Talk:Markovian Parallax Denigrate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

Maybe I'm missing something... if so, go ahead and put this back on the main page... but this section seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the topic, and the last paragraph is just plain inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

Collapsed content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Consequences During the summer of 2003, following the issuance of the now de-classified report about the September 11th attack, many government officials such as Senator Bob Graham began to make criticisms that the September 11th attack might have easily been predicted, if not outright prevented in part or altogether. Following these criticisms, President Bush declassified the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing which indicated that "Bin Laden Determined to Attack United States", and which indicated that hijackings might be one possible mode of attack. With the apparent intentional crash of flight 990 by its co-pilot, and a similar intentional crash of PSA Flight 1771 by a disgruntled former airline employee known as David Burke on December 7, 1987, the historic record of persons intentionally crashing airliners certainly must present itself as having offered precedent, if not an outright warning. Nonetheless, representatives (Condoleezza Rice?) of the Bush administration in early 2004 stated that "nobody could have imagined that ... hijackers would intentionally crash .... hijackers usually want to live." Critics of the Bush administration might easily argue that we are somehow being to believe that there is such a poverty of imagination in this country that we will stop asking questions and simply blindly vote for Bush in November. Perhaps, because of the abundance of tabloid type conspiracy theories that propagate over the Internet, by word of mouth, or in the media, most people should be rightly skeptical of any supposed numerlogic modus operandi. In the state of Missouri, they have a saying "Show Me." When the major system for translating phrases into numbers, or rather ofr memorizing numbers is applied to the phrase "Show Me", one obtains the number 63, which by a remarkable coincidence yields the flight number of the so called shoe bomber. In effect, ever since the so called shoe bomber incident, people have been asked by airport inspectors to "show me your shoes."

Jimaltieri 13:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zero knowledge proof

