User talk:Vaticidalprophet/Archive 3

On 26 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 17q12 microdeletion syndrome, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 17q12 microdeletion syndrome, an underdiagnosed genetic disorder, is thought to be a major genetic risk factor for autism and schizophrenia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/17q12 microdeletion syndrome. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 17q12 microdeletion syndrome), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me and encouraging the improvements I ended up making at Album era. I hope you feel better soon! isento (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
265		David Live (talk)	Add sources
393		Jean Shepherd (talk)	Add sources
118		Distance measures (cosmology) (talk)	Add sources
36		I'm Deranged (talk)	Add sources
26		Fascination (David Bowie song) (talk)	Add sources
65		Stone Free (talk)	Add sources
523		Cryopreservation (talk)	Cleanup
201		Alabama Song (talk)	Cleanup
2,400		Photography (talk)	Cleanup
1,118		Southeastern Conference (talk)	Expand
375		Ziggy Stardust (character) (talk)	Expand
20		Tetrasomy 9p (talk)	Expand
16		Sweet Head (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
36		A Reality Tour (film) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
78		.pt (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
21		Sherwin Wine (talk)	Merge
327		Opuntia ficus-indica (talk)	Merge
2,518		Meiosis (talk)	Merge
86		Murder for body parts (talk)	Wikify
19		Stevvi Alexander (talk)	Wikify
3,352		Keith Urban (talk)	Wikify
12		OBB Media (talk)	Orphan
3		Mateo Qares (talk)	Orphan
3		RTL6 (talk)	Orphan
9		Ball back (talk)	Stub
17		Scream Like a Baby (talk)	Stub
187		Semantic Scholar (talk)	Stub
4		Broomtown, Alabama (talk)	Stub
209		The Spiders from Mars (talk)	Stub
119		Christiane F. (soundtrack) (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Imprinted brain hypothesis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the proposers of the imprinted brain hypothesis, which claims that autistic and schizotypal traits are opposites, had no background in behavioural genetics before proposing it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imprinted brain hypothesis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Imprinted brain hypothesis), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Paul B. Kidd at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oops Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article I Am God (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the God in the novel I Am God was described by a reviewer as "half heteronormative deity, half embarrassing uncle"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/I Am God (novel). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, I Am God (novel)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your acceptance of this change to October 9. Additions to days of the year pages must include citations to reliable sources, and the IP didn't cite one for Verdi's birthday. You can see the requirement if you look at the edit notice for those pages, the the content guideline and / or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha -- thanks, actually, @BlackcurrantTea. I clicked the wrong button. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. I sometimes have to look twice if I change the width of the browser window - buttons are suddenly in different spots. Bit of an odd interface. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article F.A.T.A.L. 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vaticidalprophet. Your account has been 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 Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect 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:

• Wikipedia: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! Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article .guru, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the top-level domain .guru had 35,000 websites registered to it within the first three weeks of its release? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/.guru. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, .guru), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, to clarify, this is not a hard and fast rule or policy, it is just a request: Please try and enforce the rules for requests at the top of the page when accepting an edit. I have declined/reverted the edit you accepted due to it using only PR sources, a self hosted source, and a single reliable source that does not present notability (Australian Gov.'s business database).

