Jump to content

User talk:Ingenuity/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

New message from Uricdivine

Hello, Ingenuity. You have new messages at Uricdivine's talk page.
Message added 19:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

UricdivineTalkToMe 19:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
More than 26,000 edits in 16 months?! That's crazy! I thought having 14,055 in 2017 (my first year) was nuts...that's insane! I had less than 21,000 when I became an admin in 2018. Here, take my barnstar! You deserve it. Good work, seriously! TheSandDoctor Talk 23:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
(I checked your stats as part of the procedure for granting page mover in the above section. I don't normally stalk peoples' stats heh.) TheSandDoctor Talk 23:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You deserve all the barnstars you get. I have made less than half of the edits you have made, yet I have more barnstars. You deserve more recognition. Keep up the good work!

47.227.95.73 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

AfC issue with novice editor doing reviews

As you noted on the Talk page for User:Gorutna August 17, 2022, this editor is brand new and jumped right to AfC reviews User talk:Gorutna. They’ve made only 10 edits outside drafts. And, in fact, they have been declining most articles in AfC. An article I drafted has been caught up in this user’s inexperience in reviewing and rejecting almost all AfC drafts. Draft:Brown Skin Brunchin' While I am also a new user and with a declared conflict of interest on Talk for the draft, I spent weeks doing research on Wikipedia notability policy, looking at Good Articles as models, and learning the reliable sources and notability policies. If you’ll take a look, you’ll see that the analysis from User:Gorutna is wrong on its face and suggests they might not have even read the sources. User:Gorutna declined the article based on notability, saying the source “do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions)...” In fact, every single one of the six sources is an in-depth profile of the organization. I also believe at least four of the six sources are top tier publications, and the other two are medium tier but still reliable sources – independent editorial publications with a reputation for editorial accuracy. User:Gorutna could not have even read the sources if they think these in-depth profiles were passing mentions in unreliable sources. Perhaps they just did not like the subject. I don’t know. I know I could just click “Resubmit” but you are supposed to address problems brought up by the reviewer and the problems mentioned by this reviewer don’t exist. If a more experienced AfC reviewer believes there are notability issues, I am of course willing to do more work and follow advice. I’d expect the reason given would correspond to the draft, though. 

It doesn’t seem fair for this draft to have been labeled as having been declined once given the reviewer is a novice and seems to have not even read the sources. I wonder if you have the authority to just remove their review and place the draft back in the queue for review so it does not look like it was declined and/or to do your own independent review.

Thank you.Mediaguru29 (talk) Mediaguru29 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Mediaguru29, I've reverted their review so the draft is back in the queue. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Ingenuity,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louise McKinney

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Louise McKinney 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 Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louise McKinney

The article Louise McKinney you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Louise McKinney for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello ingenuity,Plz help he put on the first biography what changes will be needed,As I am directly not connected but indirectly connected as I am resident of that area , 

 Plz help 🙏🙏 me regarding what I have to add to start on  — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Around India (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@All Around India: as I stated when I declined your draft, you need to add inline citations to the draft. If you do not know how to do that, see referencing for beginners. Many of the references are interviews, which are not independent, do not show significant coverage, or are local news, which does not demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guideline for politicians. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Ryan Scott Blinston

I already used the talk page but nobody seems to notice it and anyway my edits are right and Dev1357 is wrong because Ryan Scott Blinston is not a serial killer he is a spree killer as a serial killer murders three or more persons, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them yet Blinstons murders took place only less than a month of each other which is the definition of a spree killer, As a matter of fact User:Lightiggy and User talk:FMSky both know that I'm right. Shktriib1 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shktriib1: it doesn't matter if you're right or not -- it's still edit warring. You haven't discussed it on the talk page, and you have reverted nine times, well over the four reverts that might get you blocked. See WP:3RR. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello.

