You probably don't need suggestions, but I have, well... many. LOL But, if you are accepting requests for the future I could pick out a handful of interesting cases in need of TLC or other fixes. BOZ (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I'm happy to take suggestions. Possibly we have some of the same articles in mind. When things get off the ground, if it looks like we have enough people working and enough work being done to expand the lists, I might implement a subscriber-suggestions section where readers can submit articles for the next newsletter -- so you may get to make some contributions yourself. Vaticidalprophet03:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll save it for when you have people up and working on things. :) I've got all sorts of stuff, from near-GAs, things that got kept at AFD, things we found sources for after AFD, stubs with good sources for lots of potential, etc. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I'm a little surprised to see a new wikiproject using A-class! Not negatively surprised -- I think the full rating scale's a bit underrated. (I think we should really be doing more as a project with article assessment in general; it's surprisingly useful in some understated ways for our work as essentially the archivists of our age.) Vaticidalprophet09:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, right? It is a generally-underused rating - "better than a B, but not quite ready for GA" - but I imagine those articles were already A class under other wikiprojects and that just carried over. I am sure there are other cemetery articles that have reached GA or FA already but just have not been added to this new wikiproject yet. BOZ (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know Iridescent's talk page is watched by a lot of people interested in cemeteries -- may be a place to look? (I recall reading this recently archived convo.) A is a bit confusing because it's been used both as that and as a GA-FA intermediate, and I suspect any attempt to actually bring it to a wide audience would require solving that confusion (which is sort of inherent in the name, regardless). MILHIST are kind of its keepers, and they use it for the between-GA-and-FA position. Vaticidalprophet12:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great pick from my suggestions above; I know that Bohemian National has some unique aspects that make it more interesting, including the Cubs columbarium. :) Also nice add with Mazes and Monsters, as the casting of not-yet-famous Tom Hanks makes that stand out as well. I have been thinking about what articles I support that would be good inclusions, but... the thing is, in particular with tabletop gaming (especially where I focus, on those from the late 20th century), you really need someone with the knowledge and interest and access to obscure sources to really make even the most notable of those subjects shine. Maybe there will be someone who joins this newsletter with an interest like that, but until you've got someone, it doesn't make much sense to me to include these games. As has been proven by a decent number of GA and FA, there are plenty of such articles with the potential to get there, but most people would just not know what to do with them. That said, I could suggest a couple right now for future issues. The one that comes to mind right away is Dice oddly enough; it was made a GA in 2005, but delisted in 2009. Another one is RPG pioneer and old DYK Jennell Jaquays who also really got going in the video game industry (an interesting question; if a transperson became the subject of a DYK prior to transition like in this case, could they conceivably go through DYK again post-transition?). There could be other articles already that would be worth adding, but I think those two are about the only two worth suggesting at this time. :) Maybe a few months down the line I will look into it some more! BOZ (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure sourcing, and sourcing in general, is definitely something I've been thinking about with these. (On TTRPGs -- I've been eyeing off a lot of WoD articles for a while, but I don't have access to print sources and am deeply unconfident in my ability to genuinely improve articles on games that were most popular around the time I was born using exclusively online ones, so it's very much a matter obvious to me.) I run into it especially with medicine...there's a ton of medical articles that need improving, and to be honest their sources aren't that hard to find, but most editors are terrified of medical articles. To be fair, for the big topics I can understand that terror -- but the big topics of anything are pretty scary. It's a surprisingly difficult balance to strike, trying to write a newsletter accessible to a theoretical "average editor" with topics that are neither too broad nor too narrow. Vaticidalprophet06:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Giacomo Sartori
On 23 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Giacomo Sartori, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that author Giacomo Sartori has named his day job as a soil scientist as an influence on his work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Giacomo Sartori. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Giacomo Sartori), 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.
And thank you for making the hook, Gerda. (Busy talk page today.) Happy to be getting back into regular prep-making -- it might be one of my favourite things to do here, really. Vaticidalprophet13:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 11 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tetrasomy X, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when one of the first two women diagnosed with tetrasomy X was followed up 26 years later, she had gone from residence in an institution to living semi-independently with her sister? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tetrasomy X. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tetrasomy 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.
