don't want you to think that this situation is permanent. I'd be willing to craft a restriction in such a way as to allow you to participate in discussions of your own work that the other editor has nominated (subject to normal civility requirements), provided you accept an Iban in other forums. I hope you make an unblock request along these lines - I'm on mobile at the moment, but any passing admin should feel free to accept such a request without consulting me. GirthSummit (blether) 19:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ejike Mbaka (March 7)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
adv,bio
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: LX SETH (March 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JavaHurricane was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
JavaHurricane 09:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Boatright-Simon (March 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Thank you so much for your contributions to Wikipedia!

Please replace the primary sources and passing mentions with reliable secondary sources ABOUT the subject - features just about them! This includes magazine articles, newspaper articles, television interviews or features, or publications from notable journals, books, or other publications.

The sources should cover the subject in great detail - not just a mere one line mention, for example.

If you are unable to find any reliable secondary sources (learn more here: WP:Reliable), it might not be the right time for the subject to have its own Wikipedia article. Please consider editing other Wikipedia articles - there are so many that can be improved!

Thank you once more, for contributing to Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Missvain (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ectomycorrhizal associations with eucalyptus (March 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:
This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Wikipedia is not a research journal repository to dump papers.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Isaac Chukwu Udeh has been accepted

[edit]
Isaac Chukwu Udeh, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sam-2727 (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Stammbaum" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stammbaum. Since you had some involvement with the Stammbaum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166


May offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Unblock

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Scope creep (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I would like to be unblocked, if possible. It has been four months since I was rightly blocked and I think now is the time to come back and do some work. I think I need a one way IBAN in place, per the previous conversations with GirthSummit. I don't intend to create any of these articles types again, that have such slim notability. I have noticed mistakes in several articles, including a wrong link in one article. I have several hundred article still to write and several article that are half done. Red Orchestra needs completed as well. This wont happen again. I have much less attachement to seeing my old articles being put to Afd. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 10:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You have addressed the reasons you were blocked, and you are accepting a one-way interaction ban with the other party - I see no reason for you to remain blocked. Happy to accept this request. GirthSummit (blether) 11:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope creep - I'm glad that you want to return to editing. I'm going to log this as a voluntary interaction ban, since there wasn't a formal consensus to enact it as a community-endorsed ban. I'm sure you'll abide by the terms of it, but obviously if you don't then we'd need to go to AN to get it endorsed by the community, which I don't imagine anybody wants. You can see the restrictions which apply to you at WP:IBAN - let me know if you have any questions. Pinging Barkeep49 and JzG, who have both commented here in the past concerning this block - just keeping you in the loop. GirthSummit (blether) 11:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've logged the IBAN here. Welcome back. GirthSummit (blether) 11:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GirthSummit. scope_creepTalk 12:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have you back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, I am happy about this. I think Scope Creep is sincere and here for the right reasons. Guy (help!) 13:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Barkeep49, Nnadigoodluck, Guy. scope_creepTalk 13:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating German Army cryptographic systems of World War II.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

It seems that the citations are all messed up... Is this a split from another article or something along those lines?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yip @Insertcleverphrasehere:, I'm trying to split the main GDNA article up, to make it smaller. This chunk is 26k off of it. There is two other big sections that can come out, and make seperate articles, which should have the size of it hopefully. scope_creepTalk 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, At the moment you have a lot of "invoked but not defined" errors in the citations. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 13:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, I saw them. I'm working on it right now. scope_creepTalk 13:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Truimsgarry Telford Parliamentary church.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Truimsgarry Telford Parliamentary church.png. 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Truimsgarry Telford Parliamentary church.png listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Truimsgarry Telford Parliamentary church.png, 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. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

[edit]

Hello, Scope creep

Thank you for creating Hila Oren.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

No explanation of what the Tel Aviv Foundation is, or why it is important. The refs are a bit ropey, needs some more third-party.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

scope_creepTalk 13:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scope_creep/Archive_6&oldid=1079144245"