Happy New Year@Gerda:. I hope you have a great and successful New Year!! Tom Johnson, "Nine Bells". I've not heard that. I really like that abstract/minimalist stuff, Its very peaceful but don't like the footsteps. I wonder if they are meant to be part of it, the movement itself is part of the piece. I was listening to Hymm, Mixmaster Morris, Pete Namlook this morning. I keep listening to this, "The real dream of sails" by Harold Budd and Steve Reich and Clair Chase (together) now and again e.g. "Vermont Counterpoint". The seem to collaborate with Phillip Glass now and again, who i've been listening too since my 20's. It seems chaotic but it is intensely ordered, or possibly chaos into order.scope_creepTalk15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This award is given in recognition to Scope creep for conducting 856 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up!Hey man im josh (talk)18:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: That seems to be ok. Its Gale, which is part of Cengage Learning. I fixed an error in the references early. It looks odd. I'll make it make it Gale since its recognised. A bit of branding crept in from worldcat.scope_creepTalk12:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Dxneo: How goes it? I've never created a band or an album article to be honest,so I'm probably not the best editor for this discussion. Generally I'd say it would be based on coverage. I do know during AFC reviews and during the NPP review check there is often a push to merge unless they are really special with their own standalone coverage that is seperate from the original product, but it seems to be very rare. They need to really special. I hope that helps. Its as much as I can offer and thanks for considering me.scope_creepTalk18:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think he was going to post any sources originally. I thought the editor was just going to ignore the request, like other editors who have created many articles as I've seen in the past at Afd. Sometimes they don't take it on. When I looked at the sources, there was lots of passing mentions on the Battle of Lucano, single sentences, probably taken from a single Arabic source and duplicated across multiple books. I think there is a genuine reasoning there, not just some incompetence or elevating nothing into something to give it an artificial notabilty that doesn't exist. The article should be deleted and I still think he should banned from writing articles because the editor is still not capable of writing a real article or evaluating sources correctly. I'll clarify the comment.scope_creepTalk09:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scope_creep, with respect, I would like to push back on the justification you offered. There's nothing in the criteria that says "ultra-local" sources are unacceptable, that seems to be a restriction you invented. The sources I cited are from local government, the city's paper of record, and the most formidable political news outlet in Florida. Judge Moran is an elected official in the largest city in Florida, she was the first woman in that city to run for mayor, and also one of the most significant contributors to the passage of a human rights ordinance that offered protection for the first time to the city's LGBTQ+ community. All of those experiences collectively speak to her notability.
Hi@Flauren06: There are two different folk who looked at the article and came to the same decision. I know the criteria and I know what is needed. I have long experience of it. As aWP:BLP, it needs high-quality sources, stated in the first line of the policy and they are not there. Typically individuals who have done a job and shown some compassion arent particular notable and with ultra-local sources like that don't show much else, what can you do. It as much of a muchness in terms of the references and fairly generic and routine. I don't she is particularly notable.scope_creepTalk19:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the notability guidelines right now...
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." She satisfies this requirement.
Under politicians/judges, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.". She satisfies this as well.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed asStub-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
News and notes:Let's talk! The WMF executive team delivers a new update; plus, the latest EU policy report, good-bye to the German Wikipedia's Café, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
Community view:24th Wikipedia Day in New York City Wikimedians and newbies celebrate 24 years of Wikipedia in the Brooklyn Central Library. Special guests Stephen Harrison and Clay Shirky joined in conversation.
Traffic report:A wild drive The start of the year was filled with a few unfortunate losses, tragic disasters, emerging tech forces and A LOT of politics.
I noticed that my Wikipedia draft on **Prof. Mikhail Kudryashev** was recently declined.
I would appreciate your feedback on specific improvements that would help the article meet Wikipedia’s standards. Prof. Kudryashev has received twoprestigious academic awards:
-Heisenberg Award (2020) – A major distinction from the German Research Foundation (DFG).
The article also includes multipleindependent and reliable sources that discuss his research contributions. Could you please advise on what adjustments are needed for resubmission? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated!