The article Sophie Jamal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sophie Jamal 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) 08:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Pentasomy X you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pentasomy 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 Bibeyjj -- Bibeyjj (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of D&D monsters draft
Hello Vaticidalprophet! Thanks for rescuing the Draft:List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters! I wasn't aware of this mechanism that gets unedited drafts deleted. I have abandoned working on that one in favor of the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, because despite my interest in it I saw the chance of getting it to work as too slim compared to the effort required (working with my means). And being not quite sure about the best strategy. But I've found it very helpful at times, and the one place where the old information from the deleted lists for separate editions is preserved. Anyway, good luck with any efforts on it, and I'd be happy if my additions to the 2nd edition version were of any help here. Daranios (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Daranios! Yeah -- like a lot of MfD regulars, and a lot of people in general, I'm a bit skeptical about the value of draftspace compared to drafting in userspace. This isn't even the first promising draft I've found myself taking out of G13 range days from the chopping block. As I mentioned at BOZ's talk, even when editing in the RPG sphere I tend not to take a ton of interest in D&D specifically, so I am probably not the ideal person to work on the whole-ass list, but you did a lot of good work and I'd be happy if you could find the time to polish it up.
On the more meta matter of "the list was created due to a bunch of AfDs", well. I've stated my thoughts there and they aren't glowingly positive towards the same people who show up to !vote delete. It's not lost on me that the "overwhelming mega-list" concept doesn't actually work very well, and even the most devoted mergist (and I do think we should probably be merging a bit more in the RPG area broadly; there are gamebook and supplement articles I think would work better as list entries) would note it'd be more navigatable and useful for readers as lists across at least a couple different editions (considering the repetition involved, though, probably not every edition -- maybe some comparison lists between major races as they present in different editions?). The sort of guidelines-over-usefulness you see in the worst interpretations of WP:ATA and the like is not, imo, AfD's high point. I will refrain from speculating on motives.Vaticidalprophet01:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In any case any effort you like to put into that is appreciated. As a topic, a list of D&D monsters may have more chances to withstand AfDs than individual edition lists, but the size is the drawback. Personally, I don't have much trouble with the navigation, but that's just me. There were discussions on where to go with that here and here, which never got to a definitve close. I think removing duplicates, or going even further and better, switching from the "by sourcebook" to something like an alphabetical/sortable listing might be the way to go. But it would be a massive effort, and I am still not sure if the size could be reduced enough so as not to draw critique on that grounds. Daranios (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page mover granted
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.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DS 2021 Review Update
Dear Vaticidalprophet,
Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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.
Vnosm, I'm afraid I don't take direct copyediting requests -- and even if I did, I don't know the first thing about badminton, so I'd be worried about introducing errors into the article. You can put a request in at WP:GOCE/REQ, where someone will be happy to pick it up. Vaticidalprophet16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial page moves
I see that you were just recently granted page mover rights by Premeditated Chaos (talk·contribs). You therefore might not be aware that threatening to use that power to unilaterally move a page that has been contested at WP:RM/TR, as you did here, is highly inappropriate, at least in my opinion, and I was dismayed to see it. I hope that will use your page mover rights for uncontroversial cases only. Station1 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Station1, PMC can inform you I've had PMR for several months -- the notification of a newly granted right is its renewal after a trial's expiration. I was informing you that the move you had marked as controversial was well-accepted practice and indeed an archetypal example of "uncontroversial cases only". Vaticidalprophet19:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not being aware of the dates. A contested technical request is by definition not uncontroversial, and should never be moved without consensus. Station1 (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to start the RM. I'll keep an eye on it. For future consideration, PMR is in most cases granted as several-month trials and so talk page histories are often misleading; someone's user rights history can be accessed through "View user groups" in the sidebar from their user page. Vaticidalprophet19:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Zealot: A Book About Cults
On 25 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zealot: A Book About Cults, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Zealot: A Book About Cults suggests someone might join a cult when their lifestyle "doesn't let them have enough sex with aliens"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zealot: A Book About Cults. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zealot: A Book About Cults), 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.
