User talk:Scope creep

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

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


I want to try to address the remaining tags at Black market in wartime France and as I recall one of them is a what tag of yours. It was near a discussion of the rocketing inflation, and I gathered that you wanted clarification of what this had to do with devaluing the franc. This is kind of a deep question and I am looking for a quote so that the article isn't relying on my memory of undergraduate macroeconomics classes. Meanwhile, I would like to be sure that I am trying to answer the actual question, so let me know when you can. I can't currently find it and may have accidentally deleted that discussion when I merged the "Post-war" and "After the Liberation" sections. Since the reference is complaining about not having an anchor I suspect so. I will be addressing that as the issue of the post-war economy is important to the topic.

The article is really long and I will also be mumbling to myself about structure and spinoffs again.

Meanwhile let me attempt to enunciate: If 100 old francs become 1 new franc then the bread that used to cost 500 francs now costs 5. It's a shock to the system and to the wallets of the population but it also greatly improves the balance of payments since it becomess less expensive for other countries to import French goods, so they buy more and more money flows into the French economy. I think. See, that's still too long and jargonish so I need a quote.

Anyway I hope you are well and Vive la France ;) Elinruby (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morning @Elinruby: Thanks for those comments yesterday. I didn't know what to say and it was much appreciated. Regarding the comments above: Is there is a clarification on it. I'll look for it over the next few days. I saw reference 150 go in, and thought the Bank of France on the statistics "The statistics are rigged, the declarations distorted" clarification was done, but I see it is still there. I was looking for that this week. I did have document for it but I cleared out my downloads and its gone. I plan to work on both of them. Actually counting them. They're is four of them. Two I've not even looked at. I'll look at them over the weekend. If I had that Grenard 2008 books it would solved immediately. The one about "tracts geared to farmers". That is probably communist pamphlets/newspapers or leaflets written in support of farmers. Tract is not particularly useful, and statistics may be quite difficult to source. Length wise of article, I'm unconcerned about splitting it. You started it, so you can lead. I tend to write larger articles. The largest was 320k. With technology marching on and everybody with smartphones and even the poorest countries now with at least 4mbit connections in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Malaysia in the lastest report I read, its less of a big deal. The Joseph Lister is going to be about 600-800k so that will be split into about five articles and is being written for that. It is a level 4 vital article. I'll try to fix that "tracts" clarification today, see how I go. scope_creepTalk 08:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"statistics are rigged": I suspect it came from Grenard 2008. It was definitely in the French article and they seem to have put their references at the end of paragraphs. But I don't actually know that yet. I haven't looked at my email in a few days but you said you were going to send it to me. I can look later.
The main problem I see with the article right now is that it is rather fragmented and repetitive, possibly as a result of a merge that produced the French article (?} There are at least some sub-sections under the chronological headers that apply to the entire period (housewives' protests) or that were more important in another period (Grey market) Maybe there needs to be a discussion of overall trends. I may look at that tonight but I think my main focus for this session will be on trying to explain the Paris glitterati aspects of Lafont and rue Lauriston in that early "German buying everything" phase.
tracts to farmers: there is a quote about that somewhere. Probably in the 1940-1942 section, and also as I recall an image that is an example of this. Maybe the source for those would be useful
comments on that other editor's user page: I said nothing but the truth. I tried to be gentle because they were grieving and that was effectively a wiki suicide, but I don't think they completely thought their remarks through. If Good article ratings are important then so are references, right? I hope that my remarks came across as I intended, but if not, well, I tried. As someone else said on your page, nobody said that they couldn't edit, just that they needed to fix some references. Not that I am mocking them. I nearly diva quit myself when MB made fun of me at his RfA, and that wasn't real rational either. Sometimes we all lose perspective. See you in the article. Elinruby (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was book on the Black Market, a 2023 one. I'll send it when I get back. scope_creepTalk 08:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elinruby: I've sent that book. Its seems a modern version of the Grenard 2008 book. scope_creepTalk 18:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, but the problem I was having was that I can't verify any of the many citations to Grenard 2008. I suppose we could just replace them all, but that seems like more work Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I missed that there is search inside on the 2008 version so this might not actually be a problem. I'll get back to you on this.Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the search. On google books? scope_creepTalk 08:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[1] Elinruby (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not so much, because it does stuff like here's results 1-4 of 25; I have however been able to verify and put a specific page number on one of these anyway, so it might narrow the ranges needed down enough for a resource request. I am suddenly quite tired but I when I come back I will run through out these one of them I didn't find at all, which is a problem unless there is another Grenard 2008, which is what I have been wondering. Actually that is something I can sheck right now, let me go do that at the article I translated from. Only seeing one so that's not it. It's miscapitalized, though, I'll check that when I come back. I posted on the talk page about this btw. Elinruby (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a preview copy which means the majority of the pages will be missings. I use Google Books all the time and sometimes its very hard to make it work properly and show you the content. Being logged in to google when you have gbooks open helps sometimes if your slowing scrolling and up and down the page, it will more often and not show you the page you are looking for. scope_creepTalk 09:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you already checked these? Just saying, if you have then this is tedious stuff that doesn't need to be done twice. If not then I will, just not right now. Elinruby (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No unfortunately I spent most of last night trying to find a copy. I did fix two clarifications last night, which I thought was good. I left some talk page comments. scope_creepTalk 09:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not ssaying you should have or pushing you to do more; just don't want to reinvent the wheel snd it's only fair that I verify my own work as closely as I have done others' or that might seem pointy. If 2008 is simply not available then I will verify what I can and we can talk about it. The man is prolific enough to have said the same thing elsewhere. It's not a big deal. I just feel a need to do something else for tonight and as it happens I am about a month overdue on a commitment to someone else, so...If you are looking for something to do, I have suggestions, if not hey. Google says it's lunchtime there ;)Elinruby (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yea, I know what your mean. I think we have reached a rubicon. Its stalled I think, which is ok, considering the amount of vast amount of work that has been done in the last month. I'm fresh out of ideas. I saw your comment about the service control technique guys and the comment you left. I tried to find it and again nothing turned up. I suspect Grenard 2008 is taking it directly from those archives, places that have not been looked at by as many other authors. There is comment in the Moure book on the service control guys but it 1944, so again that is one of these hard to verify quotes and needs replaced. However, in the meantime, I plan to work on NPP over the next few days to this week as there is a backlog drive on and then lister and rado afterwards which need a lot of time. Lister particularly since I've not looked at it for week, and I have 40-60k to put in. I will come back in a week or two refreshed. It has been a pretty heavy session in the last 3-4 weeks getting that article into shape. I think it needs time to settle in, let the Google Graph catch up, so it can provide more sources. scope_creepTalk 10:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll keep polishing and I have about 5 almost-finished related drafts. But nod, I agree. It's time to come out of the weeds and apply some perspective. I still haven't quite figured out how to handle trends that were true for the entire period, etc. But yeah, I think knocking out some other work is a good idea. I don't think this is exactly stalled so much as in need of both some more excruciating detail work and a more zoomed out perspective also. I am, tonight at least not able to do either one. Luckily I have some very mechanistic work that needs to be done. I should go to sleep but while I'm very tired I am not sleepy. I've been meaning to look at your lister project, maybe I will read some of that later. See you soon. I will holler if I have questions. 10:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evaluation of draft article on Leonkoro Quartet[edit]