Thanks! —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​Thanks for the pointer. I tend to be relatively conservative about RAs as I actually do a lot of work in that area and get frustrated by the useless ones, but in this case it's actually a business I have some experience with, so leaned towards the side of "Yeah, honestly, I could see this having an article". Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article F.A.T.A.L. you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:F.A.T.A.L. 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flanderization, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that oversimplifying a fictional character over the course of a show's run is called Flanderization, after Ned Flanders of The Simpsons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flanderization. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Flanderization), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about the Flanderization process drew 18,440 page views (1,537 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the fourth most viewed hook for the month of March (so far) and ranks as the 12th most viewed hook (so far) of 2021, as shown at Top hooks of 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very exciting! That puts it in the all-time non-image hooks list too, doesn't it? Vaticidalprophet 08:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That's not something I've been updating, but feel free to add it in there. Cbl62 (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Can You Please Closed Requested Move Discussion At North Waziristan And South Waziristan, Since 2+ Week's Discussion is Still Ongoing Now I Think it Should Be Closed. Ytpks896 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. The conversations were relisted a few days ago, which means they can't be closed yet -- an article needs to go a full week after a relist before being closed. They'll be eligible for closing in a couple days, and someone will be around to close them then. Vaticidalprophet 10:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Psst... There is no need to wait for a full week to close after a RM was relisted per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I treat it as the safest option anyway for a number of reasons, especially for a NAC. I'd be pretty hesitant to close before a week anything that was reasonably relisted, especially if it hadn't had much participation after. Vaticidalprophet 14:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Thanks for information. Ytpks896 (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ava Cherry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ava Cherry (pictured), David Bowie's partner and muse, spent a year searching for him in Europe after he cancelled a tour of Japan on which she was to be a backup singer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ava Cherry. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ava Cherry), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

استعادة جميع البرامج الأساسية الاقتراضية جوجل والويب المجاني مدى الحياة تثبيت على جهاز الجوال تلقائي <autoconfirmed> تنزيل مجاناً بدون مقابل تثبيت على جهاز الجوال تلقائي Adfghjklt (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Diving Pool 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 Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ring chromosome 22 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 RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig Hamilton-Parker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Hamilton-Parker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

