User talk:Ingenuity/Archive 3

Your GA nomination of Irene Parlby
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Irene Parlby you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Ingenuity. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed,Rosguill talk 19:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

My page was removed
Hello my name is Botswana. My page on The Organization was recently removed because it “wasn’t constructive “ or something like that. But The Organization is a real thing that is torturing people against their human rights. Please help me and all the people dealing with The Organization by putting my page back up.

Sincerely, Botswana Anti Organization (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Anti Organization: Wikipedia is not for you to raise attention for a cause. You promoted your own Discord server, which is against Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Deviate from manipulation
You knows that what you are doing is wrong, I will advice you to deviate from it. Okechukwufriday (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Okechukwufriday please stop adding unsourced content. You have been warned three times for doing so, but you continue to add more unsourced content. If you continue, you may lose your editing privileges. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 13:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Alton Chapman
Regarding Articles for deletion/Alton Chapman, do you feel that a discussion is needed? I was about to delete that in accordance with WP:CSD because the article makes zero credible claims of notability. The author of the article appears to be an undisclosed paid editor trying to promote his clients. Given that all of the other articles the editor has created have been deleted (or draftified), I feel this one qualifies for speedy deletion, but the AfD discussion is the only thing holding it up.

No harm letting it play out though. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Anachronist I felt it was on the edge of being eligible for A7. At the time I AfD'd it I hadn't taken an in-depth look at the user's contributions so I didn't really suspect them of being a paid editor. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 17:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Your user page
Hi Ingenuity! I hope you're doing well and that you're having a great day! While I was handling 's shenanigans and putting that user into a time-out corner, I noticed that they attempted to modify your user page in order to vandalize and add derogatory remarks to it. Also, upon seeing that edit filter log, I quickly drew the obvious conclusion that your user page isn't protected, which leaves it wide open for attacks and... unpleasantness.

I went ahead and applied indefinite semi-protection from editing, as well as indefinite full-protection from moving - to your user page. That will definitely make it a lot harder for bad-faith users to be able to do anything to it. ;-) Anyways, I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for keeping the place nice and clean, and I wish you happy editing! :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Oshwah thanks for doing that! >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 01:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ingenuity - You bet; always happy to have someone's back, and help with whatever they need. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ingenuity. Please forgive my aggressive edits from earlier today. I self-edited my nastiness, or so it appears 🤔. It just angered me that someone could be so utterly lazy, as to post an incorrect league (my alma mater's former league, mind you), without taking 2 seconds to check it....something they could have EASILY DONE ON WIKI!!! I was having a bad day also. Lol! Thanks, Knite Flyer Knite Flyer 2 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I've witnessed you've reverted the edit done on "Reverse Logistics".Could you please review manually and let it be posted? Ifrl (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ifrl: your edits added unsourced and promotional content. Please see Wikipedia's policies on promotional content and sourcing before readding any of that material. Thanks! >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 22:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Oslo shootings
It is both regretable (2 deaths) and unfortunate for injuries. Not afraid to speak (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Not afraid to speak yes, it is sad that this happened, but Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, so we cannot insert our own commentary in the articles -- we have to stick with presenting the facts. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Iseult. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of new members of the 103rd United States Congress, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Iseult  Δx parlez moi 05:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey @Iseult, thanks for letting me know. I think that this does meet the notability guideline for lists, though -- the only requirement is that the subjects of the list are discussed in multiple reliable sources. The article right now only has a couple, but notability is judged on the existence of sources, rather than the ones currently in the article. I've found a few of them here:, (this one isn't directly about the new members, but an overview of the Democratic Party in the same time period), and . I'm sure there are more, since I wasn't searching for long. The same thing could probably be said of the 104th, 105th, 106th, etc. >>>  Ingenuity . talk ; 13:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Advice on going through articles for creation process?
Hi Ingenuity! The Candor (company) article was moved to draftspace given the conflict of interest I have (declared on my talk page).