Hi@SuhovaNS: It been reviewed four times and each independent editor has found it lacking. I don't think there is any doubt that the man will eventually have an article, but I think if it was mainspaced now, it would be sent to Afd. I think it is too early.scope_creepTalk18:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there not needed. You don't add cleanup tag to article created by an editor who is autopatrolled. You leave a talk page message which you've done and I've seen and read. It is the wrong tag. That isn't cleanup.scope_creepTalk05:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the article needs to be updated with the information about the prison's closure, otherwise the lead and the closure section in the article are inconsistent. I think it is the right tag because ofWP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. -Cameron Dewe (talk)05:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look. I don't think was a lot on it when I wrote it, but seems to have been extended futher. I was a single government press-release in the Brussels Times or something like that, not enough for a section paragraph. It a single event.scope_creepTalk06:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Nourerrahmane: There was some History article. Can you check the History article talk page. Another editor tried to put in a block of text that introduced a spelling mistake, changed an image props, split a para and added a block of text that didn't seem suitable. Can you check it.scope_creepTalk15:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not communicate with me anymore or leave messages on my talk page moving forward. I want to have less interaction with you as much as possible. This will be my only message on your talk page. You can delete it once you've read it. Versace1608Wanna Talk?20:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608: That is fine, but its worth knowing I've went through this process many times before. I know it is difficult but you will need to do it. If you don't do it, I will do it. There is established process for this. I'll will be back in a few days.scope_creepTalk20:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technology report:Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year From patrolling new edits to uploading photos or joining a campaign, you can count on the Wikimedia platform to be up and running — in your language, anywhere in the world. That is, except for a couple of minutes during the equinoctes.
Opinion:Sennecaster's RfA debriefing User Sennecaster shares her thoughts on her recent RfA and the aspects that might have played a role in making it successful.
HI. You make an extremely clear and relevant statement there which many of us need to remind ourselves of. That said, I think it would interest you very much totake a look at this (both pages) and if you think it will work, leave a comment there. It won't take up much of your time but do first read the two pages to get the overall picture. It is unconnected with the way NPP works, how the reviewers work, or the PAGs that are the basis of that work.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)02:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: Is the project stalled? I always thought the lack of a landing page to tender early explicit instruction and set expectations was a bit mad. I think it is one of the great failings on this project.scope_creepTalk05:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The project is not stalled. Indeed it is a project some of us started 2 years and was put on a back burner, but in view of the poor results of the last backlog drive it's more important than ever to move it forward. Please take a look at it and then read through the chat that is developing. My descriptions of it make it sound bigger and more complex than it is. It will all come together as soon as we have another virtual meeting on it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)07:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in thissurvey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view itsprivacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards,Sam Walton (talk)16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly familiar with dealing with unsigned comments and the like, or I'd just fix this myself. Convenient Discussions thinks your Help Desk reply just now is part ofthis one of mine immediately below it. (Because of the missing timestamp, I think.)Musiconeologist (talk)19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It'sthis (follow the redirect)—a thing you install in your user javascript that does things like highlighting new replies, providing links to individual comments, etc. I've been using it for a while, and quite like it.Musiconeologist (talk)19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Here's one thing I didn't find immediately obvious: it adds two tiny links at the very bottom of the page, below the standard Wikipedia ones. One to reload the page with Convenient Discussions turned off (e.g. to do something manually that it does automatically), and one for making settings. I tend to forget those are there. (There's a gear icon visible while editing anyway.) I hope you find it useful, or at least fun to investigate!Musiconeologist (talk)21:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
@Roastedbeanz1: These places are very remote and quite small but they also tend to very old, so they tend to have a lot of sources. Although you can see that some don't have sources at the moment, it is a genuine place with a post office. I created these very early and it took ages to do it.scope_creepTalk18:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a lot of vague claims about consensus formed in previous discussions, but I was not a part of those discussions and you haven't provided any links to these discussions, so from my point of view its just a lot of hot air on your part. If you want to make arguments against inclusion of content based on some alleged prior consensus, you have to link to that alleged prior consensus. And you do it on the article talk page where all the editors of the article get to collaborate on coming to a consensus. Bald assertions are just that, bald assertions, which can reasonably be ignored by any editor as self-serving blather unless you back up your claim with links. Fair warning: if you post them anywhere other thanTalk:Roberta Hoskie, I will move your reply to that page.Skyerise (talk)11:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Thank you for your feedback. I can confirm the issues have now been addressed. Additional independent sources have been incorporated, and references have been added to previously unsourced sections. The bolding has also been removed to improve readability.