collapsed off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quoting from the page Zero-knowledge proof "Peggy's public key is a large graph, which we will call G. Peggy generated G at some time in the past, and then published it widely. Because she manufactured it specially for the purpose, Peggy knows a Hamiltonian cycle in G. Peggy will prove her identity to Victor by proving that she knows a Hamiltonian cycle in G. Even though G is public information, nobody else can do this, because nobody else knows a Hamiltonian cycle of G, and finding Hamiltonian cycles in graphs is a difficult problem (see NP-completeness)." Step One: Replace Peggy with Susan and assume that Susans graph contains Markov chains instead of Hamiltonian cycles. This would be a very weak form of encrypting a message, since it would allow almost anyone who believes that there is a message to speculatively reconstruct what that message might be, with a very high probability that certain specific persons would be able to reconstruct the entire graph almost de novo. Step Two: Assume that I've cracked Susan's graph, or at least part of it, and that I also know that the digits of the California Lottery on the day Dr. Seuss died were 3-14-15-24-28-42, which using the major system for memorizing numbers can be encoded in the form of the phrase MADRID LINEAR INFERNO, which remarkably mimics the eight syllable forms of Dr Seuss who often wrote in the form trochaic tetrameter, or iambic tetrameter. I also know that on October 13, 1990 the numbers of the California Lottery were 1-5-7-15-17-51, forming a perfect palindrome. Using the major system the word Al-Qaeda encodes the number 571. It should also be observed that the myserious Usenet posts of August 5, 1996 occured five years and one day prior the the issuance of the August 6, 2001 presidential daily bulliten that bin Laden was determined to attack the United States. Step Three: Note that the paragraphs that were moved by Jimaltier from the Markovian Parallax Denigrate page - were originally on the EgyptAir Flight 990 which got deleted by someone else with the comment that they "rightfully belong" on some page about 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. What I am trying to address is just one such theory, which includes the theory that certain files on the Internet contain steganography, which remains a subject in dispute - since nobody has ever publicly proven that any such jpeg, bmp or other image actually contains such a file - at least not one that is related directly to the September 11th attack. That may be be because the mystery information wasnt in jpegs or bipmaps, it was embedded in SYMBOL Sue's posts. Susan Lindauer was arrested by some remarkable coincidence right after the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks. One suspect in the attack on Madrid who remains at large is believed to use the name Amer Azzizi - which is remarkably suggestive of a modus operandi "as easy as american pi" to figure out. From the posts of August 5, 1996 it is possible to prove that there are things that Susan knew, or should have known - if one traverses the entire graph. The challenge is to prove not what Susan knew - but what Bush knew, or should have known. To prove this - one needs to contemplate a time evolving knapsack problem. If Markovian Parallax Denigrate is the first item in the knapsack, then additional items can be "carried", i.e., potentitially included in the "knapsack" at a reduced cost, because it is often less costly to carry a reference to an item than it is to carry the item. The zero knowledge proof then involves proving that one can unpack the knapsack, which is analogous to stating that one has knoweldge of a Hamiltonian cycle. Now suppose that this were the orignal text from 1996, which is obviously NOT the case since the following text refers to events from as recent as 2004. Furthermore, suppose that the original text, from which Markovian Parallax Denigrate was derived was LOST in the destruction of the World Trade Center. In which case - what you see is what you get, that is, in some sense of a rather adventitous form of Constrained writing. I go out jitterbugging quite a bit. My father is a dance teacher. Never mind who I am, and don’t try to find me. I am not the one who posted the original markovian parallax denigrate in any case. I was however once a political figure, and in between bids for different public offices I was interviewed by Susan Lindauer, who might be better able to explain where these 1000’s of messages came from. When I was in high school I heard that president McKinley once suggested that there might be an earthquake based upon a ground upheaval following a forest fire, or maybe it was Abe Lincoln who said that the pressure change could break a thrust fault. Simple empiricism and Newtonian physics is probably all that you really need to be able to predict something like that. However unless you can say something really creative, like that you are inferring that there will be an earthquake because you have channeled McKinley's ghost – then you are not likely to so much as earn a caw from the local press, even if you have a PhD. What really needs to be done is for some people to update their theories. I'll get back to the physics shortly. Some doctor named Cohen performed, or wrote about someone who performed - mind control experiments for the CIA in the 60's. Some of these experiments are continuing to this day. Maybe it is time to clear the air, talk to the media and find some people who will collaborate, rue? Hello, I mean where are you? I'm not some sports writing rococo who can just invocate up a good earthquake prediction, like it’s just a tousle in the wind, only then to be discarded by this respite society like I'm just a little shadflower. Debby and Stirling knew about it. The pathogenesis was a bummer. I think I'm over it. Maybe I spent a little too much of my time sitting at my little escritoire, even after they told me the biopsy was benign. Translation: at one point I was wondering if I was going to live to see 1991, never mind 1999, or whenever. Well, I'm feeling little more adventitious now, though I’d better look up just what that word means since I’m not quite sure just what I might be saying about myself. Perhaps Symbol Sue has been adventitious too – in a different sort of way. There is a lot that I can resurrect of the long forgotten past, almost de novo. I don’t care if you work for WorldCom, ATT, ITT, PGE, NBC, CBS, CNN, GSN, or if you make the most money of any chairperson, whether your name is Dwight D, or Herzog or something different altogether. I suppose that Oriah Mountain Dreamer said it much better, I mean that part about what does and what does not matter in life. I promised I would get back to the physics. The problem with trying to summon up McKinley’s ghost to predict an earthquake is that somewhere, some one may have once said "if you provide the war - I'll provide the newspapers." Likewise, someone might say that if “you’ll provide the fire, just maybe McKinley's ghost will provide the earthquake.” Thus because of the risk that some eco-terrorist might attempt to deliberately light a fire, just to see if the theory is correct. That’s what the original post was all about, because of the reactions of some people to certain posts made by a certain former candidate somewhere who is very familiar with the physics. It is very difficult to know who you can trust. There is for example a recent and very disgusting case of those SUV eco-terrorists who wrote “e to the i pi equals minus one” as their calling card when they did some fifty-five million dollars in damage to the vehicles and property at various Southern California dealerships in August of 2003. Hence, there is an element that I am going to discuss eventually about so called “crimes of attribution” or rather maybe – “crimes where attribution plays an element” and how this is important, or should be important to writers of both fiction and non-fiction, as well as to those who make or enforce public policy. Now if there was a hidden message attributable to McKinley somewhere, the modern version would be that if the Hilbert transform of delta del-squared F + F exhibits a peculiarity on the boundary of a fire area, then it may indicate that a sleeping giant is about to wake up; then someone needs to find their code book and un-seal the prediction that has been on record since before 1901. Now does anyone care to tell William Randolph Hearst? How far is Hearst Castle from Paso Robles anyway? Of course with the risk that some eco-terrorist will deliberately light a fire to try to test the theory that it will trigger the missing earthquake has some rather diabolical implications. Now you know why you don’t read about it in your papers! The standard practice should be at the very least to try to identify a candidate fault which is likely to produce a killer quake, and notify the local townspeople – without telling the whole world. In Paso Robles, the local Mayor sent out letters to all of the local businesses, at least the ones who are in un-reinforced masonry buildings and told them to get their signs up! Yet Jennifer Myrick is dead. Is the truth that threat assessments some terrible secret as if to say "so remember these words as you are headed out west, tell only your friends and to hell with the rest? Please note: that I have only decoded the first portion of the text, i.e. of Markovian Parallax Denigrate. The references to pi, and palindromes, are left as an excercise for the reader to locate, somewhere in the thousands of mysterious posts which appeared on August 5, 1996.