I've been editing wikipedia for 10+ years but it's my first time submitting an article for creation and I want to make sure to do it right. Any advice on going through the process? I've also added multiple independent secondary sources to the article, including from the New York Times, Forbes, Business Insider, Venture Beat as well as primary sources like the SEC. David Chouinard (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @David Chouinard: before you submit you should check to make sure the article meets the notability guideline for companies. I don't think that's the case right now. Every source should be significant, independent, and reliable -- see WP:42.
 * New York Times -- just a brief mention, so not significant
 * Forbes -- also a brief paragraph, not significant
 * Business Insider -- this is more in-depth, but it's an interview, so not independent
 * Venture Beat -- this is better, but it's still more on the data collected by the company than the company itself
 * Writing articles about companies is extremely difficult since WP:NCORP is harder to meet than the general notability guideline. When you feel the draft does meet NCORP, just click the "submit this draft for review" button at the top of the page. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 18:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:First 100 days of Joe Biden's presidency
Hello, Ingenuity. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:First 100 days of Joe Biden's presidency, 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&#32;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) 17:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Irene Parlby
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfair editing
That's unfair! That is not related to the generation. Millennial is denoting or relating to a period of a thousand years or denoting or relating to an anniversary of a thousand years. Do not confusing to Millennials because those people reaching young adulthood in the early 21st century and 3rd millennium. 112.200.24.15 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you're mixing that up with a millennium, which is a period of 1000 years. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 13:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

innovative bioresearch ltd page
Can you point out what are the unreliable links in the Innovative Bioresearch Ltd page?. Most are from scientific articles published on GOV databse pubmed, along with the official company website and some news outlets articles. DaneDN (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @DaneDN: all references must be independent, significant, and reliable. The four reliable sources aren't related to the company in particular. Almost all of the rest are the company's own website, which is not independent. Try finding more sources like news articles, and make sure you are familiar with the the notability guideline for companies. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 22:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are totally wrong. The scientific articles are all written by the company CEO as an author, and the company name is clearly indicated in the "author affiliation section". Please pay more attention and read more carefully the scientific papers:
 * For instance;
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Fior+J&cauthor_id=25258653
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Fior+J&cauthor_id=27128948 DaneDN (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN if the articles are written by the company's CEO, then they are not independent either. Besides, the articles still aren't on the company itself. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 22:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The articles are scientific contributions in the field of HIV and cancer research. The company develops therapies for HIV and cancer. How can science not be independent? Peer review only allows scientific sound data to be published. DaneDN (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN: it doesn't matter how good the scientific articles are; they don't establish notability for the company because they're not about the company. Right now I don't see a single source in the article that meets WP:42 -- they're all either interviews (not independent), the company's website (not independent), or scientific articles by the founder (not independent or significant, since they're not about the company). >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 23:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How can the scientific research published by the company not be related to the company itself? This is like saying that the results of the clinical trials produced by Moderna on the COVID vaccine are not related to the company itself. If you are talking about the scientific research performed by a company, the most reliable source are the scientific publications that have been validated by the peer reviewed process. DaneDN (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN like I said above: they don't establish notability because they're not independent. I don't see how the articles can be published by the company, either, since two of them were written in 2012 and 2013, before the company was even founded.
 * One other thing: if you have a conflict of interest with the company, you must disclose it on your userpage. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 23:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)The research performed by the company is based on the previous academic work perfomed by the company founder as research scientist. So when talking about the most recent HIV research performed by the company, one must mentions that such work is based on previous work performed in the field. We can add this detail in the page.
 * 2)Now, going by your logic, the same could be said for the research published by Moderna that is referenced in the Moderna wiki page.
 * Specifically:
 * Moderna - Wikipedia
 * "In July 2020, the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine candidate was shown to be immunogenic in a Phase I trial involving 45 volunteers aged 18–55" and they cited this scientific publication An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 - Preliminary Report - PubMed (nih.gov)
 * 3)I don't have any conflic of interest with the company. DaneDN (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So why is it fine to cite the scientific publications produced by Moderna's affiliated scientists when talking about their COVID vaccine, but it's not fine to talk about the scientific publications produced by Innovative Bioresearch scientists when talking about the HIV vaccine developed by Innovative Bioreserch? DaneDN (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN I never said the scientific articles can't be used as sources -- what I said is they can't be used to establish notability. On the Moderna page, for example, there are plenty of reliable, independent sources which cover the research and the vaccine itself. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 23:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. The " plenty of reliable, independent sources" you talk about are just articles reporting the results published in the scientific publications produced by the research performed by Moderna itself. Scientific publications are the ONLY trustable source of data to establish what can be considered legit science. In fact, the financial post itself would have absolutely no credibility to talk about science, if they don't cite che original scientific publication as a source. DaneDN (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the peer review system is completely independent. This means that several of the leading experts in the field have reviewed the data before approving for publication in a scientific journal, the research must be relevant and scientific sound, or they will reject it. DaneDN (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN: scientific articles are primary sources. Wikipedia needs secondary sources -- for example, news articles covering the scientific research. From the primary sources guideline: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The entire "biomedical research" section of the page uses only primary sources. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "news articles covering the scientific research" are not necessarily written by scientists. As such, they are not as much reliable as the scientific publicatons, so particularly when discussing the data, it is best practice to use the scientific papers as a source, or the reader may be misleaded by the possible incorrect interpretation of the data by a jourmalist. I already provided news articles covering the scientific research. DaneDN (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN: see WP:NCRYPTO. The one source you added (newsbit) shouldn't be used as a reference either. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? DaneDN (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN: take a look at Notability_(cryptocurrencies), it explains the rationale behind this. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We removed it. So what about Medical News Today? They have nothing to do with cryptocurrencies. And it's one of the most important medical news outlets.
 * http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From that same article it says that
 * "Academic sources[edit]
 * Academic sources should be peer-reviewed journal articles, from quality journals (e.g., not journals on WP:CITEWATCH)."
 * The issue here is that we are discussing the scientific part, not cryptocurrencies. And we provided academic sources such as peer-reviewed journal articles, which you said are not valid - yet they are reported as valid here.
 * Then again, Innovative Bioresearch is a pharma company first. DaneDN (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will add more sources shortly DaneDN (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As we previously discusssed, added another source, you cannot say this is not valid as it's form one of the most notable medical news outlets
 * http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN as I said before, companies need many reliable sources to establish notability. Just one good reference does not meet WP:NCORP. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 01:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, added another news article on the company, not interview. DaneDN (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We also added another very reliable souce.
 * Innovative Bioresearch Announces Publication of Pioneering Pilot Study Exploring SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Cell-Based Therapy for HIV in Humanized Mice - 26.04.2016 (wallstreet-online.de)
 * Is wall street online not good enough? DaneDN (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN you should really read through WP:NCORP and WP:SERIESA (the latter is not a policy, but it's a good essay). Routine announcements from companies, like the one you just linked above, do not establish notability. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 01:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I added another source, Those big news outlets only report news from companies they consider established and notable. They are 100% indipendent. DaneDN (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaneDN by "we" do you mean this account is being used by multiple people? >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 01:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No this account it is just used by one person. DaneDN (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is your account used by more than one person? DaneDN (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Having an account used by more than one person is against Wikipedia's policies. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, how would I know this, given your anonymity? DaneDN (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * added another source
 * https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/ DaneDN (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Added another source. Please explain why this independent source covering the activity of Innovative Bioresearch such as cooperating with big electronic companies such as Archos is not valid.
 * ARCHOS collabora con Innovative Bioresearch per promuovere Safe-T min - Tecnomedicina DaneDN (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.
Just wanna say thanks for helping dealing with Zesty from spamming hateful content on my talk page. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