Please explain to me what happened. 2A02:8070:6280:6700:BCF8:6939:A852:D2F4 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You vandalized and were blocked. Don't do that again. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Talking about Mohd Talib page

Give me proper reason why I am not eligible tell me Mohdtalib1 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mohdtalib1: first, you are writing about yourself, so you have a conflict of interest and must submit articles through articles for creation. Second, you have not shown any references that demonstrate notability. IMDB is not a reliable source, and neither is a google knowledge panel. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The BFG (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)

Could you also review Draft:The BFG (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) 122.174.226.72 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I was actually already doing that! Great work on these soundtrack albums. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion under G11

Hello Ingenuity, I had my "Draft: Hathor Network" deleted based on the "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion criteria".


Last time I posted this draft it was deleted because it had two paragraphs of copyrighted material and it never mentioned anything about promotional content or language. So I rewrote those 2 paragraphs with my own words. I also double checked that the language was neutral and improved several parts since the first draft.


I used Twitter, Medium, and Youtube because those are generally the only sources for new technologies that haven't been mentioned in media outlets yet. Could you mention which specific parts were considered as advertisement or promotional material? Is there any chance that you can review this draft again? Pxx05 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pxx05 the draft has been deleted and I don't recall what its contents were. Twitter, Medium, and Youtube are not reliable sources; if something has not been covered by the media, it is almost certainly not notable. Writing articles about companies is very difficult, even for experienced editors—and more so for companies about blockchains and cryptocurrencies. I suggest gaining more experience in other areas of Wikipedia for a while before trying to write articles. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm checking other crypto articles on Wikipedia and most of them cite the project's own docs and blogs since it's really hard to find technical details on regular media articles. But I'll try again, thanks for the advice! Pxx05 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Bruxton. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Greggs (disambiguation), 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.)

Bruxton (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Bruxton, why did you unreview this? It looks like a fine disambiguation page to me. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh rats, My apologies. It certainly is. we may have clicked at the same time, or I may have clicked wrong. Bruxton (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Maureen Steele

Hi, you put tags on the Maureen Steele article for containing close paraphrasing of one or more non-free copyrighted sources... But I've done quite a few edits to it since, and I'm hoping that it's okay now?

Best, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Vitale 5 it looks good now, so I've removed the tag. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for AntiVandal whitelist inclusion

I had used AntiVandal sometimes in the past, but realised that you've now made it available only for those with rollback rights or are in the whitelist. Since I do not have rollback, I'd like to be included in the whitelist to use the tool. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom  Done, sorry for the delay. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 05:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Jbuff2006 COIN

Hey, so I cam across the Jeremy Bloom article last night on Huggle, noticed the puffery, did a little digging, and wound up having the same COI concern you did on the user's talk the other day. After noticing that the headshot used as the article's picture was uploaded by Jbuff2006 as "own work", I took it to COIN, since I'm fairly certain that is Jeremy Bloom. Since you have recently expressed the same concern based off of the same material being added, figured I'd let you know in case there was something you wanted to add. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon Sorry for the late response. I do think that that user is the subject of the article, given it's the only page they've edited. I'll keep an eye on their contributions and if they continue adding promotional material I'll report them to AIV. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sita Ramam (soundtrack)

Could you also review the Draft:Sita Ramam (soundtrack) 122.164.193.254 (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, accepted. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

You're a good editor, thank you for calling out poor edits quickly and revoking them. Kylerschin (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Request

I have been noticing your recent works of anti-vandalism and I really appreciate it!. Am aware you have a script for reverting vandalism and up until now I thought I would need rollback to user it but it says I can request in you talk that's why am here. I would be glad if you consider giving me the script so that I can too revert vandalism easier. Thanks and happy editing. — UricdivineTalkToMe 12:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Uricdivine any user can use it as long as they have 250 edits / 7 days since registration. I only have to approve users who don't have that, so you should be able to use it. Cheers! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh okay. I must have read the requirements wrong. Is it compatible for Mobile? UricdivineTalkToMe 12:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it is -- you won't be able to use the keybinds (such as "q" or "r" to revert), but you can select warnings from the "warn" menu. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
okay for mobile it doesnt revert? just like twinkle? — UricdivineTalkToMe 12:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
When you click on a warning from the "warn" menu, it automatically reverts the user's edit and leaves the selected warning on their talk page. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a screenshot I would send you hope you don't mind UricdivineTalkToMe 12:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Louise McKinney