Please let me know if any further refinements are needed. I appreciate your support in moving it to the mainspace.
When creating biographies, don't forget to useTemplate:DEFAULTSORT. Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited, it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name.
Misplaced accusations entirely irrelevant here due to a case of mistaken identity; they apologized and struck.
Hello.I left you a note at the ANI discussion requesting that you strike much of your misinformed language. thanks. Does casting aspersions include unintentional exaggerations reported as fact? I dunno.Randy Kryn (talk)11:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that I've been brought to ANI many times. Wrong. I think it was twice (did you open one of those? I don't keep track) and for minor or mistaken reasons which were soon closed. The "many times" or whatever language you used, that's the exaggeration and what I ask you to strike. thanks.Randy Kryn (talk)09:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, my mistake, I misremembered the name and mixed you up withSnow Rise. Talk about human error! Apologies all around (except to Snow Rise) if your talk page readers have gotten the wrong idea.Randy Kryn (talk)13:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: I just found the block of text. It a bit of a stretch there in the change of name. They don't even sound alike. I would be more careful in the future.scope_creepTalk
I can kind of see how this could happen: our names both employ two separate lexemes, separated by an underscore/space, and in both instances, our names start with an /s/ and both words can be both a noun and a verb. Knowing a little something about how the brain stores and processes lexical entries, itsort of makes a certain degree of sense. That said (and scope, I hope you will forgive my responding here in the name of efficiency), Randy: I have already responded to your request in the ANI thread itself. Much like scope_creep, I would ask that you apply a little more care and read my comments slowly and thoughtfully this time, because you are misinterpreting both what I said and why I said it. It wasmeant to be an example of an uncareful, hasty, and unverifiable characterization of the sort you yourself used against others in that discussion. It is not something I am presenting as the truth of your motivation, but rather a counterfactual of something speculative someone might say about you that you would not appreciate--much as the good faith contributors to that discussion might not appreciate your drive-by labelling.Now, I've explained this laboriously several times at this point, and I believe that it was extremely express and obvious in the original comment, so this will be the last effort I will make to reassure you about my meaning. It seems to me that, between 1) your mixing up the identity of the person you thought was insulting you, 2) the fact that you misinterpreted my meaning in the first place, and 3) that you came here even though I had responded to you at length at the ANI thread, that you are speed reading through these discussions and responding hastily. That is a bad approach anywhere on the project, but especially at ANI, and especially, especially a CBAN discussion about serious conduct violations.SnowRise let's rap23:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise, you said in your comment I had been brought to ANI many times. That is incorrect, and is what I asked you to strike. Your long response to me was criticized by others, and had little to do with my simple request. Thanks.Randy Kryn (talk)02:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved editor here: yes, the OP's misplaced accusation could have misled readers of this page, so the ensuing apologies and added strikeout text was the right thing to do. There is nevertheless still a level of misdirection just by its occupying a certain amount of vertical space on this page and an eye-catching amount of strikeout, not to mention two third-party editors sniping at each other on a topic entirely irrelevant to this page. As this entire discussion has absolutely zero to do with scope_creep, I believe the best disposition for it for future readers is in a collapsed state. Scope_creep, this being your page, you get the last word, so feel free to undo.Mathglot (talk)18:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have fixed references 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 24, 25, 26, 28, and 29. These are now cite web citations with full citations. I have removed all nowiki tags.Draft:Michael_Harris-Love
Hi@Redstarwiki: I'm not going to review it. I will let somebody else do it who is uninvolved. I would tone down the promotional language. Language like "consummate scholar" is unsuitable and make the draft promotional. Stuff like "passionately explored the intricate balance between" makes no sense. Weasal words like that have no place her. What does that mean. Your not writing for corporate land. Describe it exactly. I would ask you to determine if he is actually notable, before you invest more work in it. I think with the books he may be, but his citation count is particularly low but it may be borderline. Hope that helps.scope_creepTalk09:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstarwiki: Lastly, dont use url shorteners on Wikipedia. They are not used here. Also, the language you use, your approach and way its written makes they me think you haveWP:COI. If your beingWP:PAID you need to disclose. If youWP:COI, you also need to disclose and need to put a connected contributor tag on the article. The article is written for an corporate environement which doesn't exist here.scope_creepTalk09:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm just seeing this now. I have removed the promotional language.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "my language"? This is my very first article on Wikipedia, and I made an effort to follow the tone used in other articles here. I also had an editor review it and they said the tone was appropriate. Could you kindly specify what exactly is wrong?