RobP (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paul B. Kidd, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australian talk-show host Paul B. Kidd is a prolific true-crime writer who has written 37 books? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul B. Kidd. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Paul B. Kidd), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ring chromosome 22, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the first recorded cases of the rare genetic disorder ring chromosome 22 was in a pair of identical twins? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ring chromosome 22. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ring chromosome 22), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Diving Pool you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Diving Pool 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 Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and those who did spoke their first words on average at nearly three years of age. Still seems like it's missing a comma? and those who did, spoke their first words on average at nearly three years of age. Avi8tor (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about Ring chromosome 22 drew 5,858 page views (488 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at March 2021 DYK STATS. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about Ava Cherry drew 16,348 page views (1,362 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the sixth most viewed hook for the month of March as shown at March 2021 DYK STATS. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vaticidalprophet: How are young? I accidentally pinged you this morning to an Afd discussion. I don't know where I picked up your name from. I think I might have had a chance to talk to you this morning about something, but completely forgot about it. Sorry about that. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that's fine -- no worries. Vaticidalprophet 15:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ava Cherry 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Disability Day of Mourning, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Disability Day of Mourning was first observed in 2012, in response to the media coverage of a murdered autistic man focusing on his murderer's "love and devotion"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Disability Day of Mourning. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Disability Day of Mourning), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ava Cherry 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:Ava Cherry for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Craig Hamilton-Parker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "prophet of doom" Craig Hamilton-Parker claims to have predicted Brexit and Trump? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Craig Hamilton-Parker. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Craig Hamilton-Parker), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And all it took was an AfD, a BLPN thread for another article entirely, and a verifiability debate that ended in another guy getting trouted! If I'd known this would be my most contentious article, I'd have made it an FA first. Vaticidalprophet 00:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vaticidalprophet, User:Onel5969 has emptied Human Face (mathematical artwork)Human Face (mathematical artwork) without creating a discussion. Can it be considered as a violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy? As I see User:Onel5969 is in a hurry to delete a number of pages. The Big Cowboy (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Big Cowboy Converting an article to a redirect without discussion is allowed. However, reverting that is equally allowed, meaning it's within your rights to undo the redirect. This would usually result in the article being brought to AfD (Articles for Deletion) for further discussion, or to a discussion on the talk page explaining the reasoning. Vaticidalprophet 22:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Afd nomination for Adolf You-know-who was courageous and well done, Vaticidalprophet, thank you. A nice example of how an AfD that starts well, ends well. Thumbs up! --Pgallert (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Vaticidalprophet for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 21:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tetrasomy X 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 JackFromReedsburg -- JackFromReedsburg (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tetrasomy X you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tetrasomy X 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 JackFromReedsburg -- JackFromReedsburg (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ava Cherry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ava Cherry 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article XYYY syndrome, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that XYYY syndrome, a chromosome abnormality in which a man has two extra Y chromosomes, has only been recorded twelve times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/XYYY syndrome. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, XYYY syndrome), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thank you for all of your work reviewing the Karl Marx in Kalbadevi. Appreciate you taking the time to conduct the reviews!. --Gazal world (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zalgo text, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Lovecraftian Zalgo text (pictured) is a common aspect of "surreal memes"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zalgo text. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zalgo text), 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) 00:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for teaching me "vaticide" is a thing! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like your username too :) Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In case it's unclear (and history suggests it is), that's not a nod to the big grey/green guy, but to the red and yellow. "The Incredible" was easily his least famous and most ambiguous nickname, but it's very hard to rhyme a word like "Immortal", "Hollywood" or "Hogan". Especially without suggesting I'm actually immoral, from Bollywood or named Logan. This way, it's not exactly "ha-ha funny", but still a bit "funny because it's true". At least, I can't believe I'll ever be eaten. On the other hand, that's probably what everyone who was eaten didn't think would happen to them. Anyway, good luck with your possibly paradoxical setup, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article XYYY syndrome 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 Bibeyjj -- Bibeyjj (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sophie Jamal 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article XYYY syndrome 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:XYYY syndrome for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bibeyjj -- Bibeyjj (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed a PROD that I put on Draft:Camille Labchuk last month. You said PROD does not apply to drafts. But I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (drafts), copying and pasting the exact draft-prod tag for a draft that appears to not have been edited in over 6 months. So I can understand the rules for the future, could you please explain to me why you then said drafts cannot be prodded when there's a page that indicates that? Or if prod does apply to drafts Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (drafts), can you revert your edit? Cryssalis (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryssalis, PROD does not apply to drafts. Note that at the top of your link, it says "This is a failed proposal". There was a proposal to extend PROD to cover drafts, which failed; it does not cover them. Vaticidalprophet 18:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet Much thanks for the quick reply and explanation Cryssalis (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. "Jennifer Bendery" gets 1,036 hits on the ProQuest U.S. Newsstream ddb. When citing her, especially for articles related to public policy, it is good to know who she is, IMHO. I added a citation from Marquis Who's Who, not to establish notability, but rather to quickly identify her. — Eurodog (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like deprodding something I prod, feel free to remove the tag. I'm not out optimizing for number of deletions; if someone wants an article kept, and I don't think it's a particularly terrible violation of anything, I don't chase it up. I continue to have serious qualms about heavily vandalized BLP stubs, but you did fix the stub part, which is pretty good. Vaticidalprophet 03:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pentasomy X 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 Bibeyjj -- Bibeyjj (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article XYYY syndrome you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:XYYY syndrome 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 Bibeyjj -- Bibeyjj (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Woman on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You closed Talk:The Super League#Requested move 19 April 2021 as moved but you didn't actually move it, you only moved the target disambiguation out of the way. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter, that's because it's sysop move-protected and I didn't notice until closing the RM. I have a request in at WP:RM/TR, and considering this happens quite frequently, a message at VPR about preventing further incidents. Vaticidalprophet 10:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you closed Talk:The Super League#Requested move 19 April 2021 as "moved to European Super League", but the article hasn't been moved. Would you be able to revisit and move it? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302, the message immediately above yours is about this issue. See WP:RM/TR for the technical issue I've faced and WP:VPR#Make page movers eligible to move move-protected pages for the hopeful solution to ensure this doesn't happen yet again, because it happens several times an average week. For what it's worth, otherwise-involved admins are permitted to perform the technical act of moving over protection when the RM has been closed by a page mover, so @PrimeHunter, who sent the last message and appears to be an admin, may be able to shorten our wait times. Vaticidalprophet 10:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see above thread. And I should have realised this was the case, as it was me that asked for move protection on the page... Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, it happens (both the former and latter clause). Apologies for any curtness, I'm just a bit worried about possibly getting eighteen of these before the technical move goes through. The VPR thread is probably a bit overdue, tbh -- PMR was introduced four years ago now, and a surprising number of pages are move-protected over long-historical disputes. Vaticidalprophet 11:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) As Iridescent once told me, "Or just take the plunge and request the full toolset". Admittedly, you wouldn't have a chance after four months' editing, but you've hit the ground running. (So much so, that if you can put up with people (like me!) throwing socking accusations around—because RfA is the one place on the entire project where one can not only make such comments without falling foul of the civility brigade but can double down on the accusation with impunity on the grounds that you are *protecting the encyclopedia*—I'd book a ringside seat for ~September. ——Serial 11:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...alright, point one, I have talk page stalkers, point two, Serial is one of my TPSes, and point three, Serial thinks I should run RfA in September? [sped-up blurry eyes emoji goes here]