On 12 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Louise McKinney, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Louise McKinney (pictured) was the first woman in the British Empire to be sworn in as an elected legislator? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louise McKinney. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Louise McKinney), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 5,692 views (474.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Robert H. Floyd

I was also looking at AfC submissions and saw you accepted R. J. Floyd, making this redirect in the process, but I assume FloridaArmy made a typo and this redirect should be Robert J. Floyd instead (as the full name; the sources don't give a middle initial of H). I was going to start a RfD but realized asking you to G7 it or something would be a lot easier. eviolite (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite Thanks for spotting that. I've G7'd it and created the proper redirect. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Great work! Mr.weedle (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

why do you need speedy delation for the Draft:Massénat James ?

The copyright link you mention it's not on the Draft:Massénat James MJ.edit (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The draft was copied almost entirely from this source. If you would like to rewrite the draft, please use your own words instead of copying from another source. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louise McKinney

The article Louise McKinney you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Louise McKinney 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 Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:T+pazolite

I see we reviewed this at the same time. I have no concerns if you wish to replace my review with yours. This type of thing happens often enough to be interesting, but it is not possible to lock the page to prevent it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent: doesn't really matter, we declined for basically the same reason anyway. I'll make a bug fix for AFCH to avoid edit conflicts eventually... — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for centre for ageing better

Hi there, you moved my article on the centre for ageing better into the draft space last month. Thanks for your comments about this article- happy to remove the link to the Ageing Better website. I was wondering if you could clarify about the additional sources required- I believe that all of the article's references mention the organisation, unless, like the "House of Lords report on ageing: response 1 year on". GOV.UK. Retrieved 2022-08-23, the source is relevant to the history of the organisation. In terms of references having 'significant coverage' do you mean linking to news articles from BBC news/ guardian rather than smaller publications like 'Inside Housing' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoraBuckle1234 (talk • contribs)

@DoraBuckle1234: by significant coverage, I mean news articles that are almost entirely about this organization—not just mentions of it. For example, this BBC article is a reliable source, but it doesn't even mention the Centre. The first Guardian source is decent, but it's also an interview, so not really independent. The second Guardian source only mentions it once. Most of the rest of the sources aren't significant or independent (for example, the org's website isn't independent). It's extremely hard to write articles about organizations on Wikipedia, because they must have sources that are independent, significant, reliable, and non-routine (not just announcements). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Alejandro Clavijo

Hello Ingenuity, could you review the Draft:Alejandro Clavijo. Thank you very much for your support Archivar88 (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Archivar88 it isn't submitted, but I don't think the draft is ready to be accepted. As far as I can see, there's only one independent source (the review). All of the remaining references are not independent or reliable. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not add more information as I thought it was enough. I have already completed the references. Please, could you review now?. Always, thank you very for your advice Archivar88 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Archivar88 the number of reliable sources on the draft is still not enough—Discogs and iTunes are not reliable sources. Please don't ask me to review this again; you can submit it through AfC and it will be put into the queue for another reviewer to look at. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Request on 20:28:02, 23 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Cammiy


Article Camcardii meets all requirements please publish

Cammiy (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cammiy no, it doesn't, it's still very promotional, the sources are not reliable, and it doesn't have inline citations. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 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 patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • 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.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green October 2022 Good Article Editathon

Hello Ingenuity:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) & Goldsztajn (talk) 23 September 2022