Statistics available viaHumaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,269 articles during this period!
21 Apr 2025: 20.090% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,061,363; 414,126 women)
24 Mar 2025: 20.070% (2,057,083 bios; 412,857 women)
Tip of the month:
Those of you who experience harassment while trying to create or improve articles about women are welcome to bring your problems to our attention on theWomen in Red talk page.
You deleted the Ornithodira article and replaced it with a redirect to Avemetatarsalia because there were no sources. The reason there were no sources was because I had just restored an old version from 2011 (I think). The reason I did this is because I think there should be a vote on whether Ornithodira should be merged into Avemetatarsalia or not. I did not want to add sources now because it would be a waste if the article was approved for deletion (turned into a redirect).Mongoliensis123 (talk)11:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Mongoliensis123: Generally you put sources in to stop it being deleted. Do a merge discussion and I'll check back in a couple of weeks see how its getting on. You may be able to find sources, but certainly it can't stay in mainspace without them.scope_creepTalk16:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News from the WMF:Product & Tech Progress on the Annual Plan A look at some product and tech highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan (July–December 2024).
The move of West Side (San Francisco) from mainspace to draft is invalid under WP:DRAFTOBJECT, since I’ve objected as the primary contributor. Once an objection is made, the move is no longer considered uncontroversial, and consensus is required to keep it in draftspace. No such consensus was sought or established, so I’ve moved the article back to mainspace accordingly. Further discussion can take place on the article’s talk page if needed.Goldrock95 (talk)16:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldrock95: That is fine but you should have fixed it in draft. It would have been easier. I've removed everything from the article that is unsourced. If you add more unsourced again, I'm going to issue warnings against and I'm going to have you up atWP:ANI. No more unsourced blocks of text.scope_creepTalk18:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not contesting this draftify necessarily, but I happened to notice it at AfC and it got me curious because I've been trying to understand the standards for bibliographies and other lists of works lately. I think this article actually might not need references, and the fact that the authors have an article denotes notability, based on what I've read. I think it just needs the title changed toBibliography of the history of number systems. SeeLists of books, and the accompanyingMOS:WORKS. Curious what your thoughts are.MediaKyle (talk)21:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MediaKyle: Yes. I thought that originally, the book definitions were themselves references because they were notable (I viewed it about 8 times), but those book have been selected which introducesWP:OR potentially. Then I thought, if it was going to Afd, it would need reviews. On the point, yes, I thought about the author having an entry, then why not list the books in another article as there is a commanality, as they are notable (back to point A). But your left the common mechanics of an article with seeminly notable entries but no references to prove it, which may grate amongst folk, seen as non-standard. I'll take a look at your links in the morning when I'm awake. Might be worth asking around. I'll do it as well. Its kind odd.scope_creepTalk23:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: I declined it and left a comment with feedback, if you're curious. If implemented I think I'll probably pass it and see what happens.MediaKyle (talk)21:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There's an ongoing discussion about neutrality, tone, and sourcing on theRyan Holiday article involving editors me and Vegantics. Given your experience with biographies and Wikipedia guidelines, your perspective would be valuable. If you have a moment, please share your thoughtshere. Thanks in advance for your help!--IndyNotes (talk)16:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the{{proposed deletion/dated}} tag fromP. C. Solanki, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add{{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it atWikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!— Komodo (talk)02:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the article before deprodding. I suggest you open a discussion on how to improve it further before any deletion actions if possible. Cheers!Komodo (talk)16:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki message delivery has given you a plate of sausages! Sausages promoteWikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a plate of sausages, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Your refreshing language atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yampukur Vrata gave me a chuckle (and made me hungry).