I have a lot of thoughts on RfA both on the individual and existential level. September is earlier than even I was really thinking, but I do wonder a lot about the borderlands of RfA and what the actual minimum-viable-candidate is (I must have read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing and the attached crat chat a million times at this point because it's so fascinating compared to what we quote-unquote 'know' about RfA). I don't think I know quite as much about anything as I pretend to know; I read too much and too broadly, so to speak, and I have a lot of theory in my head that doesn't quite translate to practice. I feel a lot like a stumbling noob who can just talk a better game than he has, and I suspect I will still feel quite stumbling-noob in September, but if people suggest that's at least in part impostor syndrome...hey, it happens. Vaticidalprophet 11:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

whispers yes, you should run for RfA Elli (talk | contribs) 11:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you say that all the time :P Vaticidalprophet 11:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 'cause I'm right. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to complete the RM you closed? GiantSnowman 11:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation immediately above this and the one additionally immediately above that both address this issue. Note that my prior experience has that otherwise-involved admins are permitted to perform the technical aspect of a move when a move-protected RM has been closed by a page mover. You may additionally be interested in participating in WP:VPR#Make page movers eligible to move move-protected pages, as this is quite a common issue. Vaticidalprophet 11:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman, pinging in case you didn't see my original reply. The technical aspect of the move has since been performed, as well. Vaticidalprophet 12:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! GiantSnowman 15:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pentasomy X 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:Pentasomy X for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bibeyjj -- Bibeyjj (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "massmessage-sender" user right, allowing you to send messages to multiple users at once. A few important things to note:

• Messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to be interested in the topic.
• For regular mailings such as those for WikiProjects, localized events, or newsletters, users should be informed of how they can unsubscribe from future mailings.
• The mass messaging tool should never be used for canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of discussions.