Thanks for reviewing this. I am somewhat puzzled that it was not accepted, and would like to check with you about the perceived issues. I've briefly edited the draft to add a couple of separate sources. However it's not clear to me what else might need to be done and I wanted to explore the reasons for your decision before proceeding further, hope that is OK.

Firstly, there seems to be a challenge on notability grounds, yet this quartet has achieved the remarkable feat of winning two of the world's most notable string quartet competitions (Wigmore Hall and Bordeaux) in a single year. This would be like someone getting an Oscar and Golden Globe award in the same year. Virtually all previous winners of the Wigmore Hall competition have their own Wikipedia page. The quartet now perform regularly at various international concert venues.

Secondly, the level of detail and references provided is comparable to other string quartets such as the Esmé_Quartet (2018 Wigmore winners), Marmen Quartet, etc.

So I would appreciate your suggestions on what you feel is currently lacking in the article. Hyperman 42 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Hyperman 42: How goes it? The Esmé_Quartet quartet article is hanging by a thread. Winning a competion, and even prestigious competition or even a series of competitions, is a "good thing" for notability, but it doesn't automatically prove the subject is automatically notable. This article has a single reference. The Esmé Quartet has a couple of refs but again only competitions. Is that what all these quartets actually just do, just compete. It makes them prestigious and makes then stand out I suppose, but where is the WP:SECONDARY sourcing out with that. Where is their work to pass WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BAND or any of these other notability criteria around musicians. It was decided before 2010 that notabilty can't just be established by winning competitions. There needs to be more. I think it was in 2009 I vaguelly remember it being discussed. I hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 10:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi and thanks for getting back to me. But no, all these quartets perform regularly in classical music concerts at prestigious commercial venues, so it is like a major rock band that does tours. It feels like there's a bit of a misunderstanding of how the classical music world actually works and that the notability criteria are being set too high. Recordings are less of a major output in classical music because it's not playing original work and there are many recordings of the great classics already. Rock bands aren't required to give listings of all their gigs to prove that they are "notable". I could try to engage fellow workers on the WikiProject on classical music, but I thought it would be better to see if the two of us could reach an understanding instead. The sources I've added for the Leonkoro are from solid independent sources. Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also in WP:BAND, which you cross-reference, the Leonkoro (and the Esme) comfortably meet notability criterion 9, "Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition." They could qualify under a couple of the other criteria as well. In both cases the sources include not only the quarter's website (which is just for cross-reference) but accounts of the competition wins from Wigmore Hall and other independent sources. Note that both Wigmore hall and the competition itself are rated as sufficiently important that they have their own Wikipedia articles. Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see one thing that could have caused confusion - I haven't mentioned the publishers specifically in the various references (magazines, concert halls, the BBC etc). I'll add those now, hopefully that will make it clearer that these are multiple independent sources. Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hyperman 42: It isn't immediately clear from the article that that they are not just competitors. Your best bet to resubmit it and wait for another WP:AFC reviewer to take a look at it. It will be some weeks, but you will be guaranteed a review at some point. scope_creepTalk 18:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks very much for the hints on improvement which I think have made the article better now and hopefully will get a more positive result this time round. Is there any mechanism by which you can change your original decision if you now feel the article has been improved sufficiently? It took 2-3 months before it was initially reviewed. I get the impression that Wikipedia is struggling a bit to keep reviewers and authors - some articles don't seem to get updated as regularly as they did in the past, on a range of subjects. Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You may be interested in participating in this AfD. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @FormalDude: How goes it. I had a look at that article last night, but unfortunately I don't know much about American football or sports in general. I did look from those references which I thought were quite promo and mostly useles and it looked like a good case for delete, but its hard to determine the context without knowing much about the sport. No real depth of knowledge on that at all. scope_creepTalk 10:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was just curious about your thoughts because I know you're experienced with WP:ORG. Thanks anyways though! ––FormalDude (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jersey shore offshoot series season articles[edit]

Jersey Shore was a very popular American reality show. There were six seasons. We have the List of Jersey Shore episodes, and we do not have Jersey Shore (series 1)--through 6 articles.

There exist national offshoots, British, Spanish + Spanish-speaking regional reboot, Mexican, Polish, Brazilian, and German+Swiss. And the recent American reboot All Star Shore.

The offshoots are regionally famous and obviously notable but not as globally famous or influential as the original American series. Of the aforementioned offshoots, there are those who have corresponding lists of episodes:

Now... The British and the Polish versions have not only the list of episodes, they have standalone pages for each season (UK version category; Polish version category); the Mexican version has such pages for some but not all of the seasons (category). As said, the original series does not have standalone pages for each season.

I am not crazy about consistency, and consistency is not the answer to every question, but if there is a question here, do you think that something to the practical effect of consistency could be the answer to that question? These thoughts appeared in my head after seeing Warsaw Shore (series 19) in the new pages feed. Best —Alalch E. 16:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2023[edit]

Concern regarding Draft:Linda Gerdner[edit]

Information icon Hello, Scope creep. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Linda Gerdner, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Randomreader162[edit]