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Iugodigital/sandbox

This is full copyright violation. Thank you for your CSD. Even so it is always worth checking for copyvios. We all miss them,. though 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent thanks for spotting that. I usually check for copyvios but must have missed it here. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
There are always others that will catch them for us when we miss them 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if actionable with Revdel

Hello, Ingenuity. I hope you're having a good day, or night so far. Trying the nice approach to the block-evading IP you reported to WP:AVI got me this response[1], and I need a second opinion on if that's something I should report for removal. Thank you! BlueNoise (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@BlueNoise: I don't think that meets the criteria for revision deletion. Under RD2 it says not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations, and calling someone "idiot" would fall under the "ordinary personal attacks" category. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I thought so. I admittedly never got around to reading the guidelines for it, since I so rarely have to use it. Thanks for the help. BlueNoise (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nellie McClung

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nellie McClung 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 Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

AFCH merging pull requests

Hello friend. I'm looking at the recent commits to AFCH. Just a tip: I think it'd be better if you used "squash and merge" when approving pull requests. I think it would make the commit history look nicer, and would match the style @Enterprisey uses. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: sounds good, I'll do that in the future. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Democratism page

I noticed on my Watchlist that you dealt the Democratism page a while back, which led to its deletion. Not sure what the problem was last time but wanted to let you know that the same user has recreated the page with the same content. Yeeno (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

why Speedy deletion nomination of Sound Marketing?

Can you let me know which parts of the page you were concerned with? I want to make sure that my draft version addresses your concerns. BeardyMike (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@BeardyMike: One of the conditions of your unblock request in 2017 is that you would not edit pages related to this company. Your own words: I will make no attempt to edit the Sound Marketing article, and I will instead look to make edits on pages that I am not commercially connected with, in an impartial and encyclopedic manner. You have not done this, and have instead continued to add promotional material about this company. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked again. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ingenuity
So the article itself was not the issue? That's a relief.
I've been talking with another Wikipedia Patroller about using the articles for creation area. I'll prepare an offline document of sources, citations, and images, along with some detailed copy about each potential wiki-section, and then submit it as a draft so that the articles for creation writers can decide if it meets their standards.
I will not try and make this page in mainspace again. (I'd love some help/guidance on making sure the draftspace version doesn't get snagged for speedy deletion for the same reasons as the this last creation attempt did.)
Thanks in advance. BeardyMike (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Kathryn_S_Lilley

I updated the draft for Kathryn S Lilley adding external news references as required. Draft:Kathryn S Lilley Agapito (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ingenuity!

Hi @Ingenuity! How are you? Monredo (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Monredo, I'm doing well. Would you like help with something? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Ingenuity,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

draft: West Suffolk Indepedents

I do not understand the previous comment that the page was rejected for. Whilst I understand what the reviewer was asking for, I can not provide a non-local source as it is only a local political party and therefore no news agency outside of the local area has reported on it. DontForgetJeff (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @DontForgetJeff. Please see the notability guideline for organizations, specifically the audience section—if there is no non-local coverage available, it is likely not notable enough to have its own article. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I've now read the audience section and it refers to having at least one "regional" media outlet. The previous commentator referred to a need for more than "local" media. Where is the line between the two drawn as the source I cited, East Anglian Daily Times, is a regional news outlet. DontForgetJeff (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@DontForgetJeff: the guideline suggests at least one regional/national/international source as a bare minimum; the draft still needs to show significant coverage from other sources as well. As a general rule of thumb, there should be at least 3-5 in-depth, reliable, and independent sources to demonstrate notability. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft fixed

I fixed the mistakes with the draft and now includes better sources. Hope you check it out. SMBMovieFan (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@SMBMovieFan great work on improving this, accepted. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I will improve it later on. SMBMovieFan (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