UAA
Thank you for your reports at WP:UAA, but if you're going to report people for having disruptive usernames in scripts that English speakers can't be expected to recognise, please save us admins some considerable amount of time by explaining why. It'd really help! Alternatively, leave a comment on the users talk page to explain why that name is not acceptable so that we can check it out. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey @Nick Moyes -- I reported those usernames because they translate to "[name] is a thief" and "[name], mother of [name], a thief". >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 15:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My point being that I'm not going to waste my time attempting a translation of a script that I don't personally recognise if you don't think to include that information in your report when you clearly know what it means. I would find it immensely helpful - seeing as how you were kind enough to take the time to report it in the first place - as we have so many positives as well as so many false positives to have to deal with. Thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nick Moyes alright, thanks for letting me know, I'll do that in the future. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that'd be really helpful to people like me! Oh, and don't forgot that reports should only be about accounts that have actively edited, as so many hundreds are created that never edit at all. If you find one that hasn't yet edited (and I don't think the two you've reported have) - please just monitor it yourself until you can tell it is genuinely active, rather than reporting to UAA. Again, this is so we can ensure limited admin time and resources are focussed where they're most needed. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ed Butowsky
We removed the In The News section because the information was proven false more than a year ago and the false info is affecting his business. Thank you. Mmagolnick (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mmagolnick: if you think the information in the article is incorrect, you should add a section on the talk page. The section you removed had lots of reliable sources, and shouldn't just be removed because one person said it was incorrect. Also, who does "we" refer to? Wikipedia accounts should not be used by more than one person. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mmagolnick As an administrator here, I have to second Ingenuity's concern. Are you a group of people accessing one account? (Wikipedia does not permit that) Do you have an undeclared connection with Ed Butowsky, or are being paid to edit the article, or work for an organisation attempting to clean up an article? (you MUST declare that per our obligatory instructions at WP:PAID) Concerns should, indeed, be discussed on the article talk page if cited content is no longer thought to be appropriate to this encyclopaedia. I will repost my concerns on your talk page, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "We" just refers to our company as the reputation manager for Mr Butowsky. I am the only one in here trying to fix things but it has been years since I've done any editing on Wikipedia so I am a bit rusty. Mmagolnick (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Seven Heavens
Hi thank you for all the work you are doing to .are using Wiki a valuable experience. I do have one issue though with the 'Seven Heavens' edit. I typed in the question: How many heavens are there according to the bible and wiki says seven. I feel the answer that is given is misleading as it is not a biblical concept but based solely on myth and religious belief. I did try to make a note within the page to clear that up but it has been deleted twice. Please can you amend it. Thank you Sensible Sensible Answers (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