Lazarus666 26 Jul 2004

This is new stuff!

Needs major edits, we have concrete evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vboQOQwifwg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leepic11a (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Great, so a youtube video was posted by someone, and now a bunch of activists will be here to insert original research and POV. Thanks for the heads up. ♟♙ (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Youtube video

Just a heads up to editors and pagewatchers, a youtube video about this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vboQOQwifwg) was released and it quite rightly pointed out glaring issues in this article and how those issues likely contributed to a stream of misinformation. I've removed that content. Any content added back that was removed should be discussed first as its clear the ill advised previous claims very well could have unnecessarily disparaged someone. People should also beware of random edits or an influx of ip edit requests coming in and page protection may be needed until the popularity of the video subsides. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah well if you watched the same video I just watched, it makes it clear that the article - as it was - in September 2019 was factually correct. But that was all deleted by the deletionist user called User:EnPassant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.33.113 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Youtube videos aren't reliable sources. And the article doesn't conflict with the sources. Edits reverted. ♟♙ (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning User:EnPassant, not only do you not actually bother to check what you are deleting but you've also proved yourself to be very creepy. Not only did you not even watch the video? Simply dismissing it with a "Youtube videos aren't reliable sources". You also have the paranoid response to claim I am someone who I am not. Everything I said was based on the video; it shows the actual newsgroups where the info from these postings were added. You can still search for it using Google Groups! So please don't spout the old Wikipedia:Assume good faith line at me. Your own editing history proves you assume none. All I did was watch a video today that gave clarity in areas that this article lacks (in fact the video makes clear that the looping veracity of other published material is derived from this article). I also mentioned that the article contained more clarity until you showed up and deleted (you have even edited the lies back into the article - so what's your angle in all of this?). Then - as a typical paranoid socially backward wikipedia editor - you accuse me of being this earlier editor User:MattiasThatch. All because they are shown in the video. I just checked the article's edit history, which matches, balanced that against the video showing the search in Google Groups to the very same archived Usernet posts. And it's all there, it's all factually correct:

Etymology

The name "Markovian Parallax Denigrate" comes from a message posted on alt.religion.christian.boston-church by Usenet User Chris Brokerage (Likely a pseudonym) from the partially obfuscated email address "Susan_L...@WORF.UWSP.EDU" which appears to have originated at University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, however the majority of posts use randomly assembled names and addresses in order to obscure the source of the messages.

Newsgroups Affected

At least a few dozen examples of Markovian Parallax Denigrate text exist and are available to view on Google Groups, Google's archive of Usenet newsgroup posts. The following newsgroups were affected by the Markovian Parallax Denigrate spam:

• alt.religion.christian
• alt.religion.christian.boston-church
• misc.education.homeschool.christian
• pdaxs.religion.christian
• rec.music.christian
• uk.religion.christian
• news.admin.net-abuse.misc

The general consensus of contemporary users of these newsgroups was that the posts were in fact a "Mailbox Attack" or "Letterbomb", which can be loosely defined as an early DDoS attack, wherein a user sends spam text to a newsgroup causing ISPs to meter or throttle the connections of affected users due to high bandwidth usage. Each message to one of these newsgroups would be automatically downloaded to a newsgroup member's computer, so high quantities of messages would, in turn, equal high bandwidth usage for all newsgroup users.

This is information that you deemed to be false. You don't Wikipedia:Assume good faith? You've reinstated lies. You're the problem here. But sadly to be accused of not showing good faith is a light on you, EnPassant, not me! 81.141.33.113 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Youtube videos do not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and everything else you posted above is WP:OR. ♟♙ (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Novil Ariandis: is your edit the result of this aforementioned video? Veverve (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: how long should the editing of the article be restricted to extended confirmed users?