9.5 Singers

Hello, i noticed you rejected my draft on the basis that the sources were not reliable. What source is more reliable to show that they have millions of views on tiktok than referencing tiktok itself. That is going to be better than any second hand reference. Also in terms of facebook it shows how they were set up and soundcloud shows that they have done recordings. Just because my references are first hand doesn't make them bad. How can I make this draft more acceptable? SucculentSmith (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@SucculentSmith you need secondary sources to establish notability. Having millions of views does not justify an article. Try adding things such as independent news articles, reviews of their work, etc. You can find a guideline on which sources are reliable here. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Trussonomics

Hi Ingenuity, do you know what the story is behind Draft:Trussonomics? After your round robin swap that left one item in draftspace and one in the main space, which has been changed to a redirect out of draftspace. Should the draft be deleted? CMD (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I don't think the draft needs to be deleted. I just swapped Draft:Trussonomics and Trussonomics instead of tagging the redirect with G6 and waiting for an admin to delete it. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Good articles

Saw you pop up at AFC. Just wanted to say I enjoyed reading your Good Articles. Great work on them! See you around MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @MaxnaCarta! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Request on 17:37:54, 20 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Roger Pitcher


A couple of quick questions... 1. Can i still use the source, in this case Le Monde, to provide the 'sweet as a hazelnut' if i remove the quotation from the body of the acticle? 2. I used the wikipeda acticles of Mady Mesple and Charles Burles, two of Daniele's contempories and collegues as as a guide to the structure and tone of my article, can I rely on these as a guide? 3. As i am not an expert musician, i need the quotations of the expects - say Le Monde's opera reviewers to establish Daniels's place in the Panthion of opera singers, is it right, or wrong, to uses quotes from them in the acticle to establish this. I realise that the facts can speak for themselves ie Daniele did reach the heights of the french opera scene, and did sing at glyndeborne etc. etc., should the whole thing be as dry as dust? If you read the whole acticle, and not just the first line, you will have noticed the the quotation are not all ephemitsic, but are used to establish the ceiling that she come up against, and how she dealt with it.


Roger Pitcher (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Roger Pitcher:
  1. you can still use this source, but quotes needs to be attributed (eg. "She was described by Le Monde as...")
  2. yes, using other articles as guides is completely acceptable
  3. the main problem with the draft is that it's written like a story, instead of an encyclopedia article. A good article should list the facts, and not editorialise them. For example, Daniele Perriers has made it. The top of the tree in French opera - Théâtre National de l'Opéra. And a beautiful apartment at 50 Rue Damremont. The world at her feet could be rewritten as In <year>, she moved to Paris, where she performed at the Théâtre National de l'Opéra. Sure, it's not as fun to read, but it is more accurate.
The draft also refers to "we" and the reader as "you", which Wikipedia articles should not do. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ingenuiy, thank you for the advice. i need to take a breath before embarking on a major re-think. Daniele is in ill health, and now 77 years old. i needed
to get something down for her to see. that is accomplished. she has seen it now and offered me some advice of her own the clarify where i speculate. i am a fan. not a friend who knows her well. she is a modest person who is not seeking engrandisement. this is for me, and anybody in the future who might come looking for information about her. you say quotes must be attributed, isn't the citation link enough of a attribution in itself, the le monde citations point to the actual acticle in the le mond achive? Roger Pitcher (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@Roger Pitcher the problem with not citing the author of the quote in the text is that the quote can't be taken literally—it's not possible to have a "voice as sweet as a hazelnut". Also see this section in Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
Since you have a conflict of interest with the subject, please note that everything in the article must be backed up by its references; you can't conduct your own interview and use that as a source. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, i add source Alexandre Guerrero as the author of the quotation, do i have the establish his credentials to make such an assersion i.e. that 'Daniele Perriers is that greatest teacher in the world'. He is now an established leader tenor? - this could lead to a infinite regression or is it sufficient that an
Alexandre Guerrero said this, and the citation link establishes where and the context of the remark? Roger Pitcher (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Tár (Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture)

Could you review the Draft:Tár (Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture) 223.178.85.24 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Accepted. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Square One Musical

So you turned my draft for the failed musical project by Stephen Sondheim and David Ives down. Some of your main arguments for why it should be declined were the following :

1. - I had no citations at the time that solely focused on Square One instead of making it just a passing mention. (My fix) : I found a website originally used as a site for selling tickets for the show. As I mentioned in the article, it WAS set to debut in the 2022 season and tickets were sold. Now in the article, the site is used for specific information such as, what the basis of the musical was set to be, basic information like run-time, where it was set to debut etc.