Johann Podsiadlo onPeople of the Red Orchestra is also listed as Johann Podsialdo right? I think one of them needs to be removed.in preparation for high treason in tate unity with enemy favoritism should that bestate?
Hi@Polygnotus: It should be yes. And the spelling mistake, yip. I saw your message. I'm not staying. I'm going to finish the Joseph Lister article, which should take about 6 months and then I'm off. I was asked by a Glasgow University academic to do it, so I plan to finish it, although not to FA standard as I originally planned. To be honest, I'm sick to death of this place.scope_creepTalk03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea, but we're putting together ourlist of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red. We are creating the list to celebrate10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania. We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider? Can you suggest a DYK style hook? If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on thetalk page.
Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regardingnotability andreliable sources. Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements.
Hi! I was informing myself about theRed Orchestra and stumbled upon your user page. I created the en page forFrida Wesolek, so now that one can be checked.
Hi@Itscookiemaster: How goes it? That is an excellent wee article. Thanks for creating it. It fills in a gap. I've fixed a couple of thing and added categories and the main template. Apparently she was is considered part of the mainHarro Schulze-Boysen group as well, which I didn't know, or supposedly anyway. I'm just checking if there if there is any more informtion on here. Could do with an image as well.scope_creepTalk09:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much else on her. I think she was on the periphery. The available image which could be uploaded is not the best either. It seems to slightly out of focus, so give that a swerve.scope_creepTalk09:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I don't know what file you were using but if you check the Royal Mail's Postcode Finder it will give you the correct post town for the districts. Acharacle is the post town for the PH36 district, not Fort William (PH33).Samuel J Walker (talk)21:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel J Walker: I wrote these article you are changing. The PAF is the official UK post office address file, that you pay for. That consumer based product your using is for your address lookup is not accurate. It doesn't give you the correct post town.scope_creepTalk22:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its not accurate. It is not a paid product. They differentiate based on whether you pay the full prie for the PAF address file, which in 1996 was £17k and is extremely accurate and well maintained or the cheap consumer lookup product which is not accurate. You changing values without the doing the checks to see if the data is even valid. You don't even what your doing.scope_creepTalk22:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I "don't know what I'm doing" then I suggest you check over the PH postcode area page which has this supposedly incorrect information as well, and the map on that page derived from the Ordinance Survey. Instead of edit warring maybe start the discussion on that talk page. I just find it hard to believe that the Royal Mail would not keep their own Postcode Finder database up to date, "consumer lookup" or not.Samuel J Walker (talk)22:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel J Walker: That is the way post office works and its the same way all British government department works. Its how the ordindance survey works as well. It has professional product which you pay for. You pay for the most accurate data, which in this instance for the post office, is the PAF file. ThePH postcode area doesn't even begin to be accurate. It has the most basic outline of postcode districts. I don't need to start a discussion. I wrote the articles and I know what I'm talking about. If you keep reducing the quality of the data, then its going to end up atWP:ANI.scope_creepTalk05:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, whatever. I personally find it hard to believe that an entire database operated by the company responsible for delivering post and which includes information about the PAF would be wholly inaccurate but I don't have the energy to continue this debate. However, I do take exception to your claim that I "don't know what I'm doing", "reducing the quality" and threatening me with an ANI when I originally made what were good faith edits using information in the public domain that the wider public could reasonably assume would be accurate.Samuel J Walker (talk)16:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel J Walker: Ignore what I said about Ani. My bark is much worse my bite. You woudn't automatically know how these data sources actually work unless you have some experience of it and in particularly geographic system and the British way of doing it. You may be able to get a hold of the PAF database, on bittorrent for example. I've seen it floating about. If you do, you could easily update and the information would be accurate. I will have a look for it.scope_creepTalk18:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics available viaHumaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period!
19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women)
23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women)
Tip of the month:
A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements, but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations.
Thanks for uploadingFile:Suzanne Spaak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).