doing to .are using Wiki a valuable experience. * amended: doing to make Wiki a .... Sensible Answers (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Sensible Answers: when you are adding content to the article, please cite reliable sources. If you think the content that is in the article is incorrect or misleading, you can add a section on the article's talk page. Thanks! >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 20:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Hello, I'm Yoshi24517. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Ukraine on Fire—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Yoshi24517 Chat   Online  20:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Ignore, stupid Huggle. Yoshi24517 Chat   Online  21:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Yoshi24517 I assume that's a mistake? >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 20:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course. Yoshi24517  Chat   Online  20:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I dunno, you're beating me to it a lot yourself :) >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 00:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Michelle Waterson
Hi Ingenuity, Pls note that your info has been added has been changed since the her husband last name is not on the source which you provided. Thank you and stay safe. Cassiopeia  talk  02:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Cassiopeia I didn't add that source, I reverted an IP who changed that person's number of losses to 1000000. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 02:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Ingenuity, OK. I see - your edit -here and added back the source which was previous added by other editor. It is Ok. I have fixed the info now. Thank you for your contribution. Cassiopeia   talk  03:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Irene Parlby
The article Irene Parlby you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Irene Parlby for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Edwininlondon thanks for reviewing it! Now to think of a good DYK hook... :) >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You didn't even read my changes to Monkeypox outbreak 2022 in the USA did you?
Please don't be an antivaxxer. 49.185.39.117 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NOTHOWTO -- Wikipedia is not a list of instructions, and also does not refer to the reader directly. Second, your edit was copy-pasted from another website, which is not allowed. See WP:COPYRIGHT. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 19:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul Strauss
I posted on the edit summary of my edit that the information was removed as it was recently used to reveal the identity of his teenage daughter by a journalist on twitter. For the family's safety, the section I changed needs to be removed. PivotAelin (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @PivotAelin information from that section is publicly available from other sources on the internet. What makes you think removing that will make their family safer? >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 20:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the first thing you see when you type in his name in Google. The reporter clearly used the information found on his Wiki to identify his daughter on Twitter. PivotAelin (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it clear that the reporter used that information? As it stands it just looks like you're trying to remove criminal matters from his article. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Burning Sun Article
Hello, I noticed you redirected my article, "Seungri's Case and Scandal" to the "Burning Sun Scandal" page. These two pages are not the same, since the Seungri Case (as in the actual trial), is not synonymous with the Burning Sun Scandal. Thus, it is necessary to have a completely separate page for Seungri's Case since it is not a part of and not thoroughly covered in the Burning Sun Scandal article. If you read the content of the Seungri Case and Scandal page, you will notice that 98% of the content covered is not even mentioned in the Burning Sun article. The two articles are not duplicates and there is no justifiable reason for the Seungri's Case and Scandal article to be redirected to Burning Sun Scandal. Lemon Orange28 (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Lemon Orange28 your article contains a huge amount of detail. Wikipedia uses summary style for articles -- not going in-depth about every statement from every witness for every charge in a court case. The existing article has enough detail already. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 02:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As with many new articles, the article does indeed have flaws. I acknowledge that it contains a large amount of detail and will work to fix it to suit the summary style of Wikipedia. Considering the article was only reviewed yesterday, it is quite unfair that I was given barely any time at all to fix it before it was redirected to an article that is barely related to it. As I stated above, the two articles are not the same and fall under two different topics. The fact that the Burning Sun article contains a lot of detail is not a good enough reason for my article to be removed. The Burning Sun article, in fact, does not even give an accurate summary of Seungri's case, which as I mentioned has nothing to do with Burning Sun. Lemon Orange28 (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lemon Orange28 I would suggest working on your article in the draftspace until you feel it is ready, and then you can submit it through the articles for creation process. Several other editors have also redirected to the Burning Sun Scandal page, so please gain consensus before restoring the article. Thanks! >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * May I ask why you believe the two articles are duplicates? Lemon Orange28 (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lemon Orange28: a sizeable portion of the existing article is also about Seungri's involvement in the scandal, and there is very little detail in your article (other than the detailed information about the charges, which shouldn't be included anyway) that's not in the main article. If you feel that Seungri's involvement should have its own article, you may want to consider splitting the main article instead of making an entirely new one. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 02:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my first comment, the Seungri case and Burning Sun Scandal are not the same and should not be grouped under the same heading. My article is dedicated to Seungri's trial and I understand that there are some details that I can remove, but that doesn't mean that it should be included under Burning Sun. Even though Seungri is related to Burning Sun as an individual, that does not mean his charges are all related to the club itself and it does not mean that everything about his case should be included under Burning Sun. Actually, only the embezzlement charges has any relation to Burning Sun. I don't believe a split is appropriate, it deserves an entirely separate article. Lemon Orange28 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, since it seems like we will be unable to reach a consensus due to my initial questions being unanswered, I will take your suggestion of working on it in draftspace. Thank you very much! Lemon Orange28 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the reverting
Hey, I accidentally reverted your edit rather than the one which vandalized the article. Sorry! zenzyyx_ (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Zenzyyx oh, that makes more sense! Don't mind my warning then :) >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion over a topic ban for me, and you might wish to participate
The link is at Administrators%27 noticeboard.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Epiphyllumlover please stop WP:CANVASSING. I have no clue why this is relevant to me -- I can't remember us ever interacting. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 20:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't count as canvassing if you notify both sides, which is what I've been doing. I am notifying people who edited the Respect for Marriage Act during the time in question. (Not trying to bother; I don't feel bad if you would rather not participate.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epiphyllumlover the only connection I have to that article is reverting one unconstructive edit yesterday. I have no knowledge of the events leading up to this AN discussion. You may want to notify a relevant WikiProject but mass-notifying users is disruptive. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your edit reversal on the "Divock Origi" article
Hello there!