2. - Because the show did not debut it is not important for wikipedia. - Many of Sondheim’s failed works and unfinished projects were on his wikipedia page, where as Square was not. As well as having a mention on Sondheim’s page, most of, if not all, got their own wikipedia pages, for one reason or another. So I feel as a subject, Square One by all means is far more important than these other projects. It was set to debut, in fact the only reason we know nothing about it and never see its aforementioned debut, was because of Sondheim’s death early in it’s production process.

3. - You didn’t comment on it in particular but mentioning it to other developers has helped fix this issue. There was a lot of inappropriately worded sentences that show bias. As well as quite a few grammatical errors. Those have been ironed out by both myself and those developers.

That all being said, if you could respond and help to me make this into an article, if possible, it’d be appreciated. But I would at least like to understand why not, if you choose to decline these fixes.

Thank you again for your first review, even though it’s not what I was expecting. I hope that I can make this an article moving forward but I understand if not. Also let it be noted, I did not plan to over take the Square One page with Square One (Musical). I mean for them to be their own separate pages. Just thoughtI should clarify. Morgo0915 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Pa Mis Muchachas

Hello Ingenuity! I have done some work on the page Pa Mis Muchachas lately in hopes of improving the article's quality scale. I'm asking you if it would be ok for you to review the article to see if it can be upgraded to a C-class rating. 204060baby (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@204060baby looks great, I've changed it to C-class (pretty close to B-class IMO). You can actually do this yourself—any user can assign an article from Stub to B-class without having it reviewed. The only ratings that need another user to review them are Featured Lists, Featured Articles, and Good Articles. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ingenuity Thank you! I'm glad that I've done a good job. Also I know anybody can assign a rating to an article, however seeing as I'm quite new to ratings, I was unsure of my abilities. 204060baby (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Early end of the backlog drive

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The Western Front

I was expecting a 4 month wait. Thanks for replying so fast. I am not related to Lord Milner (I use a pseudonym). I will get on these changes, starting with the removal of the question mark in the subject heading. I hope you are around to approve it, if you have an interest in World War I. On another matter, I submitted this article weeks ago, and it has been ignored. Would you like to have a crack at it? Thanks. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:/The_Lives_of_Winston_Churchill_and_Alfred_Milner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner (talk • contribs)

@Lord Milner: we already have articles on both Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner; how does that draft differ from them? I'm sorry to tell you, but your drafts need a lot of work. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point of view and summary style guidelines, and try to avoid creating articles that already exist or are similar to existing articles. I have moved the article back to draftspace, where you can submit it once you feel it is ready. Please don't hesitate to leave me a message if you have any questions. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Anti-vandal