Ref 11,12, 14,15,17 and 18 are non-rs. They are not reliable sources and should be removed. Interviews with band members areWP:PRIMARY and don't count for much. Band publisher refs and social media refs don't count for much either. Theyre is a very specific subset of source types that are acceptable. Look for sources that are found inWP:MUSICRS. At the moment it looks as though its going to be deleted, even though its quite a well known band, almost a 1million monthly listeners on Spotify. I don't have much experience with band articles. I would look for major newspaper reviews of gigs. Also the article is also far too long and need shortened by about 30-40%. All the stuff about X movement is promo marketing crap and the life story which come from an interviews and press-releases is all junk and should be removed. No details of individuals, essentiallyWP:BLP, should be added to article from a single interview. It isWP:PRIMARY and unreliable conjecture that failsWP:NPOV. When your adding BLP details it needs multipleWP:SECONDARY sources to verifyWP:V. Anything from a press-release is suspect and junk. That also needs to be removed. Ref 8. That whole section needs to go. It has no place on a band article. Those two need to go. You needWP:THREE references to pass a Afd oer consensus Three good secondary sources. Band reviews/writeups in any site fromWP:MUSICRS or mainstream newspapers is a start. The Miami New Times is a decent secondary source to kick it off. Hope that helps.scope_creepTalk19:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. How are you doing? I am a paid editor and as perthis I had added the link to the website of the company I work with. A few days ago you removed the link. The company name is still there. I just want to confirm if adding the link to the website on my user page is necessary or not.HRShami (talk)10:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you removed almost all the details of the entire page, and as a reason; "unsourced". You could only remove the text that needed a source, but you even removed the introduction. I don't think that's appropriate and i want to ask if you want to return atleast the most factual details like where the name came from, who invented it, etc.
Hello Scope creep, I don't know if my message about my attempt to accommodate your comments in my revision, just submitted again, reached you but, in case it did not, I am copying it in now. I hope this is the correct way to send it to you:
Dear Scope Creep, I have done my best to address your comments, taking out Ref 5 and removing what you judged unacceptable conjecture. I have also added a couple of accession numbers in the Sources section. I am unable to identify the "large sections still unsourced" and feel I have found all available sources of information on William Tudor both by online searches and personal visits to all the places he grew up and later worked in plus the local archives of those places (Abergavenny, Monmouth and Bath) and relevant libraries (same cities, Royal College of Surgeons, British Library and military museums). Well into my 80s, I'm not really equipped to do more. If you can delete those "large unsourced sections" such that the submission satisfies you, you have my complete permission to do that and I would be grateful if you would do so. I do feel William Tudor merits a Wikipedia entry. The house he built, Kelston Knoll, is on Wikipedia, without, at present, a link to him! So I request you please make the adjustments you judge fit and give the necessary go-ahead for the entry to be officially included in Wikipedia. With thanks. Peter Turnbull.PeterCBTurnbull (talk)10:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Take a look atWP:REFB. A wee tutorial on how to create refs.. 7 large paragraphs need referenced properly. I can see why I bunged it in there. I will give a hand doing some of these references. I figured it would have been done by now, but obviously no. Need to get it fixed and out.scope_creepTalk20:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@PeterCBTurnbull: I've added a ref but couldn't find the page number details in the two welcome collection books. Good books. History is solid. Add "page=" to that first ref. Or you could post them here.scope_creepTalk21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I'll work on the page numbers and links needed for names in red. Refs 1 and 2 are actually the same Wellcome item; I'll try to get that right. I'm away quite a lot for the next two weeks, so will be rather slow. Thank you for your help. I see on your site you do have an enormous list of submitted articles to deal with. PeterTPeterCBTurnbull (talk)12:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterCBTurnbull: Quite a cool old document, that old but after I couldn't identify the page number at all. Even on the 2nd one. If you put some like for example p.20 for page 20 in each reference, I can fix them up later into full citations and then we can have ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_surfactant_(medication)#Research look at finding references for the rest of the blank bits. If you could do that in the meantime, I can do it all in a oner later.scope_creepTalk22:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at this article too, and this is intended for both @Scope creep as well as @PeterCBTurnbull . I've read the Burney source in the British Library. In reality the quote from the book does not appear to be there exactly as stated, so really it should come out. However it is fair version of the book's meaning, even if it is not a direct quote, so I'll find a way to amend it. However elsewhere that source, alone, had no fewer than 27 mentions of Tudor in Volume X, most in passing but some a bit meatier. In addition to Tudor's work with the Queen and Princess Elizabeth, there is quite a lot of information about Tudor's treatment of her husband, Alexandre d'Arblay. From the editors' notes it would appear that her husband's diaries also talked about Tudor, which I think is available in Emmanuel College Cambridge.