No need for this anymore
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Due to a recent popular Youtube video, in which this WP article and history are named (mainly at 7:48 and 15:10), an influx of editors came to edit the page with WP:OR. Those wanting to know the overall narrative of the video can read the GAB of a user who came to WP only to edit this article. An admin recently blocked all non-extended confirmed users from editiong the page. However, the question remains as to how long this restriction should last. Veverve (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I'm tempted to put an early close on this. No responses in two weeks, probably because this generally doesn't need an RFC. This is routinely handled by admin discretion. If there is any further trouble just contact the admin that protected it before, or make a request at WP:RFPP. It looks like activity on the Youtube video has mostly tapered off, hopefully that's the end of it. Alsee (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC) @Alsee: I guess you wanted to close this RfC but forgot to do so. Veverve (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD

WP:BRD was not adhered to with this revert [1]. Additionally, sentences previously sourced to reliable sources were poorly rewritten and partially re-sourced to blogs (fails WP:RS). The edit has been undone and before being reintroduced it needs to be discussed here and consensus reached. ♟♙ (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Dot Article reference says opposite of page.

So, just curious, but has anyone actually read the Daily Dot article about this? It clearly states that Susan Lindauer, the ex-spy, was not actually associated with the email address used. Hell, it even goes on to explain that it was originally owned by a student at a university who had their account stolen. Hell, the article even surmises in conclusion, that it most likely was a Spam attack. (Which it was, since a quick search of UseNet for stuff from the very next day confirms this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:4C00:74C5:7524:72E2:A306:20A5 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to practice your reading comprehension. Nothing the article currently says conflicts with the source. ♟♙ (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

To quote the acutal article: "And besides, there’s another Susan Linduaer out there, someone whose email address was clearly used by whoever created the Markovian Parallax Denigrate spam.

There are so many articles about the Susan Lindauer who was arrested in 2004 that finding this other Susan takes some creative Googling. But it’s not that hard. Just start with that original Markovian Parallax Denigrate email address, susan_lindauer@worf.uwsp.edu.

UWSP stands for the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. And it turns out there was actually a Susan Lindauer who attended UWSP as a graduate student in physical education. She graduated in 1994. I called up her former faculty advisor at UWSP, professor Rory Suomi, with whom she published at least two papers bearing titles like “Impact of Arthritis Foundation Aquatic Program Classes on Strength and Range of Motion Measures in Women with Arthritis.”

Though he wasn’t helpful in tracking her down, Suomi did confirm that this Lindauer was very much a real person. That means she attended UWSP at around the same time the other Susan Lindauer was living in Washington, D.C. and making trips to the Libyan Mission in New York.

Ultimately, finding this Susan was as simple as changing her name and searching Facebook. She prefers “Susie” and switched her last name to Mursau after getting married.

Mursau lives in Combined Lakes, Wis., and works in the local school district. According to her Facebook profile, she likes the Green Bay Packers, Chris Farley, and the MTV series The Hills. When I reached her by phone Friday morning and asked if she knew anything about the Markovian Parallax Denigrate email, she told me, “I’ve never heard of it.” And she certainly didn’t send it. (Nor had she heard of the other Susan Lindauer: “I’ve never Googled myself,” she said.)

So unless Mursau is purposefully hiding her past as a Usenet spammer (which seems unlikely, to put it mildly), she didn’t send the email that launched one of the weirdest mysteries in Internet history. More likely: Someone scraped her address along with the dozens of other academic emails used in the Markovian Parallax Denigrate messages, then used them to mask the actual address. It’s easy."

Personally i think that you don't need very good reading comprehension skills to understand the actual message that this article coveyed. Probablybrynte (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The article says what the source says. ♟♙ (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is basically the old "Wikipedia article says thing is X. Source- article on site. Source on the article- Wikipedia article that says thing is X" problem. The video and the Usenet posts clearly prove this isn't a glaring mystery, but because neither youtube nor usenets are considered valid sources (despite the article's subject BEING a usenet post) but random clickbait news sites are, and the random clickbait news sites said "this is the greatest mystery on the internet" or whatever, Wikipedia rules on sourcing mean the article must remain focused on what's an obvious and glaring lie, since there's no acceptable sources to disprove it. Basically you need to get Daily Dot or something to make a new article reiterating everything said in the youtube video, THEN you can correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F989:AC01:1DE1:2911:B3C3:D9CB (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you guys STILL on this??? The article is correct as it stands and the only thing "wrong" is what you're imagining it says. ♟♙ (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Article issues.

@EnPassant or Sulfurboy:

As written, this page seems like it should be classified as a stub, it's extremely short and by all metrics has no notability. The whole of 15-ish articles covering the topic (all written over a decade after the event) may provide the "presumption" of Notability as per WP:GNG, but I don't see the actual value of an entire page dedicated to this topic (WP:IINFO). Additionally this page meets WP:MERGEREASON 3, and perhaps WP:BONSAI.