For more information, refer to the guidance for use. If you do not want mass message sender rights anymore, just let me or any other administrator know and we will remove it. Thank you and happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 11:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please be very careful with this when processing others' requests - especially if there is a large distribution list; other then having a bot chase the messages there is no "undo" for MMS. Some things to check for are that the message has a timestamp, that it is free of Linter errors or other format issues, and that any opt-in mailing lists were actually opted in to. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the caution -- will octuple-check anything I do for others. Vaticidalprophet 11:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Isaac Bashevis Singer on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad that you felt that I was calling you out. I didn't look at who promoted the hooks in prep 7, but maybe I shouldn't have pointed to it. I was just worried that I wouldn't be fully understood by those who responded. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @SL93, thanks for the apology. I was pretty hurt by your last comments, but I do respect, and commented at the time, that they were made in the heat of anger rather than necessarily being an actual belief of yours. I think, as I said at the time, that hook age is a significant consideration, but one of several significant considerations. I'll try in the future to avoid building preps that substantially overrepresent the newest hooks; I'll probably spend a bit away from DYK, but I'm sure when I'm back there'll be some good hooks near the back :P Vaticidalprophet 21:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Independent Union (politcal party). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 28#Independent Union (politcal party) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are erasing a remark because you think that it will worsen existing trouble, please do not leave an edit summary that is a borderline personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​I'm sorry. I'm just tired. I don't know what to do. I feel trapped. I didn't intend at all for it to come off that way; I'm terrified that I'm being pushed out of this site and I don't know what to do. Please help. Please. Vaticidalprophet 18:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know we've only talked the once, and I can't tell whether that "please help" was directed at RM specifically or was more general, but I also know that when I've been in "please help" moments myself it's been important to know that someone's heard me, so: Anything I can do to help right now? Not familiar with what's going on here, but I'm a good listener, allegedly. If the answer's "no," no need to answer this; I'm rooting for you either way. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine to comment, I did quite like talking to you 🙂 I'm in a situation where another user's interactions with me are very difficult to figure out if they're good-faith overlap between active editors in similar fields or following my edits, and I'm pretty stressed out about it. I have coworker-respect for him despite the stress, and I don't want to discuss too much of it publicly at this time, but I'm starting to get concerned enough to be deeply unenthusiastic about editing out of the concern anything I do anywhere will be instantly challenged or reverted. Vaticidalprophet 19:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound like a stressful situation, yeah: Good-faith or bad-, either way something's happening to cause you stress. I definitely get why you wouldn't want to say too much publicly in a situation like this, but you can feel free to email me or contact me on Discord (in which case still email me to get username). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have been there before (someone followed me for like 6 months), so I hope everything works out better than that. It is certainly no fun when interactions with other user(s) make you feel like WP is not enjoyable. BOZ (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will absolutely surprise you but I (and others with whom you had issues in the past I guess, too) have by far much better to do here than to follow your contributions. The strategy of playing victim and at the same time trying to insult others is quite simple and easy to see through. The majority of your edits on articles here are good ones so relax and keep on editing. @Robert McClenon, I saw the mentioning coincidentally on your tp because of your AfD Message today on mine, without I would never have taken notice of this. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CW, if you don't want to look like you're following someone's edits, showing up at their talk page to complain about them having a discussion when you're neither pinged nor directly mentioned is perhaps not the best way to go about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vadicalprophet, I hope that you start feeling better. I do know that one of your problems was thinking that I called you out at DYK, but I'm still confused about that and my rude response was only because I was upset that you thought I was trying to get you to leave Wikipedia. I do realize that things can seem worse when issues are typed. I don't know if my autism and my manager cutting 13 hours from my biweekly paycheck (and expecting me to be fine with it) are parts of it, but Wikipedia seems more stressful in general to me. I have been getting angrier at things on Wikipedia and while those things would normally make me angry, it has been worse. It started with a non-admin and an admin months ago saying that I'm likely sexist because of how I ordered the sections on an article about a woman. I think I became non-sexist to them because I ordered the sections like they wanted me to, but I received an apology from the non-admin and not the admin. That same admin tried to start drama with me when I said that I was bad at math. I replied that it was because of my autism so he apologized, but I wonder what would have happened next if it wasn't from that - he assumed that I was just being lazy. The most recent thing was when I repeatedly tried to defend an editor from unfair assumptions that can also be considered personal attacks. Of course, it's nothing new - my username used to be Joe Chill and the admins who responded to my ANI report sure loved to make fun of my username so I requested a username change. Their favorite saying out of all of them was "Chill, Joe" because they thought I was getting heated. Sorry for going on, but I'm just saying that I understand how someone can have the same thought as you. I once took a break for over a year and a half because I was sick of the drama and I felt that I wasn't wanted. SL93 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually feel like I recall reading that bad-at-maths convo (I've read too many archives...) and recall being pretty shocked to read it -- I'm dyscalculic myself and definitely felt it an inappropriate assumption on behalf of your interlocutor to think you were bragging about being dumb, rather than bothering at all to consider the possibility specific mathematic impairment is actually pretty common. (Really sorry to hear about your employer being a dick, too.) Vaticidalprophet 04:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that the worst part of my math issues was when I attempted to attend a 2 year college. I scored higher than average on English and grammar, but I scored super low on math so I was put in Basic Math. I was depressed after repeatedly turning in math homework that I thought I did great on because I worked on it so hard, but all of my homework came backs as F's on even the pre-algebra portions. I never did finish Western Iowa Tech Community College in Sioux City, Iowa, because all courses had a strict college algebra requirement. Now I have major college debt after trying twice. I feel like I might have passed if I received more help, but no one wanted to help the dumb autistic (I assume that is what they thought). SL93 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that sucks to hear and I'm sorry. Neurodivergence and the traditional education system can have some pretty unfortunate interactions and I'm not a stranger to them myself. Support is definitely pretty hit-or-miss, and I'm sorry to hear you didn't get much. Vaticidalprophet 05:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing Oto-palato-digital syndrome, a requested article, which I reviewed recently. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vaticidalprophet. I promised to come to your talk page and offer some thoughts on how AfDs are closed, and I'm here to do that.