Thanks for allowing me to ping you in case i have questions. I see that there are some scientists and academics that are quite notable but do not have wikipedia pages. Can I contribute to that ? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomreader162 (talkcontribs) 16:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Randomreader162: Yes of course. Wikipedia is always looking for extra articles on scientists. There is also many many scientists from the past and deep past who made really important contributions to humanity and either have very poor articles, or articles that need expanded or don't have articles at all. If you need any kind of help, please ping me. See WP:THREAD. New message go at the bottom of the talk page. scope_creepTalk 16:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am always making extra contributions to scientists and researchers with notable visibility.
If you have a list that you believe I can contribute to, please share.
On the other hand, I have a few names that I am planning to create extra articles about, any idea how I can get started ?
Thanks alot. Randomreader162 18:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a list of scientists off hand. Certainly the best way of getting started is to perhaps create a sandbox in your user page and create the article in there. Either that or create a WP:DRAFT article. This template here: Template:Biography shows you how to create the layout for a biograpgy. Generally when you create an article you follow the WP:MOS. What I can do is create a sandbox in your user page, if you want, so you can can get started. That way you can create the article and then copy it to draft for review. If its in good condition, I take a look at it as a WP:AFC, if it is good nick I can copy it directly to mainspace. Start by creating a stub. It should describe the name of the family, places born and died, profession, why the person is notable and some details on the persons working careers. References should be WP:SECONDARY in nature. I can add and few other things, when it comes to it. Will I create a sandbox for you? scope_creepTalk 18:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randomreader162: Ah, I see you have various links in your user page already. scope_creepTalk 20:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, please do create a sandbox for me. Thank you so much for your help. Randomreader162 23:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Randomreader162: Do you have a particular scientist you plan to do first? I will create a wee sandbox for you. scope_creepTalk 09:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randomreader162: Right I've create a link for a sandbox in you userpage. I'll help you create a structure for it. scope_creepTalk 09:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done some thorough search through notable scientists/researchers. I think "Ahmad Bazzi" is a researcher and youtuber that very much deserves to have a wikipedia page. I have went through many relevant links regarding his patents, publications, news coverage, awards, and his youtube channel. Thanks. Randomreader162 14:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randomreader162: Is it Ahmad Bazzi, the UAE electrical engineer? He doesn't look notable and if any article created on him, it would likely get deleted. Reason for that is lack of coverage and youtube streaming numbers are well below the established threshold. scope_creepTalk 14:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the guy has got well-known patents, with 287000 subscribers on youtube, as well as 17 million + views. There are pages here with less stats and yet have a wikipedia page, e.g. this guy. Ahmad Bazzi also has been awarded several awards and has been covered on some news pages, and has a PhD in Electrical Engineering. Randomreader162 16:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randomreader162: The subject is not anywhere close to notable. I'm sure there is lots of non-notable scientists and influencers on Wikipedia. That is not an execuse to create another non-notable scientist. Its not your perchance? Patents are non-rs on Wikipedia. They are never shown anywhere here. scope_creepTalk 20:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. Just trying to figure out a rule as guidelines are not so clear to me. Anyways, thanks! Randomreader162 00:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randomreader162: They're must be lots of the scientists and academics from the middle east which you can work on? scope_creepTalk 06:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you propose some ? Randomreader162 15:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randomreader162: I had a search over the weekend. I found this women Tohfa Handoussa. She is a notable Egyptologist from Egypt. I got her from this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/ESIO which is part of WP:WIR. WIR is women in red, a project to increase the number of women on wikipedia, whicch is rising but is at historicallly low levels. This list Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index contains all the redlinks they want to turn into articles. Its worth joining. scope_creepTalk 14:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randomreader162: I spent a goodly amount of looking but it not really my area. I would ask at the wikiprojecy Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Asia. scope_creepTalk 14:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randomreader162: This dude has an absurd h-index Bassim H. Hameed. He needs an article. This dude as well Sami Sayadi. More than notable. scope_creepTalk 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randomreader162: This man is ideal for an article. Rachik Soualah The guy is living on pluto. He is a kind of super scientist that needs an article immediately. I would go for this dude. Hope that helps. You could have a whole series of these scientists, by this time next year. They are ideal to work at they are all notable. scope_creepTalk 14:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leave me alone[edit]

I've said many times, but I'll say again for the record:

Please leave me alone. I do not want to interact with you in any capacity.

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Another Believer: That is fine. I could have left a series of warning messages as they're is a series of warning template specifically for this but thought it would be impersonal to do that, considering the interactions we have had, or lack thereof. Either way, it is unacceptable for an established editor who had been here for donkey's not to use edit summaries. Now either you decide not to use edit summaries, and that is fine by me, its your decision, or you decide to use them, which is fine by me as well and I would happy to see that. If you don't use them, there is one process for this and I will follow it, in two weeks time. Take that as read. scope_creepTalk 17:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CS1 error on Alexander Radó[edit]

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

  • A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reviewing Semiabelian group (Galois theory)[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the draft. Thanks to the advice you gave me when you reviewed that draft, I split the references in the references of another draft I'm currently working on into Citations and Bibliography. By the way, I'm wondering if I should delete the Draft:Semiabelian group and the Draft:Semiabelian groups, which are redirects to the main space, and it's my fault those drafts are redirected to the main space. This is because I thought that there might be a notion called Semiabelian group, which is different from semiabelian variety (scheme) and Semiabelian group (Galois theory), and I thought that someone might want to create a draft about it. Also, I received some advice on what to be careful about when redirecting drafts to the main space. (See WT:AfC#G13 ?) SilverMatsu (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Silvermatsu: Thanks. I think it is good idea to delete them. You generally don't have redirects from draft space to mainspace. They are not speedy delete targets unfortunately, so I'll need to list them at Redirects for Discussion. I'll list them now as simply "Created in error". How would that sound. They might end being speedied by a admin but I don't know. scope_creepTalk 08:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Created by mistake" sounds better. That is them posted. scope_creepTalk 08:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much ! --SilverMatsu (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter[edit]

Hello Scope creep,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File permission problem with File:Jan Dieters.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Jan Dieters.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, 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 {{permission 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

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. Here is a list of your uploads. 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. — Ирука13 23:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jan Dieters.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jan Dieters.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. Thank you. — Ирука13 10:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Urho Kemp[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I have now added some links as requested. Mleppanen (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Mleppanen: Can you resubmit the draft. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red October 2023[edit]

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286

Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]