These editors did, in a footnote on page 781 put a 150 word potted biography of William Tudor, covering the main known features of his career, so that is in addition to Burney's own words.
I would therefore be in a position to redraft the article but my preference would be have something somewhat shorter, as a starter, and rewording the potted footnote. Then adding material from the existing draft where sourcing is strong. This will look like a major deletion (it will probably trigger the anti-vandal team!) but nothing is lost in wikipedia, the full text of all drafting will still be available in the system.
Clearly I can't do this without consensus, and in addition I notice this is on the to-do list of @Scope creep - so I don't want to tread on their toes.
@ChrysGalley: That is grand you've came in and had a look. Absolutely grand!! I was losing faith a bit there myself because I had a feeling that@PeterCBTurnbull: wasn't coming back and I couldn't finish the referencing properly. As you can see there is several sections that are unsourced as well as several sections that are sourced to bare raw urls and one reference to a book site on the history of parliament that doesnt have the volume or page numbers, indeed nothing apart from the book name and author; its just a web reference. The internet archive has been a bit ropey recently so have been unable to finish the referencing that is in the article.
I think it would be ideal if you redraft it and then we can merge from this article where its sourced correctly, assuming it fits the new article. Then we can have a discussion on those sections that are unsourced and see what do with them, if anything. The only point I would like to raise is that PeterCBTurnbull has spent considerable time on it and I would like to inform him beforehand ideally to smooth the way if I can. But at the same time, I don't want to wait forever, especially since we can crack on now. To mitigate, would it be possible to create a new draft under a new name, e.g. with a middle initial, leave this one intact and then when new draft is in mainspace, I can rename it back to the correct name. That seems to be quite a common practice in AFC. That way it gives PeterCBTurnbull time to come in with an intact draft, it might a couple of months (seems to every 10-12 weeks he's in) and then G6 this draft when we're done. In the meantime, I can help on the new draft where I can.scope_creepTalk14:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is one solution, and I would be happy to assist since I've got photos of that material. It would lead to quite a short article but gives the bare bones of Tudor's history and as you indicate it would then be possible to ship the material in. So technically that is easy. By process, though, it's unnecessary since no material is lost, it's all in the history, but I guess that less present Wiki editors could get shocked that their hard work is deleted (when it is not) and hence presumably your suggestion here.
And yes I was also conscious of doing "the right thing" for @PeterCBTurnbull since they have spent vastly more time on this than me. There is no requirement for editors to be here all the time (in fact I guess we would be better editors if do other things!). You (@Scope creep) were given complete permission and we seem to doing the consensus bit here. I will do it tomorrow (Friday UK) just in case this benefits from more reflection or there is some other factor involved here.ChrysGalley (talk)14:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SC. As you can see I've slid into your citations layout (I wasn't sure of this to begin with but actually it looks much neater once the quotes pile up - so thank you for that). I have put most of the text in that I had in mind, but I will put in the Royal Kalendar link for the Duke of Cumberland connection, since you slaved away on that one! This leaves no reference to Tudor's place of birth, his wives or daughters, since I'm not yet seeing RS for them. So I've left them off for now. I am willing to hunt for them but I suspect this any answers are going to be based on primary or genealogy sourcing. I don't feel strongly about that, so if you think they can go in, then that's fine. There isn't much else left from the original article that I can source at the moment.
The one exception, though, is that Turnbull's pamphlet biography is listed in the Bath Archives online catalogue. so I think it's OK to add that to the bibliography (but not sourcing anything) even though I've not seen it? And anything else I've missed?