I've just gotten a message from you that you've reversed one of my edits on this article. Your message is first time I've ever received a message over Wikipedia, and I've never made any edits either. Took me ten minutes to figure out how to send you a message on your Talk page. On closer inspection it seems several article are attributed to this IPv4 that I've never seen before, let alone made any contributions to them! I strongly believe this IPv4 address is being used by someone other than me. I don't know what you can do with this information as I am ignorant in the ways of this website; just wanted to let you know!

~ Cheers! 79.140.150.67 (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem! It's very common that multiple users share the same IP. Usually that means someone in the same building, such as a school or workplace, made those edits. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 20:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Ingenuity. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AIngenuity granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! The SandDoctor Talk 23:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for accepting my redirect requests! Best regards, 173.20.216.139 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

My mistake
Kindly restore this by mistake I removed it during making new redirect request, i tried to restore it but wikipedia edit filter not allowing me to restore. 103.141.159.229 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You are erroneously reverting my edit for - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Mattrick

The current information if incorrect and I keep trying to edit it but you are deleting my edits? 2407:7000:986C:1300:D0EE:EC68:5ADB:F4B5 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello
Please kindly look into the article I drafted if is eligible for inclusion. Draft:Wang algebra and Draft:TUMnanoSAT an editor has re moving it to mainspace. UricdivineTalkToMe 14:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Uricdivine I'm not an expert on those topics, but in general you should not draftify articles created by experienced editors. Both of those articles were created by editors who have quite a bit more experience than you do. If you have any questions, you can always ask the creator on their talk page or on the article's talk page. Draftifying is also optional -- you should never draftify the same article twice, as you did here. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 14:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Grey School of Wizardry Article
Please explain which portions of the edits are interpreted to be soapboxing, promotion, or advertising per the message sent on reversion. I have determined the information to be purely factual and explanatory in nature. 156.63.69.82 (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Things such as "making the wisdom of the ages available now and for generations to come" and "as well as the a department dean, before being made available for pupils to ensure it's authenticity and quality" are very promotional. Also, please do not log out of your account to continue edit warring, as this is very disruptive and may get you blocked. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies on the account front! The verbiage is taken from the mission statement on the organization's website, and it seems reasonable to use their own language when describing their activities. This would seem to be fairly commonplace for academic institutions, though I will concede that it could be edited to be more to-the-point and succinctly descriptive. 156.63.69.18 (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Mission statements" of companies are always promotional, and shouldn't be used. Copying verbatim from the company's website is also considered a copyright violation, so please don't do that. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 14:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I've blocked User:John Kazbulla indefinitely and the three associated IPs temporarily for persistent edit warring (and not-so-subtly attempting to evade scrutiny by using different IPs, even after being told not to and acknowledging it), and I have temporarily semi-protected the article as well. Ingenuity, thanks for keeping an eye on this article. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 17:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)