All AfDs are controversial. If there was no controversy then the article could be deleted by prod; the fact that there's an AfD means that there's a disagreement. Therefore, with every close, there's a disappointed party. That's why every close risks attracting cross people to your talk page. You as discussion closer have to be nice to the cross people when they show up, and I'm concerned that you're finding that stressful. I see some evidence that you panic when your decisions are under scrutiny.

It's important that you minimize your stress on Wikipedia. I think there's a possibility that you might, after some more years of thoughtful contributions, be invited to accept advanced permissions on this site, and mature into one of our stronger contributors; and I think there's also a possibility that you might get drawn into a stupid argument about nothing and quit in disgust. I'd prefer the former to the latter, so I want you to close somewhat fewer discussions.

The biggest piece of advice I'd give you is not to close anything involving any editor you've ever clashed with, or any editor who you think is an idiot. (Because if you think they're an idiot, odds are they think the same about you!) Vary your topic areas. Close RfCs as well as AfDs; many RfCs are well suited to non-admin closes. And stay well clear of anything related to the politics of your native country, whatever that might be.

The best written summary of Wikipedia's actual method of discussion closing is at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, but there are edge cases that we've discussed at DRV over the last dozen years or so. The overall process is:- (1) The nominator makes the case for deletion; (2) Uninvolved editors roll along and look at the sources; (3) The uninvolved editors attempt to reach a consensus; and (4) The closer summarizes what the uninvolved editors have said, evaluates whether consensus has been reached, and applies our rules.

There are, indeed, times when a closer would need to look at the sources themselves. If the closer is doing that, then it's because there's a reasonable suspicion of bad faith, and that means leave it to the sysops. You're empowered to make decisions and closes that are about content, but conduct is the exclusive purview of sysops.

I think the magic of closing is in the summary you give. If that summary sets both sides' arguments in their best light, and then decides between them on some logical basis that you explicitly state in your close, then all you'll get from Deletion Review is praise, encouragement and support.