I hear you, I hear you. It would be 8.5%. Which, all things being equal, doesn't really affect the original point (particularly when over 60% are user page chatting, gussifying and userbox creation). ——Serial14:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I pick up what you're saying, I'm just a nitpicker 😛 I tend to think of namespaces as a red herring unless they're intensely skewed in a non-mainspace direction. It's fair to say this is "intensely skewed in a non-mainspace direction", but also that "genuinely trying to do mainspace stuff, just not at a standard that can actually stay there" is a factor as well. Vaticidalprophet14:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trisomy 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 Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks. It's not bad, but it was a bit bereft of substance, and the dates were getting outdated. The pinging note is probably more important, particularly considering my current primary interaction with projectspace is in the form of something so horrible. Vaticidalprophet08:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out my options. I'm more annoyed by pings in one-on-one conversation than elsewhere. Aside from the general panic at "you've been pinged", I don't mind being pinged to places. Vaticidalprophet19:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth, your experience is not totally alien. Sometimes (especially if I have participated recently in some controversial discussion) I will get a distinctive "oh shit" feeling when I see a little notification dot. Either that, or someone added another freaking link to 2021 Albanian parliamentary election. jp×g23:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pick it when I can get my thoughts in order, I think. I'm fluctuating various forms of too angry/too sad to write at coherent length. I still want to like you, and I still try, and your last comment on the talk was that you hadn't meant to come off how you did, and intent isn't magic but sometimes it's magick. I'd like a lot of things to be better than they are today, and maybe they can be better someday, but I don't know how to draw the path to get there, and I think we as a community have taken a huge step backwards. Vaticidalprophet 20:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC) ping Valereee out of uncertainty about what she has and hasn't seen; I'm happy to talk on or off wiki, although I'm unconvinced people are enthusiastic broadly to have any kind of offwiki communication in the current atmosphere Vaticidalprophet21:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're here. I'm starting to calm down; I have a positive opinion of you elsewhere and I can't let this colour it no matter how distressed I am in the interim. I think that RfA had a lot of otherwise smart and capable and well-meaning people act in ways they shouldn't have. I don't feel well about it at all -- nearly like I was the one in the spotlight. I respect your desire to reform RfA and I'm disappointed that you ended up being one of the people involved in its worst extremes. I'm confident you didn't intend to, and from a detached academic perspective there's a lot to say there about why RfA can get like that (i.e. people don't realize they're being the worst case scenario of it until they are). I'm not happy, but I'm alive, and I'm trying to reconcile a website that allows me the opportunity to write about things I care about and have them read, and social connections with cool and interesting people, with this nightmare. Vaticidalprophet21:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfA is unfortunately often quite ugly. I, too, hate that I was involved in the bad shit. I waffled for days between simply not voting vs. opposing, and in the end I just had to oppose, and I felt that providing the honest reason was the way to go. I could have said 'for the fascist user box' but that's not really the truth, because really someone's political views aren't anywhere near as important as whether or not they can overcome those views and edit neutrally, which V IV has proved he can. To me that wasn't a good enough reason to oppose. The whole truth is that it was the userbox + trying to hide the evidence of the userbox + the complete 180 on politics. Together those just made me sincerely worry about something I would have thought was absolutely nuts...except I remember Edgar181, who did it for fun, not even for deeply felt political beliefs, and if V IV is active on WP Discord, I'm guessing they're on other forums around the net, too. Is it likely they're a troll playing a long game? No, it's not likely. Can we know for sure? No. Is it preposterous? No, I don't think it is. —valereee (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) your views of course are ultimately up to you - but I'm not sure he tried to hide it, per se? His userpage had PII in the past, which is the reason for its deletion - and I'm sure most people who had a genuine change in views would be ashamed of having been a fascist (and imagine the questions he would've gotten if he hadn't requested the userbox be deleted before running). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli, I'm not sure it was attempting to hide vs. simply attempting to remove, either. If I'd been advising him, I would have said it was definitely good to get the userbox deleted (it's a positive that others can't use it), but that he should definitely also address the whole fascism thing. Just removing makes it look like attempting to hide.
I don't know what my own reaction to a Q4 about the fascism thing would be; we humans are notoriously bad at predicting our own behavior. Most of us think we know what we'd do in a certain situation, and in most cases we don't actually have a clue. So I won't say what I would have decided to do if V IV had come completely clean about the whole fascism thing. Maybe I would have ultimately decided not to vote? Maybe I would have still had concerns? I can't know. All I can know is what I would have recommended, because I've made many such recommendations: if there's a potential concern, get out in front of it. —valereee (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I would have recommended is a Q4 that was posted as the RfA opened rather than waiting for someone to ask about it. You can see one in my own at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Valereee. I had an editing gap. We knew someone would ask about it. So instead of risking that it would be asked at a time when I wasn't available to quickly answer (or would rush to answer and not think through) my noms recommended I just answer it right up front as a Q4. It was posted at the same time the RfA went live. IIRC not one person asked about the issue, and this is an issue that has caused objections at multiple RfAs. (Caveat: my RfA had a gigantic other thing for people to object to, so that could also have been why this issue got no traction.) —valereee (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat: my RfA had a gigantic other thing for people to object to, so that could also have been why this issue got no traction I'd assume this (I hadn't actually realized, when I past read your RfA in retrospect, that this was a question that had been answered upfront -- so many RfAs have questions like that that I'd just figured it a normal one). I had expected plenty of things to come up at this RfA that didn't due to the...everything, and I'd guess Framgate cast a similar shadow. Broad note somewhere in those two about the perils of predicting what people will object to ahead of time, I suppose. Vaticidalprophet19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article .sexy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that you can't be .sexy in private? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/.sexy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, .sexy), 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.