I just tried to follow your steps to instal "anti-vandal", I have the rollback perm (on trial for now), but was not able to see this new perm or use it. I tried hitting "Q" on my keyboard when I had an vandalistic edit up that I wanted to try it on. What might I be doing incorrectly you think? TY. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Oopsemoops: it doesn't look like you have it installed; your common.js file doesn't exist. Edit that page, add {{subst:iusc|User:Ingenuity/AntiVandal.js}}, and then publish your changes, and that should install it. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Tried that. Can you please check if I did it correctly? TY. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Oopsemoops looks like you did it right. There should now be a link that says "AntiVandal" beside your preferences link at the top of the page. Pressing that will enable the script. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
O.O
... Just tried using this, and I feel like I gained a power that no mortal should have. WOW that is fast! :) TY. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Few questions. I mainly used it with just two keys. Space bar to go on to the next edit, and "Q" to revert a clear act of vandalism as well as warn the editor in question.
My question for you. May you check a few of those that I just did and see to it that it all looks good? Also, are these the main keys that I need to keep in mind and use? I see you had others, but those seemed to be the core.
Lastly, what sort of filter is used when using this tool? I filter normally for just IP editors and NEWLY registered users and "very likely bad faith edits" when normally doing my vandalism patrolling. I just wanted to see if there was any further customization that I might be missing. I certainly didn't get the edits still on time sometimes (presumably because of Cluebot or some other fast editors), but it DID let me get through maybe a dozen or so REALLY fast! TY. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually (if the AntiVandal script works similarly to SWViewer), it's best if you don't use a filter at all as you'll be able to catch way more edits. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not familiar with SWViewer. What is that and where do I see it? I want whatever is best, easiest, but also not likely to mess me up and get me into trouble for reverting things that I ought not too somehow because it is less userfriendly or has a harder to view UI. TY. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:SWVIEWER ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
See WP:SWViewer. AntiVandal and SWViewer are pretty similar (except for some UI differences). As for a filter, AntiVandal sorts edits in the queue by how likely they are to be vandalism (the underlines of edits shows the probability, for example orange means a medium likelyhood of being vandalism). At the moment there's no way to only show edits above a certain probability, however. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I see. And spacebar and "Q" are fine to stick to though you think? — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Oopsemoops yeah, those are the keys I mainly use. You can also press "r" to rollback the edit without warning the user, which I use occasionally. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
You'd still need to then go back and warn them manually, no? Any reason specifically as to when you'd use "R" over "Q"? Just for my own learning purposes. TY. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes there's no reason to warn the vandal (such as if it's obvious block evasion/an LTA, or the user has already received 4 warnings and has been reported, etc). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh I see. That makes sense. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I just looked at the SWViewer and I think I prefer the AntiVandal model made by Ingenuity. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Related, is there a way to warn users with different warnings? Cause I feel that reverting every bad edit as if it were vandalism is not very helpful to the user as they don't know what exactly they did wrong, just that it was wrong. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf click the "warn" button at the bottom of the screen, and it'll open up a menu of warnings to choose from. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Awards

The Reviewer Barnstar
This award is given to Ingenuity for collecting more than 50 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Worm Gear Award

This award is given to Ingenuity for collecting more than 7 points per week doing reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I love your "AntiVandal" tool. I am currently on trial for RB perm, if for some reason I did not have that perm, would I still be able to use this tool? I really like the tool. TY

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 21:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Am I able to sort using your tool to sift out categories such as "Draft", "User", "Talk pages" etc.? I'd like to only see potential vandalism using the tool that is on actual article pages. Is that possible? TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 01:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey @Moops. As for the first question—technically I can add you to the script's whitelist, but I would prefer to only allow people with rollback to use the script. As for the second, that's a feature I'd like to add eventually but I haven't added it yet. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd definitely prioritize that as the next feature add. Amazing tool, but that would help with its usefulness a lot. Also, question for you based on the whitelist. Can you add me to it then? Also, why have the rollback requirement or the whitelist? If you only want to allow people on it that have rollback, why not just make having the rollback perm the only requirement, and not also have a separate whitelist? TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I can vouch for @Moops, he is quick in reverting vandalism and can be trusted with the tool. As Moops already said, AntiVandal is an amazing tool and I also use it most of the time. Nevertheless, I would like to see more user warning templates added to the warn tab so that we can give specific warning if the proposed edit doesn't fall in the usual 10 category of warnings. Maybe like a Drop-down list with more varieties of warnings (like in RedWarn). Is is possible to implement this @Ingenuity? Much Thanks ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Raydann! — Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion @Raydann, I should be able to add that fairly soon. @Moops, I've taken a look at your contributions; they look fine, so I added you to the whitelist. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. :) — Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ingenuity/Archive_4&oldid=1125043217"