I'm not sure if I'm advocating for deletion or merging, but one solution I've considered is that this might better fit as an entry at List_of_Internet_phenomena#Email.

ExampleDominic (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

ExampleDominic, Passes WP:GNG with flying colors. Pretty insane to suggest otherwise. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In terms of coverage maybe, but not every spam incident on Usenet has a wiki page and for good reason. MAKE.MONEY.FAST had lasting impact, while Markovian Parallax Denigrate is a mostly forgotten novelty with no real impact. ExampleDominic (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ExampleDominic, Not every spam incident on Usenet gets covered by multiple sources. This one was. Not having a lasting impact or that it's a forgotten novelty is subjective and mostly meaningless in terms of determining if this article should stay. However, if you disagree you're welcome to take it to AfD. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

ExampleDominic. WP:BONSAI is an essay, which is just one person's opinion on a matter. I disagree with the rest of your reasoning, and it doesn't fit as a merge because this wasn't an e-mail. It's really odd that people are so fixated on deleting or bowdlerizing this one article, which, as Sulfurboy explains, fulfills the requirements of GNG without question. It's interesting you know so much about esoteric Wikipedia essays being a brand new account and all... I recommend reading WP:SPA when you have some time. ♟♙ (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Barely social - spam bot evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vboQOQwifwg AHC300 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

AHC300, Someones youtube video is not a reliable source. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

We've already seen this video and everyone's comments about it have been responded to ad nauseum above. There is NOTHING incorrect in the current article. We operate on Verifiability, not "Truth". ♟♙ (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed?

Hey I published the edit of this page in September 2019 regarding the history and etymology of this topic, I went indepth on researching this for this article and double checked to confirm that what I was submitting was correct, I dug through Usenet for hours reading through posts and forums to see what the people at the time thought about it and what groups were affected, as far as i can tell, all of it was correct? Can i get an answer as to why why EnPassant removed my edits? I haven't been on Wikipedia in ages so I didn't notice that it'd been modified but I didn't go off the video you referenced in that earlier talk post, all my research was my own. Just to point out I studied it before the video existed as well? Can other editors confirm that my research wasn't incorrect? If i was wrong in what i submitted i am happy to correct myself but what i posted was to my knowledge 100% correct. My Edit in Sep 2019

Also, how am i meant to source this when there, at the time, was zero published articles that properly analyze this event? (Should I have linked the Usenet posts themselves?) While at the same time, some of the "Facts" on the article at the time were also incorrect however referenced sources which were themselves hazily researched at best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattiasThatch (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your talk page posts. Usenet isn't a reliable source, so you can't use usenet posts as sources. For reliable source requirements please read WP:RS. And WP:OR isn't allowed. Please review the edit history as there's an edit summary that explains why your changes were reverted. ♟♙ (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

??? I am confused. Usenet, in this case IS the primary source, you are ignoring the primary source of the topic of this article, the sources cited on this article are speculative at best, and include false information??? I don't understand how you are invalidating the SOLE verifiable contemporary source of information regarding this event, that being the actual UseNet groups that experienced this event when it happened and discussed and explained what happened at length. Do i need to write and publish a book about this to add this correct, verifiable information to the page? MattiasThatch (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You have a lot of reading up to do on our guidelines. Please start with WP:RS. ♟♙ (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Eh, don't waste your time. Keep people hunting around for a conspiracy to explain it when the obvious answer is in plain sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.42.230 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The policy-based explanation for why the edits were reverted has been provided multiple times. Learn how Wikipedia works, as well as what it is and what it isn't. When you visit someone else's home do you demand they change their living room decoration to appease you? And when they explain why they can't do that, attempt to force it on them anyway? Read the processes and learn and you too can participate. ♟♙ (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

@LordParsifal: please discuss your edits here and obtain a consensus before making them again, as there is clearly users who disagree with them. Veverve (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Simple stuff. Provide proof that this artificially blown-up non-mystery:

1. is a cypher

2. follows the structure of a Markov chain

Once that is done, these additions can remain in the article. Before it's done, they do not belong. Hope everyone agrees with me that this is a rational position. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@LordParsifal: a WP:RS state it is. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:OR or for WP:Truth, we simply put in articles what reliable sources state. Veverve (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: WP:RSCONTEXT gives a whole lot of room for doubt. And I'm casting doubt. A whole lot of it. LordParsifal (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@LordParsifal: could you explain, if possible using other RS, why the opinion it is a cipher should not be mentioned in the article? Veverve (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)