I will reclaim the crown, though. Mark my words! Even if I have to run SQL queries on database dumps... jp×g11:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Trisomy X
On 14 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trisomy X, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one in a thousand women have three X chromosomes, but only 10 percent of them know it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trisomy X. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Trisomy 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.
Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. - TNT😺05:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your high quality work. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
We wish to nominate Editor Vaticidalprophet as Editor of the Week for his high-quality work and amusing and helpful conversation. Vaticidalprophet has produced more quality content in a few months of active editing than many users create in years, on a spectrum of topics that swings from oft-overlooked areas of medicine to comically serious topics like F.A.T.A.L. and flanderization. He wields semi-colons with the passion of an artist wielding a paintbrush, and quotes with the precision of a surgeon. We have found his character to be pristine, his bearing easygoing, his integrity adamantine, and his ways supportive and generally conducive to the building of this Encyclopedia. He is a joy to shoot the breeze with, and his articles are a joy to read. F.A.T.A.L., one of his GAs, while one of the most cringey things to read about, is also one of the funniest articles in the encyclopedia. His valuable contributions to WikiProject Medicine cannot be overlooked and, as of the time of this nomination, account for most of his GAs.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
High-quality work and amusingly helpful conversation. Pristine, easygoing manner, supportive and conducive to the building this Encyclopedia. Produces quality content that is a joy to read. Contribututes to WikiProject Medicine. Many GAs on a spectrum of topics that swings from oft-overlooked areas of medicine to comically serious topics. Wields semi-colons with the passion of an artist wielding a paintbrush.
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia articles through copy editing. You are receiving this invitation because someone has noticed the quality of your edits and your commitment to improving the content of Wikipedia and think that you may be interested in this project. You may wish to participate in our backlog elimination drives, help fulfill editor requests, or simply become a part of our supportive community. We hope to help you so that you can help make Wikipedia a better place! ~~~~
The article Trisomy X you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trisomy 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 Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Review in process
Ho there! :)
I'll be reviewing your article for the next bit so it probably makes sense for you to sit back, relax, eat a bowl of ice cream, and I'll ping you when I'm done so we're not pingponging. :)
Thank you for the review! No attempts to ping-pong, I'm just a bit tense at the moment :P (as happens) Happy that you're liking it so far. Vaticidalprophet03:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I liked it very much! Quite educational. Needs a touch of elaboration/simplification to make it more accessible, but for the most part, one of the best articles I've read in a while. Great work. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Yes, that's me. The truth is that I dont have a browser on my phone due to usually having a computer with me. Soon enough I should get right back to editing. Panini!🥪03:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prehistoric religion 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've G7ed a few things. Mostly I've felt they've been supplanted by better versions (e.g. images formerly used in articles), or that I felt the article wasn't particularly worthy of inclusion. If something is borderline notable, not particularly receiving views, and seems likely to pose a headache...there are worse things than just deciding to throw in the towel on it. Vaticidalprophet03:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 would like to have an RM, feel free to open one. I, on the other hand, have no interest in such an illegitimate RM, and will not have one opened in my name. RGloucester — ☎13:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, RGloucester. I think this deserves a response. I have no ill will towards you and I hold you in healthy respect. I recognize you feel stressed, and I'm sorry for any contribution I've made to that.
I see from your discussion with Serial that you're feeling deeply disaffected about the project due to the reception you've received here. (In retrospect, {{uw-agf}} is surprisingly passive-aggressive.) I find this a shame, but not an entirely unrelatable one. Somewhere up here -- I think I may have chosen not to archive it, but perhaps it's in the most recent (I have no head for these things) -- is a conversation between myself and S Marshall where he left me some important words: 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. I have held this in my fist and my heart as I go through the project: "Don't get drawn into a stupid argument about nothing and quit in disgust". It is, when you spell it out, an obvious statement. It is, when you are in the heat of feeling it, not obvious at all. Everything feels deadly important in the moment; disagreements can feel like betrayals, consensuses like cabals, reverts like weapons.
I hope you're doing okay, and I hope that if you're not, you will. I say this because I know the moments when people are the angriest onwiki are quite often the moments when their life feels outside of their hands. I have no particular opinion on the matter of what this given article is called. While I think your actions about the title were -- inappropriate -- I also think you know this, and you don't need me to hammer it in. I hope regardless of where you're lead by this you feel good about it, and I hope it's to a good place. Take care of yourself. Vaticidalprophet15:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What a patronising pile of utter tosh! Please refrain from commenting on the so-called 'wellbeing' of other editors. Do me a favour and remove this section from your talk page. RGloucester — ☎15:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mail Notice
Hello, Vaticidalprophet. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