Then: what next? Do we go through AFC or given that both of us have worked on it, do we just publish and let NPP intervene if they have concerns? As I see it there, every fact now has a rock solid fully detailed source. What are your thoughts?
Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published.
An automated process has detected that when you recently editedJoseph Lister, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesJames Morton andThomas Keith.
Thanks for uploadingFile:Donald Winnicott.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).
Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia.
Progress ("moving the needle"):Statistics available via various tools: previously,Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period:
19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women)
InDaniël Goulooze, do we know if Daan was an alias to disguise his identity, or simply his "roepnaam"? I would expect it to be the standard shortened form of his name, and not an attempt to disguise his identity. If it was an attempt to disguise his identity he would pick something very different from his real name, right? See alsoDaan#People which saysDutch short form for Daniel. Iremoved that sentence. Thanks,Polygnotus (talk)19:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 October 1943, Goulooze, Postma, [[Kees Schalker]] and {{ill|Ko Beuzemaker|nl}} meet in an insurance building at [[Catharijnesingel]] in [[Utrecht]], with the expectation that the war was coming to an end, with a plan to formulate their positions after the war.{{sfn|Harmsen|1980|p=214}} At a second meeting arranged in Utrecht for the 11 October led to the arrest of Ko Beuzemaker and his wife.{{sfn|Harmsen|1980|p=216}} This eventually led to the arrest of Goulooze, Postma, Cornelis Schalke on the 15 November 1943. Can you check that source please? It seems more likely that11 October should be the 11th of November, which makes more sense chronologically.
Buthttps://www.rudi-harthoorn.nl/personen-uit-verzet/ saysOp 10 november werden de prominente communist Ko Beuzemaker en zijn vrouw op hun onderduikadres in Leersum gearresteerd, omdat men hem voor een Jood aanzag., referring to the 10th of November 1943, andDe nieuwe top van de illegale CPN had voor 14 november 1943 om 11 uur ’s-morgens een vergadering gepland in een ruimte van de Verzekeringsmaatschappij Hollandsche Sociëteit aan de Catharijnesingel 25 in Utrecht, die door de verzekeringsagent Oene Jonker ter beschikking was gesteld. Deelnemers zouden zijn Ko Beuzemaker, Daan Goulooze, Jan Postma en Kees Schalker.
So something went wrong with the dates and/or chronological order in that section.
Hi@Polygnotus: Good to see you back. No, it was just his nickname, family name. Geez, I see what you mean. I missed that. I'll need to look the book out and not sure where it is. It's in all in Dutch, which is Dutch to me, so will take some time to figure. Eyes like a hawk. I know it. I didn't see that. Its plain as day as well, once you see it. Yes, that makes sense. Excellent work!!scope_creepTalk20:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a "source vary" added now since the date of arrest of Goulooze and the others don't sync across Harmsen, Kesaris and the Rudi Harthoorn blog. I need to redo it.scope_creepTalk21:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic report:One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph.
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Statistics available via various tools: previously,Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year.
21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women)
28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women)
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
Hi@Goran tek-en:, I was wondering if your able to do illustrations. I uploaded several images to the Lister article. They have been drawn in pencil. I was planning to send several to the graphics lab then I remembered you did an illustration a couple of years ago. These are the images:
I hope I can help you, yes. I almost missed this as I mistook it for the Nobel thing. We will have to discuss what you want. --always ping me--Goran tek-en (talk)13:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: I'm fundamentally looking get the pencil marks filled back in where its possible to do it, in a very natural way. For example in this[2] you can see that there has been pencil line on the top line but its come off by natural degradation or possibly been rubbed in the source document. I'm not looking for anything complex, just very simple fixes nothing drastic to change to the underlying illustration details.scope_creepTalk14:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you.dxneo (talk)18:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Goldrock95 (talk)03:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mZackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions toBarochan Cross. When you were adding content to the page, you addedduplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use thepreview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)16:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fupload.wikimedia.org%2fwikipedia%2fen%2ff%2ffa%2fOn_the_Cutaneous_Pigmentary_System_of_the_Frog_Plate_6.png){kind=link}