Finally: you can't win them all. Everyone including me gets their closes overturned. If you've never had any of your decisions overturned on Wikipedia, then you're not really challenging yourself. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 11:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey S Marshall, thanks for coming here to follow up. I'm happy to say at least that I've never taken any particular interest in editing about the politics of my native country :D

I'd already prior to DRV come to close fewer discussions just for moving out of the, uh, worst of the Dunning-Kruger phase, to be a bit self-deprecating about it. ("Worst", of course, is emphasized for clarity; I'm sure there's still plenty hanging around.) I've had closes (at AfD or other venues) challenged before on my talk that I was happy to discuss or relist, and where the discussions had endings satisfactory to all parties; my stress at the DRV was based in the retaliatory aspect, where a discussion from elsewhere about another party's conduct at an entirely different venue suddenly got a DRV notification on my talk page for an undiscussed close with a less-than-flattering description of why it was being challenged. It's a difficult thing to explain with nuance, on account of on one hand I know I could have handled it better, but on the other hand there really isn't any good conduct in that situation. I can admit that panicking under challenge can be an issue for me, and there are times where it's easier or harder for me to handle it; I think from observation I may be a patch where it's bumpier.

There is something I have to ask you here, I guess, because I see the matter discussed and I haven't been able to get an answer that makes sense to me. I've closed a couple RfCs, but I'm not sure where the cultural norm, so to speak, that RfC closing is "easier"/more "NAC-friendly" than AfD closing is comes from. ("Easier" and "more NAC-friendly" are, I recognize, conflating two slightly different points, but the more conservative positions on the latter would disagree they're conflating different points, and in practice I suspect guidelines (in the colloquial rather than PAG sense) for this are set by the more conservative positions.) Aside from the fact RfCs often don't need formal closure and formally closing one can upset people in and of itself, the way it looks to me is that RfCs are a Much Bigger Deal, setting a major content precedent for at least a single article and often a sweeping range of them. Closing an RfC is determining the consensus for what the most important written work of the modern world says about something! (And if something's come to RfC, it's inherently a much tougher consensus than one which was settled by a single or a small group of writers.) AfD isn't exactly a low-stakes practice itself, in that it determines what things the most important written work of the modern world talks about, but they feel so much less subjective; all AfDs will require formal closure, there are clear-cut accepted and unaccepted arguments (IMO quite a few of those are in the wrong categories relative to one another, but I don't close AfDs based on reform principles, I participate in them with that), any AfD that could reasonably be NACed isn't one likely to set major precedents for broad swathes of articles, and, well, the technical restrictions remove some (importantly, of course, not all, but a bad keep close is at least easier to participate in the DRV for) of the tail risks. RfC NACs don't have any technical prohibition against the riskiest type of closes, so all that happens there is when you occasionally see someone get dragged to noticeboards and overturned for closing something in a way that sets a terrible, wide-ranging precedent. What that meandering and noise-over-signal paragraph is saying, and where I apologise for making it too meandering to tell, is: I know that I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure what I'm missing, and for as long as I miss it RfCs look scarier, not less scary. Vaticidalprophet 15:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs are content decisions, and sysops have no special authority over content. They manage conduct issues, and they have the ability to "delete" certain pages or revisions (which is obviously a misnomer since the deleted pages or revisions can be viewed and/or restored by other sysops: what Wikipedia calls "deletion" is merely hiding a page or a revision from view). For this reason there's a basic cultural expectation that conduct and deletion-related matters will be handled by sysops. A NAC of an AfD subverts that expectation, and there's an extent to which we've normalized NACs, but there's also an extent to which they're exceptional and (in some cases) problematic. RfC is a relatively newer process, less formalized, and a RfC's minimum 30-day duration makes for a more leisurely discussion. They're usually less fraught and frantic. A RfC close can be longer and more nuanced than an AfD close.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pentasomy X, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pentasomy X, in which a girl or woman has five X chromosomes, is sometimes mistaken for Down syndrome? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pentasomy X. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pentasomy X), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Zealot: A Book About Cults at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I made an alteration to the hook for Tetrasomy X when I moved it into Queue 6. I remember a great fuss there was several years ago when a "first" claim was made when it was unclear which of two women was actually the first individual, in that case, to receive a horse training licence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Cwmhiraeth. The modification looks good -- I was concerned about brevity writing the original hook, and so simplified to 'first' where it might have been a bit sloppy of me. Good to see it up there nonetheless. Vaticidalprophet 06:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]